House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Harvard for Financial Aid Documents in Ivy League Antitrust Probe

Updated June 26, 2025, at 3:15 p.m.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) issued a subpoena to Harvard on Thursday, demanding documents on the school’s financial aid process as part of an ongoing congressional investigation into alleged tuition-fixing across the Ivy League.

In a three-page letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76, Jordan accused the University of failing to adequately respond to a prior request for documents related to its tuition-setting and aid policies. The subpoena compels Harvard to turn over the requested materials by July 17.

“We are concerned that Ivy League member institutions appear to be collectively raising tuition prices while engaging in perfect price discrimination by offering selective financial aid packages to maximize profits,” wrote Jordan and Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.), who co-signed the letter.

The letter, shared publicly on X, signals an extraordinary step by Congress — and places Harvard at the epicenter of what would be a potentially precedent-setting antitrust case with implications across the Ivy League.

Republican lawmakers first contacted Harvard on April 8, requesting internal communications and other materials related to Harvard’s process for awarding financial aid — as well as its relationship with the College Board and the Common Application, any admissions practices related to financial capacity or legacy status, and requirements that students pay for meal plans.

Harvard was given until April 22 to respond but asked for more time, leading to multiple extensions and follow-up conversations with congressional staff.

Despite three document submissions — on May 22, June 6, and June 25 — Jordan and Fitzgerald criticized the responses as “substantively deficient.” Harvard submitted only 138 documents in its first round, “among” the fewest of any Ivy League school under investigation, according to the letter.

The initial April 8 request also asked for documents related to the 568 Presidents Group — a consortium of private universities previously accused of sharing financial aid formulas. When Harvard’s lawyers explained that the University had never joined the group, the House committee demanded information on that decision. Harvard did not provide related documents, despite being explicitly asked to prioritize that material, according to the Thursday letter.

The letter also alleged that two-thirds of the material submitted across the three documents was publicly available and very few internal communications — a key focus of the request — were included.

“Harvard’s response has been inadequate,” they wrote. “The Committee is issuing compulsory process to obtain the documents and materials it needs to fulfill its oversight and legislative responsibilities.”

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote that the University has been turning over documents in “good faith” and condemned the decision to serve a subpoena as “unwarranted, unfair, and unnecessary” in a statement.

“There is no basis for an allegation of collusion in Harvard’s setting of tuition and financial aid,” Newton wrote.

The threat of a subpoena has loomed for weeks. A House staffer familiar with the plans said in April that the committee began preparing for formal action after Harvard missed an April 22 deadline. The University pushed back on the committee’s allegations at the time, saying it had not submitted documents by that date because it had received an extension until May 19.

Although all eight Ivy League schools received the April 8 letter, only Harvard has been publicly served a subpoena. Six Ivy League universities have previously turned over documents in connection with a 2022 antitrust lawsuit involving the 568 President Group.

The Thursday move marks the latest update to Harvard’s increasingly precarious position in Washington. Though many of the highest-profile attacks on Harvard, including nearly $3 billion in funding cuts, have come from the executive branch, the Republican-controlled Congress has also aggressively pursued investigations that it describes as accountability measures for the University.

Harvard is currently facing at least four investigations from Congress over alleged antisemitism on campus, its handling of student protests, and broader concerns about institutional governance and free speech.

The subpoenas do not target any individual members of Harvard’s leadership. They also do not require Garber, or other administrators, to testify before Congress, though such a demand could be imposed in the future.

Jordan and Fitzgerald also suggested in the letter that the documents could be used to shape future legislation, writing that the materials would help Congress determine whether existing antitrust laws — and the penalties for violating them — are sufficient to deter collusion in higher education.

By withholding full cooperation, they alleged, Harvard was impeding lawmakers’ ability to assess whether new laws are needed to rein in tuition-setting.

This is not the first time Harvard has been issued a congressional subpoena. In March 2024, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce demanded documents related to the University’s handling of antisemitism on campus — a request with which Harvard eventually complied, turning over tens of thousands of pages.

If Harvard fails to comply with the latest subpoena, the standoff could escalate into a legal battle or prompt further congressional action, including potential contempt proceedings.

The move to subpoena Harvard drew swift criticism from Rep. Jamie B. Raskin ’83 (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, who condemned the action as a politically motivated attack on academic freedom. In a sharply worded statement, Raskin accused Judiciary Republicans of acting as “foot soldiers in Donald Trump’s war on higher education” and dismissed the collusion allegations as “pathetically weak.”

In their April letter, Jordan and Fitzgerald argued that admissions strategies like binding early decision, legacy preferences, and selective financial aid packages enable universities to “maximize profit” by offering personalized pricing — practices they described as forms of price discrimination.

Harvard does not offer binding early decision, but it does offer a restrictive early action program, limiting applicants from applying early to other private colleges. The University also considers legacy status in admissions and requires detailed financial disclosures through the CSS Profile, which is managed by the College Board, to calculate aid awards.

Harvard College uses a need-based financial aid model, covering all costs beyond what it calculates families are able to pay. In March, the University announced that families earning under $100,000 are not expected to pay anything toward the cost of attendance — making the cost of attending Harvard College cheaper for many undergraduates than attending their in-state public universities.

While the University has framed its approach as making Harvard affordable for low- and middle-income families, critics, including Jordan and Fitzgerald, have insisted that the system enables first-degree price discrimination by using applicant data to adjust aid packages based on a family’s ability — or willingness — to pay.

Harvard practices need-blind admissions and states on its website that “your financial need and your aid application will never affect your chance of being admitted to Harvard.” But the University faced an Education Department investigation in 2023 over allegations that preferences for legacy applicants and the children of wealthy donors gave an unfair advantage to white applicants.

Jordan has repeatedly targeted Harvard in congressional hearings and public statements, portraying the University as a symbol of elite arrogance and institutional failure. Since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, he has accused Harvard’s leadership of “failing to protect Jewish students” and prioritizing “woke ideology over basic accountability.”

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.