Harvard Says HHS Findings Prove Trump Admin Should Have Used Title VI Process Before Axing Grants

Hours after the Trump administration formally accused Harvard of violating federal civil rights law on Monday, the University filed a memo in court arguing that the administration failed to conduct a thorough investigation before making its claim.

The administration said that Harvard had treated antisemitism and anti-Israeli discrimination with “deliberate indifference” and warned that if the University does not make additional changes, it could face further federal penalties.

But lawyers for Harvard alleged that the notice of violation, sent Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights to Harvard officials, did not take the necessary steps to determine that Harvard had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The new court documents come as part of Harvard’s lawsuit, filed in April, against the administration’s freeze on nearly $3 billion in federal funds.

“The administrative record does not document any meaningful investigation by the Government into antisemitism on Harvard’s campus,” University lawyers wrote, pointing out that the accusations are based largely on a report by Harvard’s own task force on combating antisemitism.

The report was published more than two weeks after the government’s first $2.2 billion funding cut “and thus cannot possibly have been the basis for the challenged actions,” the memo read.

The decision to slap Harvard with a Title VI finding this week shows that the federal government should have waited to impose sanctions, the University argued.

“Today’s action necessarily concedes that the Government can use the Title VI process; it just deliberately chose to ignore it in its rush to inflict pain and punishment upon Harvard,” the lawyers wrote in the memo.

Trump administration lawyers argued in response that an Office of Management and Budget regulation gives federal agencies broad authority to terminate grants that no longer meet their priorities, allowing the administration to cut funding without going through Title VI.

The regulation permits a federal agency to terminate an award if it “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” or if researchers violate its terms.

But Harvard argued on Monday that the federal government must follow the Title VI process — which involves a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a determination that no voluntary agreement can be reached — in order to cut funding over accusations of antisemitism.

The memo — which was filed after the Trump administration opposed Harvard’s request for summary judgement and asked a judge for summary judgement itself — also reiterated the University’s case against the administration’s funding freezes, describing them as retaliatory and unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Harvard argued that the government’s decision to cite section 200.340 of Title 2 of U.S. code — the OMB regulation that has become the administration’s main ground for freezing Harvard’s funding — was “post hoc invention.”

They claimed that the funding pauses did not invoke the OMB regulation but were “explicitly” grounded in alleged violations of Title VI, citing several letters sent by the administration that invoked the statute directly or accused Harvard of breaking “civil rights law.”

“It is not believable that, after freezing Harvard’s funding based solely on a Title VI rationale, the Government believed Title VI irrelevant when it terminated those same grants based on the same discrimination concerns a few weeks later,” the lawyers wrote.

The memo also took issue with the government’s argument that a federal judge couldn’t consider Harvard’s constitutional or statutory claims because the case “is about money.” Harvard’s lawyers argued that such a ruling would set a dangerous precedent where cases that involve agreements with the government couldn’t be considered in court for alleged constitutional or statutory violations.

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement earlier on Monday that Harvard had taken “substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism” and shared details about those efforts with the Trump administration.

“Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government’s findings,” he wrote.

The Monday notice appeared to heighten tensions between Harvard and the White House, even as the two parties attempt to broker a truce in their bitter dispute.

But the new threat against Harvard — which might precipitate a Justice Department lawsuit or a voluntary resolution — could also speed up negotiations with the White House, which were resumed earlier this month.

It is unclear what changes the White House is demanding and what additional federal funding Harvard can afford to lose. The administration has already cut nearly $3 billion in funding to the University and ordered all federal agencies to stop granting Harvard funds.

Harvard has indicated that it sees common ground with the Trump administration on some issues, and the notice of violation on Monday offered praise for some existing changes — including centralized protest policies — while deriding them as belated and insufficient.

But any substantial concessions would risk the appearance of walking back the University’s commitment to defend academic freedom and fight encroachments on its institutional autonomy.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.