Following up on my previous posts (links below):  New York Times, A Stephen Miller Staffer and Tough Talk: Inside Trump’s Latest Attack on Harvard:

The Justice Department opened an investigation into the student-run Harvard Law Review. The startling accusations show how the Trump administration is wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda.

The Justice Department quietly approached Harvard University last month with startling claims, even by the extraordinary standards of the Trump administration’s monthslong assault on the elite college.

The department signaled that it was reviewing claims of discrimination against white men at The Harvard Law Review, and accused the renowned publication of destroying evidence in an open investigation. The administration demanded that Harvard “cease and desist” from interfering.

In a series of letters that have not been previously reported, the government also disclosed that it had a “cooperating witness” inside the student-run journal. That witness now works in the White House under Stephen Miller, the architect of the administration’s domestic policy agenda, Trump officials confirmed.

The Law Review is independent of Harvard University. The allegations nonetheless deepened fears among Harvard officials that the administration appeared eager to escalate one of its civil investigations into a criminal inquiry, underscoring how the university’s problems with President Trump extend far beyond the loss of billions in federal funding. …

The Justice Department’s not-so-subtle threats helped persuade The Law Review to agree to at least some of the government’s demands, which were delivered in three letters within 10 days in May.

A detail not included in the correspondence: The Justice Department’s “cooperating witness” had taken a job inside the White House.

While the White House has cast the witness as a whistle-blower, his identity has been known to many of those involved in the matter. The witness, Daniel Wasserman, was identified as a government cooperator in two of the letters to Harvard University from the Justice Department last month, when he was still an editor at The Harvard Law Review. And other staff members of The Law Review have also known of his identity.

In April, he had told classmates and others that he had applied to work for Mr. Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy. The White House confirmed that Mr. Wasserman was offered a job on April 25, the same day that accusations of discrimination at the journal first surfaced in a conservative media report, and that his first day of work was May 22.

The letters were sent by the Justice Department to the university, rather than to The Law Review, and were dated May 13, May 21 and May 23.

Mr. Wasserman, who has a bachelor’s degree from Yale and a master’s from the University of Cambridge, graduated from Harvard Law School on Wednesday.

A senior administration official said that Mr. Wasserman’s résumé was on the White House’s radar long before the Justice Department’s investigation into The Law Review and that his hiring was not connected to the government’s inquiry. Mr. Miller was not involved in the hiring and did not meet Mr. Wasserman until he started working in the White House, the official said. …

Legal experts said it was highly unusual for an administration to give a cooperating witness in an ongoing investigation a White House job.

Aaron Sibarium (Washington Free Beacon), CYA: Harvard Law Review Editors Spin New Narrative About Racial Preferences in Wake of Free Beacon Reports:

A month after the Trump administration began investigating the Harvard Law Review over allegations of race discrimination, the journal published a “factsheet” purporting to set the record straight.

Referencing “recent news reports” that led to the investigation, the factsheet, published May 27, claimed that the Washington Free Beacon had “mischaracterized” the admissions process for student editors, half of whom are selected by a “holistic review committee” that in 2021 made the inclusion of “underrepresented groups” its “first priority.”

That language came from a so-called transition resolution passed by journal editors. The factsheet claimed that such resolutions are “not binding” and proceeded to quote from what it claimed were the current guidelines for editor selection, noting that they “closely follow” the guidance set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action.

The quoted policy—which does not appear in the journal’s operating manual or anywhere else on its website—says that the law review “may not consider race or any other protected characteristic for its own sake.” It will only consider how race affected an applicant’s life and leadership qualities.

But according to new evidence unearthed by the Free Beacon, that policy appears to have been implemented ex post facto in an attempt to shield the journal from liability. In a statement announcing the factsheet, Harvard Law Review president G. Terrell Seabrooks said it was being published in “the spirit of openness and transparency.” But when the Free Beacon asked three current and former editors about the policy quoted in the factsheet, none of them were familiar with it.

Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:

• Pervasive Pattern Of Racial Discrimination At Harvard Law Review (Apr. 28, 2025)
• Trump Administration Investigates Harvard Law Review For Racial Discrimination (Apr. 29, 2025)
• Harvard Law Review Hunts For Leaker Of Racial Discrimination Practices (May 2, 2025)
• Harvard Law Review Asked Prospective Editors To Disclose Their Race Days After It Was Hit With Civil Rights Probes (May 5, 2025)
• Harvard Law Review Forcefully Denies Racial Discrimination Accusations That Sparked Federal Inquiry (May 30, 2025)

Editor’s Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.