The letter, which addressed issues related to hiring, admissions, and curriculum, triggered a legal dispute between Harvard and the White House.
According to NYT, the letter was sent by Sean Keveney, the acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, citing three sources briefed on the situation.
As per the NYT report, it remains unclear what prompted the letter to be sent last Friday. While three people familiar with the matter confirmed the content of the letter was authentic, there were conflicting accounts within the Trump administration about how it had been mishandled. Some White House officials believed the letter was sent prematurely, the sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations. Others in the administration believed the letter was intended for internal circulation among members of the antisemitism task force, rather than for immediate delivery to Harvard.
The letter’s timing proved to be critical. It arrived at a moment when Harvard officials were still hopeful of avoiding a direct clash with President Trump. In the two weeks prior, the university had been engaged in a dialogue with the task force. But the sweeping demands outlined in the letter led Harvard to conclude that reaching an agreement would be unlikely.
Following Harvard’s public rejection of the demands, the Trump administration escalated pressure on the university—freezing billions of dollars in federal funding and warning that Harvard’s tax-exempt status could be at risk, The Times reported.In response to the administration’s suggestion that Harvard should have verified the letter with government lawyers, the university defended its actions. “The letter was signed by three federal officials, placed on official letterhead, was sent from the email inbox of a senior federal official and was sent on April 11 as promised,” Harvard said in a statement on Friday.
“Recipients of such correspondence from the U.S. government — even when it contains sweeping demands that are astonishing in their overreach — do not question its authenticity or seriousness.”
