The Department of Justice escalated its fight for merit-based admissions on Friday, February 13, 2026, filing a lawsuit against Harvard University. The suit accuses the Ivy League giant of unlawfully withholding the very data needed to verify if the school is actually following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on affirmative action.
At The Modern Memo, we analyze the administration’s demand for “merit over DEI,” Harvard’s claims of “government overreach,” and the high-stakes battle over $9 billion in federal funding.
The “Red Flag”: 10 Months of Silence
The lawsuit, filed in a Boston federal court, alleges that Harvard has spent more than 10 months “slow-walking” and “thwarting” a federal compliance review. Under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ is demanding a trove of individualized applicant data to ensure the school hasn’t simply replaced explicit racial quotas with “subtle” ideological proxies.
-
The Demand: The DOJ wants five years of admissions data, including grades, test scores, essays, and internal correspondence related to “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) initiatives.
-
The “Red Flag”: Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Civil Rights Division, called the lack of cooperation a major warning sign. “If Harvard has stopped discriminating, it should happily share the data necessary to prove it,” Dhillon stated.
-
Title VI Violations: The DOJ argues that as a recipient of federal taxpayer money, Harvard is legally obligated to provide this data for compliance reviews under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The Defense: “Independence” vs. Oversight
Harvard has struck a defiant tone, characterizing the lawsuit as a “retaliatory” act by an administration hostile to elite academia.
-
The Statement: A Harvard spokesperson claimed the university has responded in “good faith” and accused the government of an “unlawful attempt to control its institutional autonomy and academic freedom.”
-
Constitutional Rights: Harvard argues that surrendering individualized applicant data violates privacy laws and constitutes an “ideological assault” on the university’s independence.
-
The History: This suit follows a year of friction, including a previous $2.7 billion freeze on Harvard’s research funding and threats of further fines totaling up to $1 billion.
The Merit Factor: Ending “Numerical Balancing”
The heart of the DOJ’s case rests on the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The administration is concerned that Harvard—which the Court previously found used race as a “negative factor” against Asian-American applicants—is still maintaining “numerical commitments” to racial balancing.
-
Merit over DEI: Attorney General Bondi emphasized that the goal is to ensure admissions are “free of discrimination.” The administration has signaled that universities can no longer use federal funds while simultaneously ignoring the nation’s highest court.
-
A National Trend: Harvard is not alone. The White House is reportedly pressing dozens of other universities for similar data, signaling a nationwide effort to dismantle “woke” admissions bureaucracies that prioritize identity over achievement.
The Money Trail: $9 Billion at Stake
The lawsuit is more than just a request for paperwork; it carries a massive financial threat. The Trump administration has already moved to terminate or freeze billions in research grants aimed at everything from cancer research to infectious diseases.
If the court finds Harvard in breach of its federal financial assistance terms, the school could face the permanent loss of nearly $9 billion in federal funding. Republicans in Congress have argued that if an institution refuses to be transparent with the taxpayers who fund it, it has no right to their money.
Final Word
Staying informed on the DOJ’s lawsuit against Harvard isn’t just about “culture war” headlines—it plays a powerful role in your understanding of the accountability of elite institutions. When you look past the claims of “retaliation” and focus on the data of a 10-month refusal to provide admissions records, you gain a clearer picture of the struggle to restore a true meritocracy.
Quality information replaces the noise of academic defensiveness with the clarity of civil rights law and Supreme Court mandates. It allows you to see this lawsuit as a necessary tool for ensuring that “equal protection” isn’t just a suggestion, but a requirement for any institution taking public money. By choosing to follow the facts of the DOJ filing rather than the spin of the Ivy League PR machine, you align your perspective with the realities of modern justice and support a more informed, resilient republic.
Where Facts, Context, and Perspective Matter
At The Modern Memo, our goal is simple: to provide clear, well-researched reporting in a media landscape that often feels overwhelming. We focus on substance over sensationalism, and context over commentary.
If you value thoughtful analysis, transparent sourcing, and stories that go beyond the headline, we invite you to share our work. Informed conversations start with reliable information, and sharing helps ensure important stories reach a wider audience.
Journalism works best when readers engage, question, and participate. By reading and sharing, you’re supporting a more informed public and a healthier media ecosystem.
The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change.
Subscribe to The Modern Memo here!
