Was Harvard vs Trump clash triggered an ‘unauthorised’ letter? | World News

The high-stakes clash between Harvard University and the Donald Trump adminration may have been sparked a bureaucratic blunder.The controversial letter, dated April 11 and attributed to the White House’s task force on antisemitism, which Harvard blasted as overreaching and intrusive, was reportedly sent without proper authorisation—throwing the Ivy League school and the White House into an unexpected standoff.
Believing it had no other choice, Harvard publicly announced on April 14 that it would push back against the Trump adminration’s directives. But shortly after that statement, a top adminration official contacted Harvard and claimed the letter was sent in error. The official described the communication as “unauthorised,” according to sources cited The New York Times.
Story continues below this ad

The letter was reportedly sent Sean Keveney, acting general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services and a member of the antisemitism task force. While the document’s contents were reportedly genuine, confusion surrounded whether it was intended to be shared with Harvard at that stage—or at all.
Students, faculty and members of the Harvard University community rally, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in Cambridge, Mass. (AP Photo)
Three individuals briefed on the situation said some White House officials believed the letter was meant only for internal circulation, while others thought it had been released prematurely. All sources requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of internal deliberations.

The timing further complicated the episode. Harvard had been in what it viewed as productive dialogue with the task force over the prior two weeks and had hoped to avoid a public confrontation with the President. But the letter’s sharp tone and sweeping demands led the university to believe that reconciliation was unlikely.Story continues below this ad
As The New York Times put it, the episode has triggered “a tectonic battle between one of the country’s most prestigious universities and a US President.”
What had happened?
The April 11 letter demanded sweeping changes at the university, including banning face masks, dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and cooperating with immigration authorities. Harvard officials saw the demands as highly intrusive and publicly vowed to res.
Harvard President Alan Garber issued a firm response, saying, “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” The university has since retained Republican-aligned attorneys William Burck and Robert Hur, who argue that the adminration’s demands are unconstitutional and violate First Amendment protections.

The Trump adminration retaliated freezing $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts awarded to Harvard. One member of the task force publicly criticised the university’s stance, accusing it of perpetuating “a troubling entitlement mindset” regarding federal funds.Story continues below this ad
Trump went further, calling for Harvard’s tax-exempt status to be revoked. According to The Washington Post, the adminration even asked the Internal Revenue Service’s top attorney to consider taking action.
Tax-exempt status, granted the IRS, allows institutions like Harvard to avoid paying federal income tax. In return, they must refrain from political activity and ensure their income does not benefit individuals or shareholders. Legal experts noted that the president is barred from directly ordering IRS investigations, and no evidence has surfaced that Harvard has violated any rules.
According to a report Guardian, White House spokesperson stated that “any forthcoming actions the IRS are conducted independently of the President,” and added that any exing reviews of Harvard’s tax status were initiated before Trump’s public comments.
The standoff has came up amid the increasing scrutiny of elite universities in the United States. While some institutions, like Columbia University, have reportedly complied with federal demands in exchange for restored funding, Harvard’s refusal has drawn praise from free speech advocates—and condemnation from adminration officials.