The Trump Administration extended its dispute with Harvard to include the university’s hiring practices

In a dramatic expansion of its long-running conflict with elite academic institutions, the Trump administration—through ongoing legal proxies and influence networks—has extended its scrutiny of Harvard University, moving beyond affirmative action in admissions to now challenge the university’s faculty hiring practices. The escalation signals a broader campaign to reshape how elite schools approach diversity, equity, and institutional autonomy.

The development stems from a complaint filed in late April with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which alleges that Harvard’s faculty recruitment and hiring decisions discriminate against white and Asian-American applicants in favor of candidates from underrepresented racial groups. The complaint is backed by conservative legal advocacy group America First Legal, co-founded by former Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller.

The Trump administration first took aim at Harvard in 2018, when the Department of Justice intervened in a lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), accusing the university of discriminating against Asian-American students in its undergraduate admissions process. That case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2023 that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional.

Now, conservative legal forces are leveraging that precedent to argue that similar race-based considerations are influencing faculty selection—an area traditionally shielded by broader academic freedom protections.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that racial balancing has no place in American institutions,” said Gene Hamilton, general counsel at America First Legal. “That includes who teaches our students—not just who gets admitted.”

According to internal documents reviewed by New York Budget, the complaint singles out hiring patterns in Harvard’s humanities and social science departments, where over the past five years, approximately 60% of tenure-track hires were individuals identifying as Black, Hispanic, or Native American—groups that represent less than 15% of PhD graduates nationally in those fields.

In a statement, Harvard strongly rejected the allegations, stating its hiring practices are “guided by academic excellence, scholarly potential, and a commitment to advancing knowledge and pedagogy—not by racial quotas.”

“We are proud of our faculty’s diversity, which enhances the quality of teaching, learning, and research,” said university spokesperson Jonathan Swain. “Harvard follows all applicable laws in its employment practices and will vigorously defend itself against any unfounded legal claims.”

University officials also noted that faculty search committees conduct holistic evaluations and often include external peer reviewers, with final decisions approved by a faculty council and the president’s office.

While President Biden’s Department of Justice has officially distanced itself from the latest probe, legal experts say the infrastructure built under Trump—particularly within OCR and other regulatory bodies—continues to influence investigations under conservative pressure.

“This is a textbook example of regulatory capture through the courts and complaints process,” said Professor Lorraine Feldman, a constitutional law scholar at NYU. “It’s not technically the Trump administration anymore, but the ecosystem it built is alive and well.”

Several Republican-led states—including Florida, Texas, and Missouri—have joined the legal pressure campaign, with their attorneys general filing amici curiae briefs supporting a formal investigation into Harvard’s faculty diversity programs.

The hiring probe is part of a larger effort by conservative groups to challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across sectors. Since 2023, more than 25 states have proposed or passed legislation banning DEI offices in public universities, and private institutions are increasingly targeted through litigation.

In a public appearance on Newsmax, former President Donald Trump praised the latest development, calling it a “patriotic effort to save American education from the radical left.”

“It’s not about race—it’s about merit,” Trump said. “Harvard should be hiring the best people, not the most ‘woke’ candidates.”

Higher education advocates worry that the probe could have a chilling effect on university hiring and threaten the principle of institutional autonomy.

“This isn’t just about Harvard,” warned Irene Bautista, director of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). “It’s about whether colleges and universities can make independent decisions to build faculties that reflect the world we live in.”

Others note that the increased legal scrutiny may discourage qualified scholars of color from entering the academic job market, further narrowing pipelines that are already under strain.

As Harvard braces for another protracted legal fight, the battle over race in higher education is shifting from lecture halls to hiring committees. For conservative activists, it’s an extension of a broader cultural war. For universities, it’s an existential challenge to their autonomy, values, and ability to define excellence on their own terms.

The Department of Education has not confirmed whether it has formally opened an investigation, but internal sources suggest preliminary inquiries are underway.

Whether this new front will result in significant legal action—or a Supreme Court ruling on faculty hiring—remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that in the post-affirmative action era, the conflict over diversity in higher education is far from over.