Illustration of a neoclassical courthouse with columns and autumn trees, accompanying a report on the Harvard antisemitism case.

Harvard Antisemitism Case: Trump Fight, Courts and What’s Next

by

The Harvard antisemitism case is now a cluster of federal disputes playing out in Boston courtrooms. Three years after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel set off protests at Harvard, the Trump administration and the Cambridge university faced each other this week before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The administration says Harvard failed its Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard says the government used that claim as a pretext to take control of a private university. This report lays out each side’s claims, the rulings so far, and where things stand as of Oct. 7, 2026.

Key facts

  • The demand: On April 11, 2025, a federal antisemitism task force sent Harvard a list of required changes covering governance, admissions, hiring, discipline and “viewpoint diversity.” Harvard refused on April 14, 2025.
  • The money: The government froze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts that day, then terminated grants across agencies. A federal judge ordered the funding restored in September 2025. The administration is appealing.
  • The lawsuits: A separate Justice Department Title VI suit over antisemitism was dismissed on Aug. 13, 2026. The government appealed on Aug. 27.
  • This week: The First Circuit heard the funding appeal on Oct. 5 and the international-student appeal on Oct. 6. Neither has been decided.
  • No deal: Settlement talks broke down publicly in February 2026, when President Donald Trump demanded $1 billion.

What Happened in the Harvard Antisemitism Case

The dispute has two strands. The first is a campus conflict: after Oct. 7, 2023, protests over the war in Gaza divided Harvard, and Jewish and Israeli students reported harassment and exclusion that Harvard’s own task force later documented. The second strand is a broad federal pressure campaign that began in 2025. It began with antisemitism and expanded to admissions, hiring, international students, taxes and patents.

The administration’s position, stated by the Justice Department in March 2026, is that Harvard “has been deliberately indifferent to its Jewish and Israeli students’ plight.” Harvard’s position, stated in a university statement the same day, is that the government’s actions are “yet another pretextual and retaliatory action by the administration for refusing to turn over control of Harvard to the federal government.”

For background on the local climate, see our reporting on antisemitism data in Massachusetts and on the history of Boston’s Jewish community.

Timeline: Harvard and the Trump Administration

  • Oct. 7, 2023: Hamas attacks Israel. Protests and counter-protests follow on campuses, including Harvard.
  • Dec. 5, 2023: Harvard President Claudine Gay testifies before a House committee on campus antisemitism. Her answer to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) on whether calls for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules draws wide criticism.
  • Jan. 2, 2024: Gay steps down. Stefanik calls the resignation “long overdue” in a statement. Alan Garber becomes interim president and later president.
  • Jan. 21, 2025: Harvard settles antisemitism lawsuits brought by Students Against Antisemitism and by the Louis D. Brandeis Center with Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education. Former student Shabbos Kestenbaum settles separately in May 2025.
  • March 31, 2025: The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration announce a review of more than $255.6 million in contracts and more than $8.7 billion in multiyear grant commitments to Harvard and its affiliates.
  • April 11, 2025: The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sends its demand letter.
  • April 14, 2025: Garber rejects the demands. Hours later, the task force announces a freeze of $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in contracts.
  • April 15, 2025: Trump suggests on social media that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status, NPR reported.
  • April 21, 2025: Harvard sues in U.S. District Court in Boston. The case goes to Judge Allison D. Burroughs.
  • April 29, 2025: Harvard releases its task force reports on antisemitism and on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias. Garber apologizes.
  • May 22, 2025: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revokes Harvard’s certification to enroll international students. Burroughs blocks it the next day.
  • June 4, 2025: Trump issues a proclamation suspending entry of new foreign students coming to study at Harvard. Burroughs blocks it, and preliminary injunctions follow on June 20 and June 23.
  • June 30, 2025: HHS’s Office for Civil Rights finds Harvard in violation of Title VI.
  • July 4, 2025: Trump signs a law that raises the excise tax on the investment income of the wealthiest endowments to 8 percent. Harvard is in the top tier, The Crimson reported.
  • July 9, 2025: The Education Department and HHS notify Harvard’s accreditor, the New England Commission of Higher Education, of the Title VI finding.
  • Aug. 8, 2025: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick opens a review of Harvard’s patents under the Bayh-Dole Act and raises the possibility of “march-in” rights, Reuters reported.
  • Sept. 3, 2025: Burroughs rules for Harvard in the funding case.
  • Sept. 19, 2025: The Education Department places Harvard on heightened cash monitoring and requires a $36 million letter of credit.
  • Sept. 29, 2025: HHS refers Harvard for suspension and debarment proceedings.
  • December 2025: The administration appeals the funding ruling. The international-student proclamation expires.
  • Feb. 2, 2026: Trump demands $1 billion from Harvard.
  • Feb. 13, 2026: The Justice Department sues to obtain admissions records.
  • March 20, 2026: The Justice Department files a Title VI antisemitism suit.
  • Aug. 13, 2026: Judge Richard G. Stearns dismisses that suit. The government appeals on Aug. 27.
  • Sept. 29, 2026: The EEOC sues to enforce a subpoena for faculty-hiring records.
  • Oct. 5–6, 2026: The First Circuit hears arguments in the funding and international-student appeals.

The Administration’s Case Against Harvard

The April 11, 2025 letter was signed by officials from GSA, HHS and the Education Department. It said Harvard “has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.” It called for “merit-based” admissions and hiring with federal audits, an outside audit of viewpoint diversity among students and faculty, an end to DEI programs, a ban on masks at protests, and discipline for students involved in protest violations. It also called for reducing the power of faculty and administrators the letter described as more committed to activism than scholarship. The full text is posted on Harvard’s website.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in the March 31, 2025 announcement that “Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination – all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry – has put its reputation in serious jeopardy.” After Harvard said no, the task force’s April 14 statement said the refusal “reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges.”

HHS’s June 30, 2025 Notice of Violation found that Harvard acted with “deliberate indifference” to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students “from October 7, 2023, through the present.” It cited inconsistent discipline and weak enforcement of rules on the time, place and manner of protests. OCR Director Paula M. Stannard said, “Harvard’s public pledges to improve its disciplinary framework for harassment and misconduct are inadequate to meaningfully address these serious findings.”

DHS’s statement on revoking the student certification accused Harvard of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.” When the Justice Department sued in March 2026, Attorney General Pamela Bondi said “too many of our educational institutions have allowed anti-Semitism to flourish on campus – Harvard included.” The suit sought to recover federal funds Harvard received while allegedly out of compliance. The Crimson reported the claim at nearly $1 billion.

The White House has kept that line through every court loss. After the September 2025 ruling, assistant press secretary Liz Huston told CBS News that “Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years.” She called Burroughs an “activist Obama-appointed judge.”

Harvard’s Response

Garber’s April 14, 2025 letter said that while “some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.” He added: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Harvard has also acknowledged failures. When the task force reports came out on April 29, 2025, Garber wrote that “the 2023-24 academic year was disappointing and painful” and said, “I am sorry for the moments when we failed to meet the high expectations we rightfully set for our community.” The antisemitism task force report described Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students who felt unwelcome and sometimes hid their identities. A companion report described Muslim, Arab, Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students who felt “judged, misrepresented, and silenced.”

In its January 2025 settlements, Harvard agreed to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, with its examples, when evaluating complaints, according to its announcement. Its March 2026 statement said the university “actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules” and has expanded training on antisemitism. “Harvard’s efforts demonstrate the very opposite of deliberate indifference,” it said.

Key Court Rulings

The funding case (Burroughs, Sept. 3, 2025). In an 84-page decision, Burroughs found the freezes and terminations violated the First Amendment, Title VI’s procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act. She wrote that Harvard had been “plagued” by antisemitism and “was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did.” But she concluded that “defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities,” CBS News reported. She also found that none of the government’s letters “identified any specific instance of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus.” The memorandum and order is posted by Harvard. Payments on more than 900 reinstated awards resumed weeks later, according to an October 2025 Harvard Gazette interview with university finance officials.

The international-student cases (Burroughs, May–June 2025). Burroughs blocked both the certification revocation and the June 4 proclamation. The government appealed; Harvard’s appeals brief calls it “an unprecedented, all-of-government campaign.”

The Justice Department’s Title VI suit (Stearns, Aug. 13, 2026). In a four-page order, Stearns found the complaint centered on the 2023-24 school year, with only three incidents from March 2025. “Without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences, the court finds them, singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day,” he wrote. He said the government had alleged nothing showing noncompliance after it gave Harvard formal notice on June 30, 2025. Stearns had earlier let deliberate-indifference claims go forward in the Kestenbaum and Brandeis Center cases, The Crimson noted. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said, “We disagree with the ruling and are assessing next steps.” The department filed its appeal on Aug. 27.

The First Circuit (Oct. 5–6, 2026). In the funding appeal, Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik argued the case was a contract dispute that belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. “There’s no First Amendment right to money,” he said, The Crimson reported. Harvard’s lawyer, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, said Harvard sought a “prospective injunction” against retaliation, which only a district court can grant. Judge Sandra Lynch told Velchik, “The claim is that Harvard has been indifferent to antisemitism, and there are no findings. There was no investigation.” Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump nominee, pressed Clement on whether Burroughs had in effect ordered payment, AP reported. The Courthouse News and Bloomberg Law accounts described the panel as skeptical of the government. On Oct. 6, a government lawyer said Trump would likely reissue the expired visa proclamation if the injunction were lifted, The Crimson reported. The judges questioned whether that appeal was moot.

Other Federal Levers

  • Tax-exempt status: Trump’s April 2025 threat has not led to any public revocation. In September 2026, Treasury and the IRS proposed rules that would deny tax exemption to private schools that discriminate by race in admissions and other policies. The rules apply to all private schools, not Harvard specifically, and would not take effect before mid-2027.
  • Endowment tax: Harvard officials said the new 8 percent rate could cost about $300 million a year, starting with payments in fiscal 2027, according to the Gazette.
  • Debarment and accreditation: HHS gave Harvard 20 days to request a hearing on the debarment referral. We found no public record of a final suspension or debarment decision. We also found no public action by Harvard’s accreditor.
  • Admissions and hiring records: At a Sept. 24 hearing in the Justice Department’s admissions-records case, Judge Myong J. Joun appeared skeptical of the government’s suit, Reuters reported. The newest front is an EEOC subpoena fight over faculty hiring. See our Harvard EEOC lawsuit coverage.

Settlement Talks: No Deal

Harvard and the White House negotiated on and off through 2025. Trump said more than once that a deal was close. According to The Crimson, Harvard refused any cash payment to the government and instead discussed a workforce-development agreement worth up to $500 million. On Feb. 2, 2026, after The New York Times reported the White House had dropped its demand for a payment, Trump wrote, “We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University,” CNN reported. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Daily Signal that “it’s very unfortunate that Harvard has dragged its feet.” No agreement has been announced. Columbia, Brown and Northwestern did reach deals with the administration, Courthouse News noted.

The Jewish Community’s Views

Jewish students, faculty and alumni have not spoken with one voice.

Some backed the federal pressure. The Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance said in April 2025 that it “would have preferred Harvard protect its Jews without government intervention, but it proved unable or unwilling over the course of nearly two academic years.” The group said it supported “the stated purpose of the government’s letter” and assumed “due process will be applied.” After the August 2026 dismissal, Kestenbaum told JNS it “represents a technicality.” Brandeis Center chairman Kenneth L. Marcus called the ruling “a significant and troubling departure from how civil rights enforcement has long worked.”

Others objected. Harvard Hillel said in April 2025 that the “escalating federal assault” was “neither focused nor measured, and stands to substantially harm the very Jewish students and scholars it purports to protect,” the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. More than 100 Jewish students signed a letter saying “this crackdown will not protect us.” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said at the time that “the fight against antisemitism must be about antisemitism — nothing more, nothing less.” In March 2026, 120 Jewish Harvard faculty and staff signed a letter opposing the Justice Department suit. “Using accusations of antisemitism to attack academic freedom and free expression is reprehensible – and we want no part in it,” it read. Organizer Steven Levitsky, a government professor, said many Jewish faculty “think this is a sham.”

For how Boston marked the anniversary this week, see our October 7 anniversary events coverage.

Civil Liberties Groups and Elected Officials

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which filed a brief supporting Harvard, said after the September 2025 ruling that “the worthy goal of combating unlawful anti-Semitic discrimination on campus cannot justify the flatly unlawful and unconstitutional means used by the Trump administration,” in a statement. FIRE had called the April demands unconstitutional when they were issued. The American Association of University Professors’ Harvard chapter, which sued separately in April 2025, had its case merged with Harvard’s and argued on appeal through former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

Massachusetts Democrats lined up behind Harvard, The Crimson reported. Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote, “Cutting research for cancer or heart disease does not help anyone. Harvard is right to reject the Trump administration’s demands.” Sen. Ed Markey said he was “proud of Harvard for standing up to the Trump administration’s illegal power grabs.” Gov. Maura Healey said the cuts were “bad for patients, it’s bad for science, and it’s really bad for American competitiveness.” On the Republican side, Stefanik said after Gay’s resignation that her committee’s investigation would “continue to move forward.”

Impact on Boston and Cambridge

Much of the money at stake flows through Boston institutions, not just Harvard Yard. The original $9 billion review included future commitments to Mass General, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital, the Harvard Gazette reported.

  • Research: Harvard’s direct federal portfolio is more than 900 awards costing over $600 million a year. Harvard closed fiscal 2025 with a $113 million operating deficit, its first since the pandemic, and set up a $250 million research continuity fund, according to the Gazette.
  • Longwood: The T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston lost about $200 million in federal funding, or 46 percent of its budget. It cut its incoming Ph.D. class to 37 from 65, The Boston Globe reported.
  • Jobs: The Chan School, the Kennedy School and Harvard Medical School all announced layoffs in 2025, WBUR reported. Harvard has not released a total.
  • International students: Harvard enrolled 6,793 international students in 2024-25, or 27.3 percent of its student body, according to Harvard Magazine.

Harvard is now putting its own money into research. See our report on Garber’s $150 million research push.

Where the Harvard Antisemitism Case Stands Now

As of Oct. 7, 2026, three government appeals are pending at the First Circuit: the funding case, the international-student case, and the dismissed Title VI suit. In the Title VI appeal, the Justice Department’s brief is due 40 days after the record is filed. The funding appeal could decide whether Harvard keeps the restored grants and the injunction against future retaliatory cuts. Research payments continue in the meantime. The admissions-records suit and the EEOC subpoena case remain in district court. No settlement has been reached. We found no public record that Harvard has lost its tax-exempt status or its accreditation.

We will update this report as rulings come in.

Sources

This report summarizes allegations, court filings and public statements. No court has issued a final merits ruling that Harvard violated Title VI. HHS’s administrative finding is disputed by Harvard, and the related cases remain on appeal.