A Harvard Law Review student editor was formally reprimanded and pressured to destroy leaked internal documents after sharing them with a conservative news outlet. This came amid federal investigations into alleged race-based discrimination at the Law Review. The Justice Department intervened, demanding the reprimand and document-destruction orders be rescinded.
The Harvard Law Review issued the reprimand on May 22 after identifying student Daniel Wasserman as the source of internal emails leaked to the Washington Free Beacon. The documents had triggered investigations by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and Health & Human Services. On May 20, the Law Review instructed Wasserman to “request that any parties with whom you have shared Confidential Materials … delete or return them,” aligning with a document retention order in place from federal authorities.
Federal law protects witnesses from retaliation. The Justice Department notified Harvard on May 13 of its probe into discriminatory practices at the Law Review. Two days after the document recovery demand, the journal issued a formal reprimand—labeling Wasserman’s conduct as policy violations and warning of further discipline.
On May 27, following federal pressure, the Law Review officially rescinded the reprimand and withdrew the destruction directive. The Justice Department labeled the earlier actions as potential witness intimidation and a violation of legal protections. Legal experts have described the journal’s initial response as “verging on witness intimidation” and reflective of deeper concern over potential obstruction.
Harvard Law Review leadership later claimed it was unaware of Wasserman’s role as a cooperating witness at the time the reprimand was issued. However, the Justice Department had already identified him by name in its May 21 letter—raising questions about whether the leadership “knew or should have known” of his protected status.
This incident unfolded alongside probes into allegations that the Law Review used race as a selection factor in both article publication and staff appointments, following the original Free Beacon report
