Trump Admin May Seek Consent Decree Over Columbia University Amid Federal Crackdown on Campus Antisemitism

By: Fern Sidman

In a potentially precedent-setting move, the Trump administration is exploring the use of a federal consent decree to enforce any agreement it reaches with Columbia University, according to a report that appeared on Thursday in The New York Times. Such a step would significantly extend the White House’s oversight power over one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the United States — and could become a template for future interventions into universities accused of failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment.

The talks follow the administration’s dramatic decision to cancel approximately $400 million in federal research grants and contracts previously allocated to Columbia. This action came amid growing accusations that the university failed to prevent or adequately respond to harassment and intimidation of Jewish students, particularly in the wake of pro-Palestinian demonstrations that escalated in 2023.

According to the information that was provided in The New York Times report, four people familiar with the negotiations said that the administration is now weighing whether to pursue a consent decree, a legal mechanism that could ensure a court-supervised agreement remains enforceable for years — well beyond the current administration’s term in office.

“A decree could allow President Trump to continue to exert power over one of New York City’s flagship universities,” The New York Times reported, “and could serve as a model for other schools seeking to negotiate with the White House.”

A consent decree is a powerful legal tool typically used in civil rights or regulatory enforcement cases. It involves a formal settlement between two parties — often the federal government and an institution — that is ratified by a federal judge, thereby placing the agreement under judicial oversight.

Legal experts cited by The New York Times, including Tobias B. Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, stressed that a decree cannot be unilaterally imposed. It would likely require one of the parties to initiate a lawsuit in federal court. Only then could a judge accept and enforce a negotiated agreement as a binding decree.

“Judges can’t just wave a wand and turn an agreement into a consent decree absent a lawsuit over which the court has proper jurisdiction,” Wolff told The New York Times.

As of now, neither Columbia nor the administration has filed such a lawsuit, and two administration officials told the paper that no final decision has been made about pursuing a decree. Nevertheless, the fact that such an option is under serious consideration reveals the aggressive posture the Trump administration has adopted toward academic institutions it sees as failing to uphold civil rights standards — particularly in cases involving antisemitism.

Negotiations between the administration and Columbia have intensified in recent weeks. While no deal has yet been finalized, The New York Times noted that Columbia has already agreed to several major reforms, including overhauling security protocols to address campus safety during protests, revising policies on political demonstrations and protests and increasing oversight of its Middle Eastern Studies department, a program that has faced criticism for allegedly harboring anti-Israel bias.

The possible use of a consent decree emerged from the work of a Trump administration task force on antisemitism, which has focused its efforts on a group of ten universities — with Columbia at the center of its investigations.

Last week, tensions escalated further when Sean Keveney, acting general counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services and a task force member, deposed Columbia’s former interim president, Dr. Katrina Armstrong, as part of the government’s ongoing civil rights probe. A leaked transcript of the deposition, reported by The New York Times, revealed sharp exchanges in which Keveney repeatedly accused Armstrong and Columbia of failing to take allegations of antisemitism seriously.

While Columbia has remained largely silent on the matter, a university spokesperson issued a general statement saying that the school “remains in active dialogue with the federal government to restore its critical research funding.”

If finalized, a consent decree between Columbia and the Trump administration would have far-reaching implications. Not only would it place one of America’s top-tier academic institutions under judicial oversight for potentially years, but it would also signal a new era of federal enforcement against perceived failures by universities to protect Jewish students from harassment or intimidation.

Such a legal arrangement could give the administration — and future ones — enduring leverage over Columbia’s policies, hiring decisions, curriculum structure, and administrative practices. The White House may be viewing this not only as a corrective action but as a template for broader educational accountability.

“This could serve as a model,” noted The New York Times, “for other schools seeking to negotiate with the White House.”

The broader context of this legal showdown is the rising national debate over antisemitism on college campuses, particularly since the October 7th Hamas attacks and the subsequent surge in pro-Hamas protests. The New York Times report indicated that institutions such as Columbia have faced mounting pressure from both sides — from activists demanding space to criticize Israeli policy, and from Jewish students and alumni demanding safety and dignity amid growing hostility.

The Trump administration has made clear that it considers any form of harassment or delegitimization of Jewish students or the State of Israel a civil rights violation, and has begun exercising federal funding as both a carrot and a stick.

As the Trump administration weighs whether to formalize its agreement with Columbia through a consent decree, the future of campus governance, academic freedom, and the federal government’s role in enforcing civil rights in higher education may be reshaped in ways unseen since the desegregation era. What began as a funding dispute may now evolve into a historic test case with national consequences — and Columbia University may be just the beginning.