Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s goal is not to engage in a prolonged legal battle with Harvard University and expressed hope that the federal government would be able to reach a settlement that delivers meaningful reforms to the elite campus. 

McMahon made the comments while appearing at the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute’s annual Education Law & Policy Conference on Wednesday morning, after being asked during a moderated conversation with Washington Examiner news editor Marisa Schultz where negotiations between Harvard and the administration stand. 

“I’m certainly hopeful on the settlement. I have spoken to Alan Garber, their very good president, at the very beginning of this. I haven’t spoken to him since, but I do think that with the idea that Harvard has already started to take certain measures to change what they were doing, I certainly hope that there will be an agreement,” McMahon said. “It’s not our goal to have to go to court to make people abide by the law, to make universities abide by the law.”

Getting specific, the education secretary explained that, “Harvard has already started to put in place some of the things we wanted them to do. They reassessed their Middle East policies. They actually fired a couple of their professors. They are looking at having safe measures on campus, and so without even admitting any guilt in any way, they have started to change their policies, and that is the ultimate goal of our investigation, of making sure that things are proper on campus.”

Asked by Schultz about the ongoing negotiations with the University of California, Los Angeles and other schools, and how the settlements fit into the Trump administration’s “big picture mission for elite universities and colleges in America,” McMahon said that their “goal is really not to be punitive necessarily, but to have universities, I think, return to what we all believe that universities started out to be.”

“It’s not to be punitive. That’s really not the goal. The goal is to make them change their policies and practices, and if they are not in compliance with the law, then surely we’re going to insist they are, or they won’t receive federal funding,” she said.

The education secretary said she believed it was in the best interest of all parties to reach settlements rather than risk upending the more than $2 billion in research grants that Harvard receives from the federal government. “The federal funding for Harvard, not only for students who attend, for their tuition, but also the amazing amount of research funding — they get over $2 billion, almost $3 billion — is very significant to those scientists and professors who were there, who have grants and who are working on their own projects,” McMahon said. 

“They can take that grant money and go somewhere else, if it’s a grant directly to them, so I think it’s in Harvard’s interest to continue to negotiate. I think it’s in all of our interests for Harvard and for all of the other universities that we are sending letters to, that we are investigating, and there are others. Hopefully there will be these settlements with all of them, because basically, we just want them to do right,” she explained.

McMahon made a similar remark about the importance of protecting research grants while discussing the administration’s settlement with Columbia University reached over the summer, which followed a protracted legal battle.

“We eventually reached an agreement with Columbia,” McMahon said. “They will pay a fine back to the United States government. Their funding will be released again, and it’s primarily research funding. I believe our universities do some of the most incredible research in the country. We want them to be able to do that, but they have to abide by the law. They have to abide by Title VI, they have to abide by Title IX. They have to be worthy to receive the funds that they are receiving from the United States government.”

The comments mark the first time McMahon has publicly shared her thoughts on what outcome she would like to see from the federal government’s negotiations with Harvard University amid an ongoing dispute between different factions within the Trump administration over the effectiveness of the ongoing negotiations and settlements with universities. 

While some officials are focused on any deal that would secure strong reforms to address antisemitism and other civil rights issues, others are looking for securing large payouts to appease President Donald Trump. 

“There’s growing dissatisfaction with the White House letting universities buy their way out of accountability with no meaningful change. It’s clear they’ve been totally out-negotiated,” one source familiar with the negotiations told JI earlier this month of the situation.

Trump said late last month that he expected Harvard to pay at least $500 million to restore its more than $2 billion in federal funding. “We want nothing less than $500 million from Harvard. Don’t negotiate, Linda. They’ve been very bad. Don’t negotiate,” Trump said while addressing McMahon at a Cabinet meeting. (McMahon acknowledged Trump’s remarks in the moment but did not respond further.)

Pressed on Wednesday about Trump’s comments and the fact that a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration’s freeze on Harvard’s research grants earlier this month, McMahon noted that they plan to appeal the ruling and said the government was in a strong position in its fight against the university.

“We’re still in the throes of negotiating with Harvard. They filed a lawsuit, they won the first round, and one of the things they were claiming was that the steps that we were asking of them would violate First Amendment rights, and that’s just not true. I think that we have a really good case against Harvard,” McMahon said.

The University of Maryland, College Park and Maryland’s attorney general have asked the state to approve their joint request to settle a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

The request to settle the case, which was not previously publicly available information, was revealed in a memo detailing the agenda for an impending meeting of the Maryland Board of Public Works, which oversees matters impacting the state university system. The university’s settlement, according to the agenda posted to BPW’s website ahead of a Wednesday board meeting, would provide $100,000 to defendants through the CAIR Legal Defense Fund, an arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 

“The University of Maryland College Park and the Office of the Attorney General recommend paying $100,000 to settle all claims, including attorneys’ fees, as in the best interest of the State,” the memo reads. 

The University of Maryland declined to comment to Jewish Insider about its request to settle and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown did not respond to JI’s request for comment.

On behalf of UMD SJP, CAIR and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit against the university’s College Park campus last September alleging a violation of the students’ free speech after UMD President Darryll Pines announced that the school had canceled an SJP-sponsored anti-Israel rally slated for the first anniversary of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. 

UMD initially granted SJP a permit last August to hold the Oct. 7 demonstration on the campus’ central McKeldin Mall, prompting swift backlash and calls from campus groups including Hillel and the Jewish Student Union — and from former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who was running for the Senate at the time — for the school to reverse course. 

After the university canceled the protest, SJP filed a lawsuit stating that its First Amendment rights had been violated and a federal judge wrote in an opinion that the group “has demonstrated a substantial likelihood that it will prevail [in its lawsuit] on the merits of its freedom of speech claim.” The university then backtracked a second time and ultimately allowed the demonstration to take place, but the lawsuit moved forward. 

Pines said at the time that the initial decision to cancel the event — and all events scheduled for Oct. 7, other than university sponsored ones — was made following a “safety assessment,” which, he added, did not identify any threats to the campus. 

Einav Tsach, a rising senior studying journalism and business, told JI that amid turmoil around the SJP demonstration, Jewish students still “came together as a strong, vibrant Jewish campus community to mark the one-year anniversary of the horrors perpetrated by Hamas.” 

As the second anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks approaches this fall, Tsach, the former leader of  Mishelanu, an on-campus Israeli-American cultural association, said that Jewish UMD students “remain focused on marking this solemn day in the most meaningful way possible.”

Other than the controversy around last year’s demonstration, UMD, which has one of the largest Jewish student populations in the country — nearly 20% of the College Park undergraduate student body of more than 30,000 is Jewish — has largely avoided egregious incidents of antisemitism that have occurred on other college campuses. 

Jewish leaders on and off Columbia University’s campus praised the settlement reached last week between the university and the Trump administration to restore some $400 million in federal funding that was slashed in March due to the Ivy League’s record dealing with antisemitism.

While some Jewish leaders, students and alumni are taking a wait-and-see-approach, others expressed cautious optimism that the deal could lead to a safer environment for Jewish students following nearly two years of antisemitic protests and disruptions on campus in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks in Israel. 

“I am heartened to see the resolution agreement for several reasons,” Adam Lehman, president and CEO of Hillel International, told Jewish Insider last week. “It recognizes both the clear, egregious violations of the civil rights of Jewish students and staff at Columbia and Barnard [an affiliate of Columbia] during the past two academic years, and the concrete steps Columbia has recently pursued to address these issues.” 

Those steps, publicized last week, included further incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism by requiring its Office of Institutional Equity to embrace the definition; appointing a Title VI coordinator to review alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act; requiring antisemitism training for all students, faculty and staff; and refusing to recognize or meet with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of over 80 university student groups that Instagram banned earlier this year for promoting violence. 

The school also announced last week that disciplinary action and rules surrounding student protests would be moved out of the purview of the faculty-run University Senate and into the provost’s office, a move called for by pro-Israel students. Columbia also agreed to pay a $200 million settlement over three years to the federal government.

“Importantly, it also restores the university’s ability to pursue essential medical and scientific research with access to federal funding support,” Lehman said. “I hope and trust that the university will use this important resolution to see through its recent commitments to foster a campus environment that will be safer and more welcoming for Jewish students, and all students, moving forward.” 

Still, some said that key reforms are missing from the deal, which falls short of several demands initially made by the Trump administration. Among the demands were putting the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African studies department and the Center for Palestine Studies under the purview of a senior vice provost, who would be appointed by the university to supervise course material and non-tenure faculty hiring, as well as the formation of a presidential search committee to replace acting President Claire Shipman. 

In addition to the fine, the university has agreed to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $21 million. A number of open Title VI investigations into the university alleging harassment of Jewish students will also be settled and  the university will abide by laws banning the consideration of race in admissions and hiring. Columbia, which did not admit to wrongdoing in the deal, said it will continue to have “autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.” 

“I’m on board [with the settlement] but my support is contingent on enforcement,” said Shoshana Aufzien, an incoming sophomore in the dual program between Barnard College and the Jewish Theological Seminary. At the same time, Aufzien said that “the scope of the settlement is unclear” and “many of the reforms mentioned are existing legal obligations” for recipients of federal funding, such as the appointment of a Title VI coordinator. 

Lishi Baker, a rising Columbia senior studying Middle East history, called the settlement “an important moment for the Jewish community, Columbia, higher education and the United States more broadly. Getting federal funding back and committing to the work of positive reform within the university is a good thing,” Baker told JI. 

“This deal is not the end of the story. It is an important start. Reforming Columbia for the better is a long-term endeavor that could never be covered in one deal, and need not be overly intertwined with the government.” 

Eden Yadegar, a former president of the Columbia chapter of Students Supporting Israel who graduated in the spring with Middle East studies and modern Jewish studies degrees, told JI she is “grateful to the federal government for prioritizing the fight against antisemitism in higher education, and hope this deal is the beginning of what will be sustained change at Columbia.”

“I’m holding my breath to see if and how things will change for Jewish and Israeli students in September. There is undoubtedly plenty more work to do and the Jewish community is not going to back down from doing it and holding Columbia accountable,” Yadegar said.

The Anti-Defamation League called the settlement “an important next step in fighting antisemitism and hate on their campus, along with restoring federal funding needed for critical research.” 

But others raised concerns that the settlement does not include the structural reforms initially demanded in the Trump administration’s letter to Columbia in March.

“The deal stops short of necessary internal reforms, such as discipline and review of faculty leadership for those who participated in encampments or violated other campus policies,” Inbar Brand, who graduated in the spring from Columbia’s dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University, told JI. “Worst to me is that this deal is a closing of the Title VI investigation without any admission of guilt by Columbia.” 

A source familiar with the negotiations told JI that “while the [Trump] administration spins the deal as a win, the reality is it caved and let Columbia pay a fine and continue business as usual under a toothless monitor with no meaningful reforms.” 

The settlement “lets Columbia off the hook in advance of presidential selection, meaning [that there’s] no incentive to pick a president committed to reform,” the source said, referring to the ongoing search for a permanent president.  

The Trump administration is in talks with several other universities that have faced similar funding cutoffs, including Harvard, Cornell and Northwestern. 

Barnard College reached a settlement on Monday in a lawsuit brought by Jewish students which claimed that the school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to address antisemitism. 

Under the agreement reached, Barnard will adopt an anti-masking policy at demonstrations; refuse to meet with anti-Israel campus groups, including Columbia University Apartheid Divest; “consider” adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism; require students, faculty and staff to complete antisemitism training; and expand its discipline policy to include harassment that occurs off campus or online. 

Barnard will also hire a coordinator to review new allegations of Title VI violations and agreed not to divest from companies that have ties to Israel. 

The complaint, Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, filed in district court in New York in February 2024 against Columbia University and Barnard, detailed several instances of antisemitism, including physical assaults of Jewish students. The complaint alleges that faculty members and students routinely referred to Hamas’ Oct.7, 2023 attacks as “awesome” and a “great feat.” 

Barnard also recently expanded its partnership with the Jewish Theological Seminary. Jewish studies courses at JTS — located near Barnard’s Morningside Heights campus — will now count toward Barnard degree requirements, with students able to participate with no additional tuition costs.

Laura Ann Rosenbury, president of Barnard, said in a statement that the settlement “reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.” 

Monday’s settlement comes as Barnard — which is closely affiliated with Columbia but has independent administration and affiliation — remains under investigation by the Trump administration for violating Title VI.

Barnard faced several major incidents of antisemitism on its campus during the last academic year. A staff member was assaulted and sent to the hospital in February by anti-Israel demonstrators who stormed the college’s main administrative building and remained there for several hours, chanting “resistance is justified when people are occupied” and “intifada revolution.” 

The demonstration was a response to the school’s decision just days earlier — in its most forceful response to anti-Israel activity on campus to date — to expel two second-semester seniors who disrupted a “History of Modern Israel” class on Columbia’s campus by storming in, banging on drums and distributing posters to students that read “CRUSH ZIONISM.” 

​​Marc Kasowitz of Kasowitz LLP, counsel for the plaintiffs, praised Barnard’s “commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students.”

Kasowitz continued, “These commitments are not only the right thing to do, but are essential to creating a welcome and inclusive campus for all members of the Barnard community. I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard’s lead.”