A former Justice Department (DOJ) attorney has alleged that the Trump administration pressured civil rights staff to investigate antisemitism at Harvard, Columbia, and Brown Universities without sufficient legal or factual grounds. Haley Van Erem, a longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division, filed a whistleblower complaint claiming that political leadership at the DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) disregarded investigative protocols to reach predetermined outcomes. The complaint was made public on Tuesday by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).
The allegations follow a period where Van Erem was among several DOJ attorneys involuntarily detailed to HHS to assist with Title VI investigations on college campuses. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by entities receiving federal funding. According to the complaint, senior officials bypassed traditional investigative practices, imposed compressed timelines, and ignored legal concerns raised by career staff.
A Justice Department spokesperson denied the allegations, stating that Van Erem did not work on those specific university investigations while at the DOJ. The spokesperson maintained that the department stands behind the integrity of its work. Rep. Raskin has requested that Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General leading the Civil Rights Division, produce records and communications related to the investigations.
The complaint alleges that in the case of Brown University, staff found no Title VI violations, yet the government still entered into a settlement. At Columbia, the complaint claims findings were issued based on unsupported allegations and news reports before a full review was finished. Regarding Harvard, the complaint states that DOJ attorneys raised concerns when the government moved to suspend federal funding and sought a settlement before completing its investigation.
The situation establishes a precedent regarding how the federal government uses its enforcement power to influence university policies. According to the complaint, the investigations were used to pressure schools into settlements or to curtail activities such as pro-Palestinian protests. While Brown and Columbia settled to restore their funding, the legal challenge at Harvard demonstrated that a school can successfully contest these findings in court. This tension between federal oversight and academic freedom affects how universities manage diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and campus speech.
What happens next depends on the responses from the targeted agencies and the legislative branch. Rep. Raskin’s request for internal communications sets a deadline for the DOJ to justify its investigative process. Additionally, the whistleblower complaint has been submitted to the inspectors general for both the DOJ and HHS, as well as the Office of Special Counsel, for further review. The specific dates for these oversight responses were not reported. At this time, it is not known if the universities will seek to revisit their settlements or if the DOJ will appeal the dismissal of the Harvard case.