A dramatic confrontation between Harvard University and the Trump administration over antisemitism policies may have stemmed from a mistaken letter, according to a New York Times report citing multiple sources familiar with the situation.
Harvard received a letter on April 11 from the White House’s antisemitism task force, containing a series of demands about hiring, admissions, and curriculum, terms that university officials deemed impossible to accept. A Trump administration official called Harvard days later to say the letter was “unauthorized” and “should not have been sent,” the NYT reported.
Despite the disavowal, the administration has since doubled down, threatening Harvard’s federal funding and tax-exempt status after the university publicly rejected the letter’s demands. A senior White House official, May Mailman, told the Times, “It was malpractice on the side of Harvard’s lawyers not to pick up the phone and call the members of the antisemitism task force whom they had been talking to for weeks. Instead, Harvard went on a victimhood campaign.”
The April 11 letter was reportedly signed by three top Trump officials — Josh Gruenbaum (General Services Administration), Thomas Wheeler (Department of Education), and Sean Keveney (Department of Health and Human Services). According to three sources cited by NYT, Keveney, who is also on the antisemitism task force, sent the letter.
While its contents were confirmed as authentic, confusion remains over why and how the letter was sent. Some within the White House said it may have been released prematurely, while others believed it was meant only for internal circulation among task force members, NTY reported.
The timing proved pivotal. In the weeks leading up to April 11, Harvard and the administration had been in ongoing dialogue about antisemitism on campus, hoping to avoid a public clash. But after receiving the letter and deeming its demands untenable, Harvard chose to go public.
That move prompted an escalation from the Trump administration. A senior White House official defended the letter and criticised Harvard for not continuing discussions privately.
The New York Times described the episode as a “tectonic battle” between one of America’s most elite institutions and the White House — one that may have been sparked by internal miscommunication.

File picture of U.S. President Donald Trump U.S. Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell during Trump’s first term as President
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Donald Trump’s simmering discontent with the U.S. Federal Reserve boiled over this week, with the president threatening to take the unprecedented step of ousting the head of the fiercely independent central bank.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he wants rate cuts now to help stimulate economic growth as he rolls out his tariff plans, and has threatened to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell if he does not comply, putting the bank and the White House on a collision course that analysts warn could destabilise U.S. financial markets.

“If I want him out, he’ll be out of there real fast, believe me,” Mr. Trump said Thursday, referring to Mr. Powell, whose second four-year stint as Fed chair ends in May 2026.

Mr. Powell has said he has no plans to step down early, adding this week that he considers the bank’s independence over monetary policy to be a “matter of law.”

Why rate cuts by the U.S. Federal Reserve matter to world markets

“Clearly, the fact that the Fed chairman feels that he has to address it means that they are serious,” KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk told AFP, referring to the White House.

Stephanie Roth, chief economist at Wolfe Research, said she thinks “they will come into conflict,” but does not think “that the Fed is going to succumb to the political pressure.”

Most economists agree that the administration’s tariff plans — which include a 10% “baseline” rate on imports from most countries — will put upward pressure on prices and cool economic growth, at least in the short term.

That would keep inflation well away from the Fed’s long-term target of 2%, and likely prevent policymakers from cutting rates in the next few months.

“They’re not going to react because Trump posted that they should be cutting,” Ms. Roth said in an interview, adding that doing so would be “a recipe for a disaster” for the U.S. economy.

Fed independence ‘absolutely critical’

Many legal scholars say the U.S. president does not have the power to fire the Fed chair or any of his colleagues on the bank’s 19-person rate-setting committee for any reason but cause.

The Fed system, created more than a century ago, is also designed to insulate the U.S. central bank from political interference.

“Independence is absolutely critical for the Fed,” said Ms. Roth. “Countries that do not have independent central banks have currencies that are notably weaker and interest rates that are notably higher.”

Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi told AFP that “we’ve had strong evidence that impairing central bank independence is a really bad idea.”

‘Can’t control the bond market’

One serious threat to the Fed’s independence comes from an ongoing case in which the Trump administration has indicated it will seek to challenge a 1935 Supreme Court decision denying the U.S. president the right to fire the heads of independent government agencies.

The case could have serious ramifications for the Fed, given its status as an independent agency whose leadership believes they cannot currently be fired by the president for any reason but cause.

Cracks emerge in GOP unity amid Trump trade war

But even if the Trump administration succeeds in court, it may soon run into the ultimate guardrail of Fed independence: The bond markets.

During the recent market turbulence unleashed by Mr. Trump’s tariff plans, U.S. government bond yields surged and the dollar fell, signaling that investors may not see the United States as the safe haven investment it once was.

Faced with the sharp rise in U.S. Treasury yields, the Trump administration paused its plans for higher tariffs against dozens of countries, a move that helped calm the financial markets.

If investors believed the Fed’s independence to tackle inflation was compromised, that would likely push up the yields on long-dated government bonds on the assumption that long-term inflation would be higher, and put pressure on the administration.

“You can’t control the bond market. And that’s the moral of the story,” said Ms. Swonk. “And that’s why you want an independent Fed.”