McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s crackdown on Harvard University and other colleges during a contentious appearance Tuesday on CNBC’s Squawk Box as she faced questions about the government’s decision to freeze universities’ federal funding.

Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen, the morning talk show’s hosts, grilled McMahon during the 12-minute segment about whether freezing billions in grants and contracts was due to valid civil rights concerns or unjustified political and ideological standards; they suggested it was the latter. (Harvard sued Monday over the funding freeze, which followed the university’s decision to reject the Trump administration’s sweeping demands.)

But McMahon reiterated that, for her, it was a matter of holding colleges accountable for antisemitism on campus—not an alleged liberal bias.

“I made it very clear these are not First Amendment infractions; this is civil rights,” she said. “This is making sure that students on all campuses can come and learn and be safe.”

Harvard argued in the lawsuit that some of the demands—like auditing faculty for viewpoint diversity—do not directly address antisemitism and infringe on the private institution’s First Amendment rights.

Sorkin echoed Harvard’s argument during the interview and questioned McMahon about the lawsuit’s claims.

“The question is whether viewpoint diversity is really about free speech,” he said. 

In defense, McMahon said that “this letter [of demands] that was sent to Harvard was a point of negotiation … and it was really not a final offer.” She added that she hoped Harvard would come back to the table. (Trump officials told The New York Times that the April 11 letter was sent by mistake.)

“We would like to be able to move forward with them and other universities,” she said.

McMahon later reiterated her argument that this was a civil rights matter and said, “I think we’re on very solid grounds” regarding the lawsuit.

But Kernen countered that requiring universities to hire conservative faculty members is just as bad as historically maintaining liberal ones, calling the act “thought control.”

“It’s the other side of the same coin, isn’t it?” he said.

McMahon said it’s fair to take a look at some faculty members.

Near the end of the interview, Sorkin asked McMahon about her end goal if universities lose their federal funding and tax-exempt status. (The IRS is reportedly reviewing Harvard’s tax-exemption.)

“We have not said that the tax exemption should be taken away, but I think it’s worth having a look at,” McMahon said. “I think the president has put all the tools on the table and we should have the ability to utilize all of those particular tools.”