A former career attorney in the Justice Department's civil rights division has accused Trump administration officials of running university investigations into alleged antisemitism that were procedurally irregular and lacked a factual foundation.
The whistleblower complaint, submitted to the House Judiciary Committee and made public by Representative Jamie Raskin, says the task force set up during the prior administration conducted inquiries that were "marked by extraordinary procedural irregularities, predetermined outcomes without factual or legal support, and disregard" for legal requirements and free speech protections. The complaint identifies the former DOJ attorney as Haley Van Erem and says she and others raised concerns internally about the conduct of the probes.
According to the filing, Van Erem and colleagues proposed opening parallel investigations into allegations of anti-Muslim bias on campuses, but those suggestions "were not pursued by leadership." The complaint portrays a selective approach to university oversight, in which some avenues of inquiry were advanced and others were left aside.
The complaint situates the investigations in the context of federal scrutiny of campus protests tied to the war in Gaza. The Trump administration targeted universities with probes and sometimes threatened suspension of federal funding over pro-Palestinian demonstrations it characterized as antisemitic and as endorsing extremism. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, have argued that criticism of Israel's occupation and opposition to its assault on Gaza do not constitute antisemitism and that advocacy for Palestinian rights should not be equated with support for extremism.
In response to the complaint, the Justice Department said that "While at the DOJ, Ms. Haley Van Erem did not work on university investigations. And for all matters, the department stands behind the integrity of these investigations." The DOJ statement did not address other aspects of the whistleblower filing.
The complaint further alleges that senior officials at the DOJ and at the Department of Health and Human Services departed from long-established investigative practices intended to preserve due process, accuracy and compliance with legal standards. It says that for some probes there was little or no factual basis to justify opening them, and that employees who questioned the investigations were sometimes admonished and had their concerns disregarded.
One specific allegation in the filing concerns interviews assigned by the government of some Middle East studies professors. The complaint says certain DOJ assignees felt these interview mandates appeared designed to intimidate those faculty members and were rooted in Islamophobic assumptions that Middle East studies professors would harbor antisemitic views, rather than arising from actual complaints of antisemitism.
The complaint also notes that the government has targeted universities on other fronts, including diversity initiatives, transgender policies and climate programs, prompting rights advocates to raise concerns about due process, free speech and academic freedom.
Several universities reached settlements after federal probes. Columbia University agreed to pay more than $200 million to the U.S. government to resolve federal investigations and restore most of its federal funding in July of last year. Brown University said it would pay $50 million to support local workforce development as part of a settlement reached with the government in 2025. Both Columbia and Brown, which have stated their opposition to all forms of discrimination, accepted certain government demands as part of their agreements.
Harvard University has not reached a deal. The university previously described the Trump administration's investigations as "retaliatory actions against Harvard for its refusal to surrender our independence and constitutional rights."
Key context and takeaways
- The whistleblower complaint alleges that investigations into alleged campus antisemitism under the Trump administration were procedurally flawed and lacked necessary factual or legal support.
- The complaint says proposals to probe alleged anti-Muslim bias were not pursued, suggesting selective enforcement of investigative priorities.
- The DOJ has maintained the integrity of the investigations while noting that Van Erem did not work on university probes.
Impact on sectors
- Higher education - scrutiny of funding and compliance obligations for universities.
- Legal and compliance services - potential demand for counsel on federal investigations and settlements.
- Public policy and advocacy groups - concerns about free speech, academic freedom and civil rights enforcement.
Risks and uncertainties
- Ongoing legal and political scrutiny of university operations and campus speech policies could affect federal funding and institutional budgets - impacts higher education finances.
- Disparate investigative practices and allegations of selective enforcement may prompt additional oversight or litigation, creating uncertainty for university administrators and legal advisers - impacts legal services and compliance sectors.
- The complaint's assertions about intimidation of faculty and concerns over academic freedom raise the possibility of reputational risk and further public debate - impacts university governance and donor relations.
Summary
The whistleblower complaint by a former DOJ civil rights attorney asserts that a Trump administration task force's probes of alleged antisemitism on college campuses were marred by procedural irregularities, predetermined outcomes and insufficient factual basis. The filing, publicized by Representative Jamie Raskin, also contends proposals to investigate anti-Muslim bias were ignored by leadership. The Justice Department has defended the investigations' integrity, and several universities have settled federal probes, while others remain in dispute.