The Trump administration intensified its battle with Harvard University on Thursday, revoking the storied college’s ability to enroll foreign students and demanding that any such current students transfer elsewhere for the next academic year or lose their visas.
The decision was laid out in a letter from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to Harvard’s director of immigration services, Maureen Martin.
Noem declared that it was a “privilege” for an educational institution to be able to enroll international students.
She further contended that Harvard had lost this privilege because, she said, it had refused to comply with requests from her department for information, perpetuated “an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students,” and had employed “racist” diversity equity and inclusion policies.
Those charges were a reminder of the broader struggle between the Trump administration and Harvard.
Harvard leadership believes the Trump administration wants to eviscerate the college’s academic freedom. The college also says it takes the issue of antisemitism seriously.
When the conflict between President Trump and the college first flared, Harvard President Alan Garber asserted that the Trump administration was seeking to “impose unprecedented and improper control over the University.”
Garber also said that Harvard had a “moral imperative” as well as a “legal obligation” to fight back against such an effort.
Here are five major takeaways from the latest developments.
Trump is seeking to throttle Harvard’s revenue
The administration’s battle with Harvard has escalated rapidly since it sent a letter to Harvard on April 11 insisting on a list of expansive demands, including an audit of faculty and the student body, purportedly to ensure “viewpoint diversity”; steps toward “meaningful governance reform”; and “reducing the power held by faculty … and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship.”
When Harvard announced soon afterward that it would not comply with those demands, the administration moved to cancel more than $2 billion in research grants as well as $60 million in contracts.
Earlier this month, it followed up with another letter, this time from Education Secretary Linda McMahon, imposing “the end of new grants for the University.”
Income from foreign students is important for many universities, in part because a very high proportion of those students pay for tuition. Almost 7,000 students, around 27 percent of Harvard’s current student body, come from outside the United States.
However, Harvard is also in a highly unusual position because of its huge endowment.
Harvard’s financial report on fiscal 2024 noted that education revenues, whether from foreign or American students, constituted just 21 percent of its operating revenue.
The same report valued its endowment at $53.2 billion.
Trump sees political advantage in the fight
The president is loath to back down from any confrontation.
It is clear that he and his allies believe they can wring a political dividend from the fight with Harvard.
The broad framing of the issue from MAGA World is that Harvard and other elite colleges are bastions of far-left thought and quasi-subversive activity.
This, combined with the massive endowments many of those institutions enjoy, can be used by Team Trump to paint the colleges as unworthy recipients of taxpayers’ dollars.
Harvard, the nation’s oldest and most famous university, makes for a particularly inviting target.
Of course, the college and many others in the academic world and beyond see the issue completely differently — as President Trump trying to intimidate academia itself and bring potential dissenters to heel.
But the Trump argument plainly will have some sway with his loyal base, among which Americans who have never gone to any college are heavily represented.
Harvard is not backing down either
Harvard has been willing to resist the Trump administration’s pressure from the start — a stance that has marked it out from other institutions, notably Columbia University, which in effect caved to the White House.
The willingness to mix it up has drawn escalating ire from the president. But it has also won Harvard plaudits from those who believe it is making a principled stand.
It is continuing to maintain that stance in the wake of Thursday’s announcement.
In a statement, Harvard stated starkly, “The government’s action is unlawful.”
It added that the college was “fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University — and this nation — immeasurably.”
The final point may find a broader resonance.
As with the revocation of grant money, the argument can be made that the attempt to push international students out in effect could deprive the United States of the innovators and entrepreneurs of the future.
There is also a more localized effect on the community surrounding Harvard. Reuters, citing figures from an association of international educators, reported that international students at Harvard spent an estimated $384 million in total in the 2023-2024 school year.
The move comes right after a tragedy
The new Trump blast at Harvard is, as noted, partly about an alleged failure to combat antisemitism. The college vigorously denies this.
But the debate over antisemitism has been sharpened by the killing of two staff members from the Israeli Embassy in Washington on Wednesday night.
Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Milgrim, 26, were shot and killed outside an event at the Capital Jewish Museum. The couple was soon to be engaged.
Elias Rodriguez, who was formally charged with the murders on Thursday, appears to harbor pro-Palestinian sympathies.
Israel’s war on Gaza has drawn widespread protests, and the protesters often believe the charge of antisemitism is unfairly leveled to delegitimize their viewpoints.
But the double murder in Washington has already made the conversation over anti-Jewish prejudice much more pointed.
Free speech activists and Democrats are outraged
While some Trump supporters are cheering him on in the fight, opposition from Democrats, Trump critics and free-speech advocates is at least as vigorous.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the former head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote on social media that Trump’s move was “dangerous and unlawful.”
She added it was “nothing more than a wannabe dictator trying to bully people into silence.”
Bill Kristol, the neoconservative commentator and frequent Trump critic, contended that “Most foreigners at Harvard grasp American principles better than most senior officials in the Trump administration.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) blasted the administration’s move as “retaliatory and unlawful” as well as “un-American.”
FIRE took particular exception to a Trump administration demand that Harvard produce video and audio footage of any campus demonstration in which international students were involved.
The organization said this request was a “sweeping fishing expedition” that was “gravely alarming.”
