Senate Democrats Demand Investigation Into Harvard Tax Move
Schumer letter warns Trump’s tax action threatens all nonprofits, violates federal law
Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have demanded an immediate Treasury Department investigation into President Donald Trump’s announcement that his administration will revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status. In a strongly worded letter sent Friday to Acting Treasury Inspector General Heather Hill, the senators called the action “illegal and unconstitutional” and warned it could establish a dangerous precedent threatening thousands of nonprofit organizations nationwide.
The urgent request for investigation came hours after Trump declared on Truth Social: “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” The move marks the latest escalation in an extraordinary confrontation between the White House and America’s oldest university, which previously saw the administration freeze over $2.2 billion in Harvard’s federal research funding.
Senators Warn of Criminal Violations
The letter, co-signed by Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Massachusetts Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, specifically requests an investigation into “potential criminal activity” related to the decision. The senators cited federal law that prohibits presidents from directly or indirectly ordering IRS investigations or audits of specific taxpayers.
“It is both illegal and unconstitutional for the IRS to take direction from the President to target schools, hospitals, churches, or any other tax-exempt entities as retribution for using their free speech rights,” the senators wrote. They characterized the action as an attempt to “extort” Harvard and warned about potential broader implications.
The senators expressed particular concern that while Harvard has resources to fight the action, smaller nonprofits would be vulnerable to similar tactics. “Churches and synagogues, non-profit hospitals and clinics, charter and private schools, and any others that land on the President’s target list will be forced to relinquish their free speech rights in order to remain in existence,” they wrote in their letter to the Treasury Inspector General.
Experts Cite Legal Prohibitions
Legal scholars have emphasized that federal statutes explicitly prevent presidents from directing tax enforcement actions. The Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act of 1998, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support including a 96-2 Senate vote, created a firewall between the president and IRS tax enforcement decisions.
“If Mr. Trump instructed the IRS to remove Harvard’s tax exemption, ‘that runs exactly contrary to law,'” explained Sam Brunson, a tax law expert at Loyola University Chicago, in comments to CBS News. Other scholars, including Michael Graetz of Yale Law School, noted that using the tax system as political retribution threatens fundamental principles of government impartiality.
The White House has contended that any IRS action would be conducted independently of the president. A spokesperson previously told CBS News, “Any forthcoming actions by the IRS will be conducted independently of the President, and investigations into any institution’s violations of its tax status were initiated prior” to Trump’s social media statements about Harvard.
Historical Precedents Raise Questions
The conflict evokes historical cases of presidents attempting to weaponize the IRS, which led to the 1998 legal restrictions. As NPR reports, “John F. Kennedy directed the agency to investigate right-wing groups and Richard Nixon tried to use it to target and investigate his political opponents with audits.”
The senators’ letter specifically addresses this history, warning that the current situation represents exactly the kind of political weaponization of tax enforcement that Congress aimed to prevent. They characterized the threatened revocation as an “organizational death sentence” being wielded for “blatantly political purposes.”
Legal experts have questioned whether the Harvard situation meets the standards established in the 1983 Supreme Court case involving Bob Jones University – the only major precedent for revoking a university’s tax-exempt status. In that instance, the Court upheld the IRS’s decision because Bob Jones maintained explicit policies prohibiting interracial dating.
Harvard Warns of Broader Consequences
Harvard has maintained the action lacks legal merit and would harm its educational mission. A university spokesperson told ABC News the revocation “would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation.”
The university called the potential action “unprecedented” and warned it “would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” Harvard previously sued the administration over its freeze of federal research funding, arguing the action violated constitutional principles and federal law.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan free speech organization, has also raised concerns about the broader implications. FIRE warned that “threatening to strip a university of its tax-exempt status based on its expression — or that of faculty, staff, or students — sets a dangerous precedent” that could threaten foundational principles of academic freedom and nonprofit independence.
