Federal Funding Freeze on Elite Universities May Be Lifted if Antisemitism Reforms Continue, Says Education Secretary McMahon

By: Fern Sidman

In remarks that may signal a significant policy shift, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon suggested this week that the federal government may begin to unfreeze billions of dollars in suspended funding to elite American universities—but only if they demonstrate tangible reforms in how they address antisemitism and campus governance. Her comments came during an interview with Bloomberg’s Akayla Gardener, and mark the most detailed public statement to date on the administration’s evolving stance toward higher education institutions long criticized for ideological excess and lax responses to antisemitic incidents.

As The Algemeiner reported, the Trump administration has adopted an increasingly assertive approach in its campaign to hold universities accountable for what it deems “deliberate indifference” toward antisemitic harassment—particularly in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 massacre and the campus protests that followed. That posture has included sweeping cuts to federal grants and contracts, as well as threats to revoke the tax-exempt status of some of the country’s most prestigious institutions.

“It would be my goal that if colleges and universities are abiding by the laws of the United States and doing what we’re expecting of them, they could expect to have taxpayer funded programs,” McMahon stated, signaling the possibility of reconciliation—but only on stringent terms.

Among the most high-profile cases is Harvard University, which lost over $2.26 billion in federal funding amid accusations that it tolerated antisemitic speech and failed to protect Jewish students. According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, President Donald Trump has recently remarked that Harvard “is starting to behave,” suggesting the administration sees signs of progress at the Cambridge institution.

McMahon, while cautiously optimistic, concurred. “Clearly what he’s indicating is that we are, I think, making progress in some of the discussions, even though they [Harvard] have taken a hard line,” she said.

“They have, for instance, replaced their head of Middle East Studies. They have already put in place some of the things that we have talked about in our negotiations with Columbia.”

That shift is emblematic of a broader recalibration of elite academia’s relationship with federal oversight. Among the reforms demanded by the administration are increased viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions, the discontinuation of DEI programs, disciplinary reform, and the overhaul of departments perceived to have “egregious records of antisemitism,” The Algemeiner reported.

McMahon revealed that the Education Department and Columbia University—which has also faced enormous pressure from the administration—are now considering a consent decree to resolve the government’s claims without admitting wrongdoing. Days earlier, the department had recommended that Columbia lose its accreditation with the Middle States Commission, citing violations of federal antidiscrimination law.

The consequences of such a move would be staggering for one of America’s oldest and most prestigious institutions.

“After Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University’s leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,” McMahon declared in a June 4 statement, as quoted by The Algemeiner. “This is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”

She added that accreditation agencies must be held to the same standards as the universities they oversee. “Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal discrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards.”

McMahon also did not shy away from questioning Harvard’s massive endowment, which stands at $53.2 billion, a sum greater than the GDP of over 120 countries. In April, President Trump ordered the IRS to review Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a move that some critics called radical, but which McMahon defended as fiscally justified.

“That money doesn’t just sit still,” she noted. “It is invested, and if it’s invested well, they can expect a good return. If citizens of our country are providing tax support to universities that do take federal dollars, then maybe some of that should come back.”

The administration’s efforts go far beyond Harvard and Columbia. As The Algemeiner reported, Princeton University, Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, and other elite institutions have also had hundreds of millions of dollars suspended, with ongoing litigation surrounding the legality and constitutionality of these actions.

Harvard has responded by filing a lawsuit against the administration, seeking a precedent-setting summary judgment in federal court. Over a dozen peer institutions have joined the case via amicus briefs, arguing that the administration’s actions constitute overreach and threaten the academic autonomy of U.S. universities.

Harvard President Alan Garber defended the institution’s stance:

“We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations without improper government intrusion,” he said.

“That is how we achieve academic excellence, safeguard open inquiry and freedom of speech, and conduct pioneering research.”

However, critics remain unconvinced by Harvard’s defense. Speaking to The Algemeiner, Alex Joffe, editor of BDS Monitor for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, dismissed the idea that oversight and funding conditions constitute a violation of free speech.

“Claiming that the entire institution is exempt from any oversight or intervention is extraordinary,” Joffe said. “If an institution doesn’t want to be subjected to certain requirements in a relationship entered into voluntarily with the government, they shouldn’t take the money.”

The Trump administration’s crackdown, which builds on the legal infrastructure of Executive Order 13899, has evolved into a full-scale effort to reform higher education through the lens of civil rights compliance and antisemitism prevention. The establishment of a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, headquartered in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, underscores the seriousness with which the administration views the issue.

As The Algemeiner report indicated, the administration’s new executive order, “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism,” pledges to use “all appropriate legal tools” to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold accountable perpetrators of antisemitic harassment and violence on campus.

Whether this campaign will result in long-term cultural change or spark an enduring constitutional battle remains to be seen. But as Secretary McMahon’s remarks make clear, the message to American universities is unambiguous: federal funding is no longer guaranteed—it must be earned through accountability, compliance, and commitment to fundamental civil rights.