U.S. House Committee Subpoenas Harvard Over Tuition, Financial Aid Practices
The United States House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to Harvard University, escalating an ongoing investigation into whether the Ivy League institution—and others like it—engaged in collusive practices in setting tuition fees and financial aid packages, in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The committee, chaired by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, is seeking internal documents and communications that may reveal coordinated efforts among elite universities to fix prices or engage in “perfect price discrimination” to maximize revenue.
This action follows a months-long inquiry launched earlier in April 2025, when the committee formally requested that Harvard and several other prestigious universities submit records related to tuition pricing strategies, financial aid policies, partnerships with organizations like the College Board and Common Application, and any affiliation with the now-defunct “568 Presidents Group.” That group, made up of several top universities, had previously been accused of aligning on admissions and financial aid practices, raising legal and ethical questions about competition and access in higher education.
According to lawmakers, Harvard failed to meet the initial deadline to comply with the document request and later submitted only a limited volume of materials. Reports indicate that Harvard’s production amounted to fewer than 400 pages—most of which were already publicly available—despite several deadline extensions. Committee members, frustrated by what they viewed as deliberate non-compliance, responded by issuing a subpoena to compel full cooperation.
The university has now been ordered to provide all relevant documents by the end of July.
Harvard, for its part, has pushed back strongly against the subpoena. In a statement, university spokesperson Jason Newton described the committee’s action as “unwarranted, unfair, and unnecessary,” arguing that the institution has been engaging with the investigation in good faith and has already supplied thousands of pages of documentation. Newton insisted there is “no basis for an allegation of collusion,” and criticized what he called a politically motivated effort to undermine the integrity of American higher education.
The investigation comes amid a broader political climate in which elite universities have come under increased scrutiny from Republican lawmakers. Alongside tuition practices, institutions like Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown University have also faced pressure over issues ranging from campus antisemitism to how they handle federal funding and student admissions. Some Democrats have criticized the committee’s work as politically driven, accusing its members of continuing former President Donald Trump’s ideological campaign against elite academic institutions.
Nonetheless, the Judiciary Committee’s inquiry has gained traction, with additional subpoenas issued to other Ivy League schools. These institutions have been asked to turn over a wide range of internal records by July 22, as Congress explores potential legislative reforms that could reshape the governance of financial aid and admissions in American higher education.
Antitrust experts and education economists remain divided on the issue. Some, like Wellesley College’s Phillip Levine, argue that while Ivy League schools do engage in highly coordinated pricing strategies, those practices often serve to expand access to low- and middle-income students rather than suppress competition. Others contend that closed-door agreements—if proven—would represent a serious violation of antitrust norms.
As the House committee prepares for the next phase of its probe, all eyes will be on Harvard and its response. The outcome of this investigation could have far-reaching implications, potentially affecting how universities structure tuition, distribute aid, and collaborate on policy in the years to come.
