On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education escalated its ongoing dispute with Columbia University by initiating proceedings to revoke the institution's accreditation over allegations of antisemitism and violations of federal civil rights laws. This move, spearheaded by Education Secretary Linda McMahon under the Trump administration, marks a significant intensification of pressure on the Ivy League school, which has already faced the withdrawal of approximately $400 million in federal funding since March.
The controversy centers on findings from a joint investigation by the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights. These agencies concluded that Columbia University "acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students," thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The harassment reportedly began after the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched attacks on Israel, triggering a prolonged and deadly conflict that has deeply affected communities worldwide, including on American university campuses.
Secretary McMahon condemned Columbia's leadership for failing to protect Jewish students against "severe and pervasive harassment," stating that the university's actions were both "immoral" and "unlawful." In a formal letter to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), Columbia's accreditor, McMahon asserted that the university "no longer appears to meet the Commission's accreditation standards" because of its alleged violations. She emphasized the vital role accreditors play as "gatekeepers of federal student aid," which includes determining eligibility for federal student loans and Pell Grants.
Columbia University responded promptly to the Education Department's announcement, acknowledging awareness of the concerns raised by the OCR and affirming that it had addressed them directly with MSCHE. A university spokesperson reiterated Columbia's commitment to combating antisemitism on campus and its ongoing cooperation with federal authorities. Meanwhile, MSCHE confirmed receipt of the Department of Education's notification but declined further comment.
The roots of this conflict trace back to earlier this year when the Trump administration first pulled $400 million in federal funding from Columbia, citing the university's inadequate response to antisemitic harassment. In response, Columbia implemented several measures demanded by the White House, including reorganizing its Middle Eastern studies department and imposing stricter sanctions on students and alumni involved in pro-Palestine protests. Despite these efforts, the administration's actions suggest that these concessions have not sufficed to satisfy federal concerns.
Adding to the complexity, Columbia's campus has remained a hotbed of activism. In May 2025, students staged protests against the war in Gaza, echoing similar demonstrations from the previous year. These ongoing tensions underscore the challenging environment the university faces, balancing free speech, political expression, and the protection of vulnerable student populations.
The Department of Education's statement clarified that accreditors are required to notify institutions of any noncompliance with federal laws and to work with them to develop corrective plans. Should a university fail to comply within a specified timeframe, accreditors must take "appropriate action," which can include revoking accreditation. However, experts note that losing accreditation is a rare and lengthy process, as institutions typically negotiate compliance measures to avoid such outcomes.
Indeed, if Columbia were to lose its accreditation, it would face the loss of access to federal student aid funds, a devastating blow to its operations and reputation. Yet, MSCHE's established procedures involve reviewing evidence and allowing the university to demonstrate corrective actions before making any final decisions. Columbia is concurrently engaged in ongoing negotiations with the federal government to resolve these issues, suggesting that any accreditation decision will be preceded by thorough review and dialogue.
Secretary McMahon's letter also hinted at broader implications for other prestigious universities, notably Harvard, which is embroiled in its own legal battles with the Trump administration over allegations of antisemitism and compliance with federal regulations. The letter referenced President Trump's executive order on "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," underscoring the administration's intent to enforce stricter oversight of universities nationwide.
President Trump himself has publicly criticized Columbia and other institutions for what he perceives as their failure to protect Jewish students amid the war in Gaza and related campus protests. His administration's aggressive stance on higher education accreditation reflects a broader political agenda targeting universities' handling of sensitive issues related to free speech, discrimination, and campus safety.
Columbia's acting president, Claire Shipman, has indicated that despite the funding cuts and administrative pressures, the university is striving to resume its research projects and maintain academic standards. However, the university has already had to cut 180 staff positions funded by federal grants, highlighting the tangible impact of the federal funding freeze.
This unfolding saga places Columbia University at the center of a contentious national debate over antisemitism, academic freedom, and the federal government's role in regulating higher education. As the process moves forward, all eyes will be on MSCHE's response and Columbia's efforts to address the federal government's concerns, which will likely set precedents for other universities navigating similar allegations.
Ultimately, the outcome will hinge on whether Columbia can convincingly demonstrate compliance with federal civil rights laws and satisfy accreditation standards. Until then, the university remains under intense scrutiny, caught between political pressures and its commitment to fostering an inclusive, safe academic environment.
