Trump administration bans Harvard from enrolling international students

Trump’s crackdown targets Harvard’s global enrollment, escalating political and legal tensions over academic freedom.

A tourist takes a photo in Harvard Yard on May 2, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo by John Tlumacki/Getty Images

By Hayu Andini and Clarisa Sendy

Harvard University is facing one of the most aggressive actions yet from the Trump administration as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced on Thursday that the university is officially barred from enrolling international students. This move, which affects roughly 27% of Harvard’s current student population, forces foreign students already enrolled to transfer or risk deportation, while also preventing new international students and transfers from matriculating.

The measure comes amid a broader campaign by the Trump administration against elite academic institutions it accuses of harboring antisemitism and resisting federal oversight. Harvard, long considered the crown jewel of American higher education, finds itself at the center of a growing legal and political firestorm. Trump bans Harvard international students now encapsulates a sweeping confrontation over academic freedom, civil rights, and immigration policy.

Legal implications and financial pressure

In addition to banning international enrollment, the administration has frozen more than $2.6 billion in federal funding to Harvard and is threatening to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status. While Harvard has already filed a lawsuit challenging the funding freeze — a case scheduled for July — legal experts believe this latest escalation adds significant urgency for the university to act more decisively.

“Because it directly affects the ability of students to enroll or remain enrolled at Harvard, I think they’ll seek a temporary restraining order and I think they’ll receive one,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

A temporary restraining order (TRO), according to Chemerinsky and others, may be the most effective tool to prevent immediate disruption to the upcoming academic year. It would halt the enforcement of Homeland Security’s order while the courts review the legality of the administration’s action.

Harvard’s response and government silence

So far, Harvard has issued a measured statement: “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University — and this nation — immeasurably.” The university has not yet confirmed whether it will file for an emergency injunction.

Requests for comment from the Department of Homeland Security have gone unanswered.

Observers see the administration’s actions as a form of political retaliation. Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law professor, said, “This is so disproportionate to any problem there may be at Harvard that it’s hard to imagine an impartial judge thinking this is appropriate.”

Accusations of viewpoint discrimination

Legal scholars agree that Harvard’s strongest argument may be that the government is engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Paul Gowder of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law described the administration’s actions as “transparent viewpoint discrimination,” suggesting that the government is punishing Harvard for failing to take a hardline stance against antisemitism in the exact manner it demands.

The administration’s charge — that Harvard has “failed to condemn antisemitism” — stems from protests and unrest on campus following Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. In a letter issued in April, Homeland Security invoked a January executive order instructing federal agencies to use all available tools to combat antisemitic violence and harassment.

International students caught in the crossfire

Margaret Russell, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, emphasized the potential for international students themselves to take legal action. “In both cases, the basic arguments will be lack of due process, a lack of proper procedures,” she said. “Part of the free expression for the university is to determine its academic freedom.”

International students represent not just a significant percentage of Harvard’s tuition revenue but also a crucial part of its academic identity. Many students and faculty members argue that the Trump administration’s actions unfairly penalize innocent students for political purposes.

Reports of antisemitism and bias on campus

In April, Harvard released a report acknowledging the existence of both antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus. President Alan Garber publicly apologized and promised reforms. Despite this, the university has refused demands for federal oversight of its internal affairs, including requests for detailed information on foreign students.

Thursday’s Homeland Security order went even further, alleging that many “agitators” on campus are foreign students and accusing Harvard’s leadership of ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Kristi Noem stated on social media that the decision was meant as a “warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”

Political overreach or national security?

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, described the move as “the government picking winners and losers based on who’s saying what.” She added, “That’s one of the main things the First Amendment guards against.”

While the administration frames its action as a national security concern, critics argue that it represents political overreach targeting ideological opponents. With the 2024 election campaign heating up, observers believe the administration is using high-profile institutions like Harvard to energize its base and distract from other controversies.

What comes next?

All eyes now turn to the courts. If Harvard seeks and receives a temporary restraining order, it could delay the ban’s impact and preserve international students' ability to attend classes in the fall. A broader ruling on the constitutionality of the government’s actions could follow, likely setting a precedent for how far federal agencies can go in regulating universities.

Meanwhile, university administrators, legal teams, students, and families across the country are watching closely. Trump bans Harvard international students encapsulates not only a legal and political clash but a cultural one — between federal power and institutional independence, between national security and free speech, between a populist administration and the elite academic establishment.

The stakes are high, and the outcome could redefine the boundaries of academic freedom in the United States for years to come.

Explore more in United States coverage

• Trump freezes Harvard funding over antisemitism and diversity policies
• Trump questions due process in US as deportation plans face court challenges
• Trump threatens Harvard’s tax-exempt status after university files lawsuit