Former DOJ lawyer alleges Trump administration abused investigative process to target Harvard, Brown and Columbia
Ex-DOJ Civil Rights Attorney Files Whistleblower Complaint Over Campus Antisemitism Probes
Wertynews.com – Washington — A former attorney in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has charged that political leaders at both DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services steered career staff toward predetermined negative conclusions in investigations targeting Harvard, Columbia, and Brown universities. The complaint, released publicly on Tuesday by Maryland Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, asserts that the probes lacked any genuine factual or legal foundation.
Haley Van Erem, who spent years practicing within the Civil Rights Division, says she was among several DOJ lawyers compelled to detail to HHS in order to examine antisemitism claims on college campuses. Her representatives at the Government Accountability Project submitted a letter to members of Congress alongside a copy of the formal complaint, detailing what they describe as a systematic departure from established investigative norms.
"Senior officials at DOJ and HHS departed from longstanding investigative practices designed to ensure due process, accuracy and legal compliance. Ms. Van Erem and her colleagues encountered compressed timelines to conduct investigations that compromised the ability to ensure that findings were justified and accurate."
The letter further alleges that in at least some cases, investigators opened files with virtually no evidentiary predicate. When staff members raised legal objections or attempted to document dissent, they were reportedly rebuked and their concerns brushed aside.
"For at least some of the investigations, there was little to no factual predicate justifying opening them. When they asked questions, raised legal concerns, or sought to document their objections, they were sometimes admonished and their concerns were often disregarded. Taken together, these circumstances led the attorneys reasonably to believe that certain enforcement outcomes had been determined before the relevant evidence was collected and evaluated."
DOJ Pushes Back
A Justice Department spokesperson rejected the claims outright, stating that Van Erem had no role in the university investigations at issue.
"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."
CBS News sought comment from HHS but had not received a response as of publication.
Harvard Lawsuit Dismissed Days Earlier
The complaint surfaced mere days after a federal judge threw out the Justice Department's Title VI suit against Harvard. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, sitting in Massachusetts, concluded that the discrimination incidents the government cited were "too isolated and episodic" to sustain a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination by recipients of federal funds.
Harvard chose to litigate the matter through to judgment. Brown and Columbia, by contrast, reached settlements with the federal government to resolve parallel Title VI allegations and regain access to frozen federal funding.
Broader Shifts Under Division Leadership
Van Erem's filing was routed to the inspectors general of both DOJ and HHS as well as the Office of Special Counsel. It echoes concerns voiced by numerous longtime former Civil Rights Division attorneys about what they see as the politicization of discrimination investigations under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the division.
Under Dhillon's tenure, the division has pivoted away from traditional approaches to investigating discrimination against people of color. New priorities have included targeting campuses that hosted pro-Palestinian demonstrations, scrutinizing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies at colleges, and creating a dedicated section focused on protecting gun rights.
The Brown Finding
According to the complaint, attorneys assigned to the Brown investigation concluded that no Title VI violations could be substantiated. Instead, they determined the university had responded promptly and effectively to the small number of incidents that occurred. Despite that finding, the government nonetheless pursued and finalized a settlement with the school.
In a statement to CBS News, Brown emphasized that its agreement "was not a result of any determination of fault by any government agency, and Brown denied any fault or violation of federal law." The university added that "at no time was Brown informed of any finding that the University violated any law," and noted that the temporary freeze on federal funds, lifted under the settlement, "posed enormous challenges for Brown's research mission and financial sustainability."
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Former DOJ lawyer alleges Trump administration?Former DOJ lawyer alleges Trump administration is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Former DOJ lawyer alleges Trump administration matter?Former DOJ lawyer alleges Trump administration matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.