Trump Administration Bans Harvard from Enrolling International Students Forcing Foreign Students to Transfer or Lose Legal Status

The Trump administration delivered a dramatic blow to Harvard University on Thursday by revoking its ability to enroll international students, a move that upends the futures of thousands of foreign scholars and deepens the ongoing political battle between the White House and one of America’s most prestigious academic institutions. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem, announced that Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification has been terminated due to the university’s refusal to comply with federal demands to hand over conduct records of foreign students, a request made last month.

As a result, Harvard can no longer accept new international students, and all current foreign students must either transfer to other certified institutions or face the loss of their legal status in the United States.

The ramifications are immediate and severe for Harvard’s international community, which comprises nearly 27.2% of its total enrollment for the 2024-25 academic year—roughly 6,793 international students. Many find themselves in legal and academic limbo, scrambling to determine their next steps amid fears of disrupted education, uncertain visa statuses, and lost financial aid.

The move has drawn widespread condemnation from academics, alumni, and foreign governments alike, who view the action as a politically motivated punishment that threatens the university’s core mission and America’s global standing as a hub of higher education and innovation.

In an official statement, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem cited Harvard’s failure to cooperate with the government’s requests, accusing the institution of perpetuating a hostile campus environment marked by “anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators,” and “racist ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ practices.”

The White House echoed these accusations, framing the enrollment of foreign students as a privilege rather than a right, and castigating Harvard’s leadership for what it claims is a refusal to address these “widespread problems” impacting American students. 

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated, “They have repeatedly failed to take action to address the widespread problems negatively impacting American students and now they must face the consequences of their actions.”

This punitive action marks the latest escalation in a months-long confrontation between the Trump administration and Harvard, stemming from demands that the university overhaul campus policies, programming, and admissions practices to root out perceived antisemitism and eliminate diversity initiatives labeled as “racist” by the administration.

The conflict intensified after Harvard’s response to pro-Palestinian protests related to the Israel-Hamas war drew sharp criticism from Jewish students and alumni, prompting the administration to scrutinize the university’s international students and staff believed to be involved in campus activism.

Harvard officials vehemently reject the government’s characterization and legal basis for the SEVP revocation. University spokesperson Jason Newton condemned the move as “unlawful” and “retaliatory,” emphasizing Harvard’s “full commitment to maintaining its ability to host international students and scholars who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably.”

Newton warned that the decision “threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”

The university’s international student body, many of whom have dedicated their lives to gaining admission to Harvard, reacted with shock and uncertainty. Austrian rising junior Karl Molden expressed deep anxiety about the possibility of being forced to transfer and the risks to his visa and financial aid.

“Many of us have worked our entire lives to get to a university like Harvard, and now we need to wait around and see if we might have to transfer out and face difficulties with visas,” Molden said. He described the situation as international students being “used as a play ball in this larger fight between democracy and authoritarianism,” reflecting on his European background and concerns about the erosion of democratic norms.

Academic staff warn that expelling such a significant portion of foreign students would cripple Harvard’s intellectual capital and diminish American academic leadership globally. Harvard economics professor and former Obama administration official Jason Furman described the decision as “horrendous on every level,” stressing that international students are integral to innovation and the broader U.S. economy.

“Higher education is one of America’s great exports and a key source of our soft power,” Furman remarked, urging swift legal intervention to prevent further damage. Other professors fear that if the policy proceeds, many research labs and academic programs dependent on international talent will be devastated.

Australia’s ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd, also weighed in, highlighting concerns for Australian students affected by the decision and assuring consular support as the situation unfolds.

The American Association of University Professors’ Harvard chapter issued a forceful statement condemning what it called “the Trump administration’s unconstitutional assault on our international students,” labeling the SEVP revocation an expansion of the administration’s broader campaign against foreign students and scholars in the United States. The group underscored the essential role international students play within the Harvard community and across U.S. academia.

The political context of this conflict is critical. Harvard has been one of several elite institutions targeted by the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which it accuses of fostering divisiveness and harboring anti-American sentiment. Harvard responded by making some policy adjustments, including renaming its Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging to Community and Campus Life.

Nevertheless, Noem’s letter to Harvard lambasted the university for continuing to “perpetuate an unsafe campus environment hostile to Jewish students” while promoting “pro-Hamas sympathies” and maintaining “racist ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ practices,” notably omitting reference to Muslim or Arab students.

This confrontation also involves significant financial stakes. The Trump administration has frozen $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard—a move currently challenged in court—and the Internal Revenue Service is reportedly considering revoking the university’s tax-exempt status, signaling the administration’s intent to escalate punitive measures if Harvard does not capitulate.

Secretary Noem warned other universities that Harvard’s treatment is a “warning” to those who do not “get your act together.”

The fallout from this policy threatens to redefine the landscape of American higher education at a time when global academic competition is fierce. International students contribute billions to the U.S. economy annually, foster cultural exchange, and play a vital role in scientific research and innovation. Restricting their participation not only imperils individual academic careers but risks diminishing the United States’ global standing in science, technology, and higher education.

For Harvard, an institution renowned for its internationalism and academic excellence, the Trump administration’s action represents a fundamental challenge to its mission and values. As thousands of students and scholars face an uncertain future, the university’s fight to retain its SEVP certification has become a symbol of broader tensions between government authority and academic freedom, national security concerns and multicultural inclusivity, political ideology and the pursuit of knowledge.

In the coming weeks, legal battles and public debates are expected to intensify as Harvard seeks to restore its ability to enroll international students and maintain its diverse academic community. The eyes of the world will be watching, as this case highlights the high stakes of politicizing education and immigration in an era of deep ideological division and global uncertainty.