A whistleblower editor exposed Harvard Law Review’s racial bias and was allegedly ordered to destroy evidence during a federal investigation.
At a Glance
- Harvard Law Review allegedly retaliated against editor Daniel Wasserman for leaking internal documents
- The journal instructed him to request destruction of materials under federal retention order
- The DOJ accused the journal of retaliatory conduct and evidence tampering
- Harvard Law Review retracted its reprimand only after DOJ intervention
- Wasserman has since been hired by the Trump administration
A Legal Institution Under Fire
The Harvard Law Review is at the center of a growing federal scandal after allegedly instructing student editor Daniel Wasserman to seek the destruction of documents under investigation by the Department of Justice. The documents in question, reportedly shared with the Washington Free Beacon, revealed racially preferential practices in the Law Review’s editorial selections.
According to detailed reports and official letters from the DOJ, the journal’s actions may constitute obstruction of justice. The DOJ confirmed Wasserman was a cooperating witness and explicitly warned Harvard not to retaliate against him. Yet, the Law Review issued a formal reprimand just one day later, accusing him of breaching internal confidentiality.
Watch a report: Trump White House Hires Harvard Law Whistleblower.
That reprimand was later retracted on May 27, after the DOJ’s letter surfaced, with the Law Review claiming ignorance of Wasserman’s protected role—despite his name being mentioned directly. Critics argue that such a response betrays either alarming incompetence or willful misconduct by those overseeing the journal.
DOJ Probes Racial Discrimination Claims
At the heart of the scandal are claims that the Law Review selected editors and published articles based in part on the racial identity of candidates and authors—practices that may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Washington Free Beacon published internal records appearing to confirm race was explicitly considered during editorial decisions.
Federal agencies including the DOJ, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services have launched parallel investigations to determine whether Harvard’s prestigious journal violated federal non-discrimination policies, especially as the university continues to receive substantial federal funding.
This is not the first time Harvard has drawn scrutiny. In 2020, the Trump administration slashed $550 million in federal funds from the university, partly due to concerns over discriminatory practices within elite academic circles.
Whistleblower’s Reward?
Just days after his reprimand, Wasserman accepted a position in the Trump administration, working under Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller. According to confirmation by the White House, his hiring was coincidental with the DOJ’s letter but not influenced by it. Still, the move sparked headlines and raised eyebrows about the political implications of whistleblowing in academia.
While Harvard contends that the Law Review operates independently, federal investigators may not accept that as sufficient legal insulation. As a pending review unfolds, many are watching to see whether elite institutions will be held to the same standards they often preach to the public.
The case raises serious questions: Is accountability possible when it threatens the reputations of America’s most powerful academic gatekeepers? And what message does this send to the next generation of legal minds about justice, ethics, and the rule of law?
