LEGAL ANALYSIS
Harvard Crackdown
Jackson Witty | Thursday, May 22nd, 2025
Edited by: Cole Ritchie
In a move that escalates long-standing tensions between the Trump administration and elite universities, the federal officials are taking aim at Harvard’s ability to accept international students.
Photo via iStock
In a move that escalates long-standing tensions between the Trump administration and elite universities, the federal officials are taking aim at Harvard’s ability to accept international students. Head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, wrote in a letter to Harvard stating – “I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked” (obtained by The New York Times).
The action strikes at a key pillar of Harvard’s funding model: its global base of tuition-paying students and foreign donors.
Historically, a large portion (roughly 25%) of the university’s external donations has come from abroad – including foreign nationals and even some foreign governments. Restricting international enrollment could have ripple effects not only in the classroom, but also in the university’s financial and diplomatic relationships.
But this move goes beyond just funding – in a follow up news release the Department of Homeland security sent a message to Harvard – “This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
The move threatens not only Harvard’s future, but also the futures of international students – many of whom have no say in the matter.
Interested in reading the full timeline? You can find it here.
This move is expected to trigger a legal challenge from Harvard, making it the second time the institution has taken to the courts since Trump started his second term. The first came in response to the administration attempting to limit in-person teaching methods and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programming.
But how will this case likely go down?
If history is any indication, they may find support in the courts. In 2020, the university, alongside MIT, successfully challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to bar international students from staying in the U.S. if their coursework was fully online. That case, decided in federal court, was struck down on the grounds that the policy was rushed, lacked a clear legal basis, and created unnecessary harm.
Here, the revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) certification appears to lack that grounding. If challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act, Harvard could argue that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, issued without proper notice, and motivated by political antagonism rather than legitimate policy goals. Courts have historically been reluctant to let agencies like DHS exercise sweeping powers without clear congressional authorization. Especially when constitutional interests (such as academic freedom and equal protection) may be implicated.
In a move that escalates long-standing tensions between the Trump administration and elite universities, the federal officials are taking aim at Harvard’s ability to accept international students. Head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, wrote in a letter to Harvard stating – “I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked” (obtained by The New York Times).
The action strikes at a key pillar of Harvard’s funding model: its global base of tuition-paying students and foreign donors.
Historically, a large portion (roughly 25%) of the university’s external donations has come from abroad – including foreign nationals and even some foreign governments. Restricting international enrollment could have ripple effects not only in the classroom, but also in the university’s financial and diplomatic relationships.
But this move goes beyond just funding – in a follow up news release the Department of Homeland security sent a message to Harvard – “This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”
The move threatens not only Harvard’s future, but also the futures of international students – many of whom have no say in the matter.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Administrative Procedure Act can be summarized as the following – “The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. It includes requirements for publishing notices of proposed and final rulemaking in the Federal Register, and provides opportunities for the public to comment on notices of proposed rulemaking. The APA requires most rules to have a 30-day delayed effective date.”
Another great article explaining the Act is found here.
Beyond procedural concerns, Harvard may also raise constitutional and diplomatic arguments – claiming that the decision not only disrupts protected university autonomy but undermines long-standing relationships with international governments and donors.
In short: I believe that this will, almost immediately, get blocked by federal courts. Revoking the rights of international students – seemingly as a political swipe at a single university – feels not just legally flimsy, but dangerously shortsighted. Beyond the courtroom, this is just a bad strategy. The U.S. is known for innovation, for cultivating top talent, for being the place where ideas turn into industries. We might be lagging in other metrics, but students from across the world still dream of attending Harvard, or at least an American university with global credibility. Pushing away those minds is a terrible idea.
Update:
As of 5-23-25, a federal judge in Boston, Allison D. Burroughs, has issued a temporary restraining order against the Department of Homeland Security, blocking its revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification. In her ruling, Judge Burroughs wrote that the administration’s action “would cause immediate and irreparable injury,” siding with the university’s argument that the decision lacked sufficient justification and disproportionately harmed international students.
In the letter submitted to the court – Harvard president, Dr. Alan M. Garber wrote “This revocation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Garber’s letter emphasized both the critical role of international students in Harvard’s academic community and the broader constitutional stakes. He described the administration’s move not simply as institutional punishment, but as a political incursion into the classroom – an effort that, in his words, places fundamental academic freedoms “under fire.”
Review:
My initial guess, that Harvard would invoke the Administrative Procedure Act, was correct. What I didn’t anticipate was how effectively they would tie this case to earlier efforts by the administration to reach into the classroom. I hadn’t considered that they’d frame it as a pattern of retaliation or a broader attack on academic freedom. It’s a clever legal strategy, one that edges toward a kind of “cover-up” narrative – without needing to call it that outright.
The use of the Due Process Clause makes total sense in hindsight. Denying Harvard and its international students sufficient time to respond or adapt is a textbook example of procedural unfairness. It’s hard to argue that stripping legal status with immediate effect doesn’t violate basic rights!
Overall, I’m satisfied with my read on the case – and even more interested now to see how it unfolds. Trump recently said, “We will win this, no matter what it takes.” But in this fight, it’s hard to beat the Constitution.