Trump Abandons the Anti-Semitism Excuse

A Closer Look at the Federal Government’s Campaign Against Harvard

The fiery letter Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent to Harvard University’s leadership this week is making waves across the country. While packed with accusations and grievances, what’s most striking is not just what the letter says — but what it doesn’t say.

Painting Harvard as a University in Decline

McMahon’s letter paints a dire picture of Harvard, portraying it as an institution teetering on the edge of collapse. She accuses the university of admitting students who supposedly hold contempt for America, criticizes its decision to hire former big-city mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot to teach leadership courses (mocking it as “like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation”), and questions the existence of its remedial math program by asking, “Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics?”

She goes on to single out Harvard’s board chair, Penny Pritzker, describing her as a “Democrat operative” allegedly steering the university toward financial disaster. McMahon’s conclusion is stark: Harvard should no longer expect new federal grants, declaring, “today’s letter marks the end of new grants for the University.”

The Notable Absence: Anti-Semitism

What’s missing from McMahon’s lengthy list of complaints is perhaps the most telling aspect. Originally, the Trump administration justified its crackdown on elite universities like Harvard by pointing to concerns over anti-Semitism. After the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, many criticized universities for not adequately protecting Jewish students during subsequent protests. This gave the administration a legal and moral foothold — they could claim they were acting to protect minority students on campus.

However, McMahon’s letter barely touches on the subject, aside from a vague nod to congressional hearings on anti-Semitism. This omission suggests that the administration’s real motives have shifted — or, more precisely, become clearer. The campaign against Harvard now appears less about addressing anti-Semitism and more about punishing the university for its liberal politics.

From Columbia to Harvard: A Pattern Emerges

The administration’s efforts began earlier this year with Columbia University. In March, federal officials canceled $400 million in funding to Columbia, blaming the university’s alleged failure to address anti-Semitism on campus. The government followed up with a list of demands, including giving the university president expanded disciplinary authority and placing the Middle Eastern studies department under a different governance structure.

Columbia soon announced several policy changes that mirrored these demands, earning praise from McMahon, who said the school was on the “right track.” Still, the government has yet to restore the frozen funds.

After Columbia, the administration turned its attention to Harvard. On March 31, federal officials announced they were reviewing $9 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. As with Columbia, they claimed Harvard had fallen short in addressing anti-Semitism. But by April 11, the administration’s demands had expanded dramatically — calling for the university to screen international students for loyalty to the U.S. and permitting an external body to audit faculty viewpoints to ensure ideological diversity.

Harvard Pushes Back

Harvard balked at these sweeping demands. In a letter to administration officials, the university’s legal team wrote, “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.” Harvard then took the matter to court, arguing that the administration had violated the school’s First Amendment rights and failed to follow due process in its efforts to withdraw federal funding.

The federal government responded aggressively. It froze $2.2 billion in grants, withheld $60 million in contracts, threatened to revoke Harvard’s nonprofit tax-exempt status, and raised the possibility of blocking the university from enrolling international students.

Despite the escalating conflict, the administration continued framing its actions as part of a civil rights effort to combat anti-Semitism on campuses. However, critics noted the disconnect between the government’s sweeping financial punishments and its stated goal of protecting Jewish students. As one observer put it, no one explained how cutting biomedical research funds would reduce anti-Semitism on campus.

Legal Hurdles and Overreach

Many legal experts view the administration’s approach as deeply flawed. Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, explained that revoking federal funding under nondiscrimination law requires a multi-step process — including investigating complaints and giving the institution a chance to resolve the issues. By bypassing these procedures, the administration risks violating the law.

“They went from step one to step five or six in a week,” Black observed. “There’s no ‘We don’t like you’ authority in the federal Constitution or in statutory law. In fact, quite the opposite — you’re precluded from that.”

Harvard’s Response and Internal Reforms

Under pressure, Harvard’s leadership has acknowledged areas that need improvement. The university recently released reports detailing instances of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bias, as well as a broader sense of exclusion among Jewish students. In response, Harvard announced several policy changes, such as ending affinity-group graduation ceremonies and refraining from issuing political statements unrelated to the university’s core functions.

Harvard President Alan Garber commented, “We were faced with a set of demands that addressed some problems that I and others recognized as real problems. But the means of addressing those problems is what was so objectionable.” By showing a willingness to implement changes, Harvard has strengthened its legal position in challenging the funding cancellations. Several legal analysts predict the university will ultimately prevail in court.

The Broader Political Agenda

The current clash reflects a larger political movement that has been building for years. Back in 2021, then–Senate candidate J.D. Vance declared in a speech that universities were the “enemy,” describing them as left-wing institutions that make it impossible for conservative ideas to thrive. His proposed solution was to “honestly and aggressively attack the universities.”

What we are witnessing now appears to be the realization of that strategy. Over the past two months, the federal government has moved aggressively against two of the nation’s most prestigious universities. And with McMahon’s recent letter to Harvard, the administration has dropped any remaining pretense. The fight is no longer about protecting Jewish students — it’s about punishing elite liberal institutions.

---

Key Points Summary

• McMahon’s letter accuses Harvard of institutional failure but leaves out anti-Semitism as a justification.
• The administration’s initial legal pretext was based on fighting anti-Semitism, but this focus has shifted.
• The pattern of federal crackdowns began with Columbia and moved to Harvard.
• Harvard rejected the administration’s sweeping demands and filed a lawsuit, citing First Amendment violations.
• Legal experts say the government overstepped by skipping required procedures.
• Harvard has initiated internal reforms while bolstering its legal case.
• The broader political context suggests an ideological campaign against liberal universities.