Trump’s threat to block Harvard’s international students exposes financial risks for U.S. universities

Trump’s latest action on international student enrollment puts tuition and economic impact at stake for top American colleges.

Students study inside Lamont Library at Harvard University on April 17, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo by Sophie Park/Getty Images

By Clarisa Sendy and Anna Fadiah

The Trump administration’s recent move to block Harvard University from enrolling international students has sparked nationwide concern about the future of American higher education. The measure, which could remove over a quarter of Harvard’s student body, is not just an attack on academic autonomy—it threatens to upend the financial and cultural framework that sustains many of the nation’s top colleges. The impact of the Trump Harvard international students policy, if enforced, could cascade through elite and public institutions alike.

Though a federal judge temporarily halted the policy within 24 hours of its announcement, the implications are reverberating far beyond Harvard Yard. Universities with high proportions of international students—including New York University, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, and Carnegie Mellon—are reassessing their exposure under an administration that views academic independence and diversity with suspicion.

From financial strength to political vulnerability

For decades, U.S. universities have celebrated their ability to attract students from around the globe. It was a badge of academic prestige and a major revenue stream. But now, in the shadow of a growing populist and nationalist agenda, international enrollment appears more a liability than a strength.

The Trump Harvard international students threat coincides with other policy moves targeting immigration, foreign funding, and free speech on campus. It marks a significant escalation, suggesting that universities seen as politically unfriendly may become federal targets.

“International students represent both a financial resource and a strategic soft power advantage for the U.S.,” said Mirka Martel, head of research at the Institute of International Education. “Jeopardizing that undermines both our economic and diplomatic positioning.”

How international students fuel U.S. higher education

International students pay steep tuition fees—often without financial aid—and contribute billions annually to the U.S. economy. According to a NAFSA study, more than 1.1 million foreign students added roughly $43 billion in spending during the 2023-24 academic year, most of which went toward tuition, housing, and local economies.

Unlike many domestic students, who receive institutional grants or pay reduced in-state tuition, foreign students often pay full freight. At public research universities, this model has helped offset cuts in state funding over the last two decades. In effect, international tuition helps subsidize lower costs for American students, while supporting vital academic research and faculty positions.

“We talk a lot about trade deficits with China,” said Gaurav Khanna, an economist at the University of California, San Diego. “But in services like higher education, we run a significant surplus. Foreign students help finance our system.”

Harvard and beyond: A financial domino effect

The Trump Harvard international students conflict has exposed the precarious dependency many universities have developed on international enrollment. Harvard’s international students account for 27% of its student body. At NYU, that number is even higher. These students bring with them not only tuition dollars but also cultural diversity, academic excellence, and future global influence.

A restriction on their enrollment could significantly shrink universities’ operating budgets. The fear is not just about Harvard’s future lawsuits or the immediate visa implications, but about a precedent that could destabilize the entire higher education sector.

The Department of Homeland Security justified its move by alleging that Harvard had failed to combat antisemitism and had allowed foreign student agitators to disrupt campus stability. The administration further claimed connections between Harvard leadership and the Chinese Communist Party. Critics, however, saw these claims as baseless and politically motivated.

“This is viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple,” said Paul Gowder, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University. “Using federal power to punish dissent or academic independence is a direct violation of First Amendment protections.”

A broader war on academia

The Trump Harvard international students policy is not an isolated act. It fits into a larger pattern of attacks on elite institutions that the president and his allies often characterize as hostile to conservative values. From banning diversity programs to threatening tax-exempt statuses, the Trump administration has sought to reshape the university landscape by force.

Harvard itself has been at the center of repeated confrontations with the Trump administration, from its affirmative action policies to its handling of campus protests related to the war in Gaza. In recent months, Jewish students at Harvard have reported antisemitic incidents, while Muslim students have raised similar concerns about Islamophobia.

President Alan Garber has apologized for the campus climate but resisted federal intervention in curriculum oversight and student affairs. Harvard has argued that such overreach violates its constitutional rights to due process and academic freedom.

Political weaponization of immigration

Legal scholars warn that using immigration law to punish universities for ideological differences is unprecedented and dangerous. The idea that international students could be expelled or blocked based on political considerations rattles not only higher education leaders but also civil rights advocates.

Margaret Russell, a law professor at Santa Clara University, noted that foreign students may themselves have legal standing to challenge the government’s action. “Due process protections extend beyond citizens. You can’t simply cancel someone’s visa based on vague accusations or political whims.”

Jessica Levinson, a constitutional law expert at Loyola Marymount University, added: “The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to pick winners and losers based on who’s saying what. That’s what’s happening here.”

What’s next for Harvard and U.S. universities?

Though a temporary restraining order has paused the implementation of the Trump Harvard international students policy, the case is far from over. Harvard is expected to escalate its legal efforts in the coming weeks, likely arguing that the administration’s actions are arbitrary, punitive, and unconstitutional.

Other universities may soon follow suit, preparing preemptive litigation or joining Harvard’s challenge as co-plaintiffs. The American Council on Education and several university associations have already issued public statements condemning the government’s actions.

With the 2025-26 academic year approaching, universities face mounting uncertainty. Admissions decisions, visa processing, and campus planning all hang in the balance.

“This is not just about Harvard,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law. “It’s about whether American universities can continue to function freely, or whether they’ll have to operate under the constant threat of political retribution.”

A chilling effect on global education

The Trump administration’s assault on international student enrollment has already begun to ripple overseas. Advising counselors in countries like India, South Korea, and Brazil are now cautioning families about instability in U.S. immigration policies. Competing nations like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia are seeing increased interest from students once bound for the United States.

If the Trump Harvard international students ban were to gain traction, experts say, the long-term consequences for American global leadership in education could be irreversible.

“The U.S. has built a world-class university system that attracts talent from every corner of the world,” said Martel. “Undoing that for short-term political gain is not only reckless—it’s self-defeating.”

As the legal battle unfolds, universities, students, and educators will watch closely. The outcome could determine whether the U.S. remains the top destination for global academic talent—or cedes that ground to nations more willing to embrace international collaboration.

More from United States coverage

• Trump administration bans Harvard from enrolling international students
• Trump freezes Harvard funding over antisemitism and diversity policies
• Trump threatens Harvard’s tax-exempt status after university files lawsuit