Trump vs Harvard: Why the US govt wants to freeze university’s foreign student intake

On Wednesday, the US Department of Homeland Security announced ending the enrolment of foreign students if the university did not share information on “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities by April 30, 2025.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said two DHS grants totalling more than $2.7 million have also been cancelled.

Harvard is the first university to openly defy Trump’s orders. Its president, Alan Garber, wrote in a letter on the Harvard website, “We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

Critics have viewed the Trump administration’s three-month campaign against universities as more about shifting academia’s perceived liberal bias than addressing campus concerns. Trump reinforced this view Friday, calling Harvard faculty “woke, Radical Left idiots” who teach “FAILURE,” while declaring the institution “should no longer receive Federal Funds.”

What triggered the Trump administration’s crackdown on higher education institutions?

The crackdown was foreshadowed during Trump’s presidential campaign, where he proposed a “free speech policy initiative” to cut off federal funding to universities accused of censorship. However, the catalyst was Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel and the Israeli military action subsequently unleashed on the Gaza Strip.

As pro-Palestinian demonstrations spread across American universities, Trump cited the alleged harassment of Jewish students as justification for federal intervention. Upon taking office, Trump transformed campaign rhetoric into policy.

However, critics have viewed it as a political assault on liberal academic institutions that have long been targets of conservative criticism. They argued that the freedom of speech and autonomy given to universities have allowed them to become premier centres of learning and attract the best academic talent from across the world.

Demonstrators rally at a protest organised by the City of Cambridge, calling on Harvard to resist interference by the federal government in Cambridge, on April 12. (Reuters)

What action has been taken against universities in the last three months?

Within days of taking office, Trump signed an executive order against “pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation” on college campuses, targeting what he called “leftist, anti-American” institutions fostering antisemitism.

Building on this, Trump announced a task force led by Assistant Attorney General Leo Terrell on February 1, to “eradicate antisemitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.” A few weeks later, the task force named 10 universities for special scrutiny — including Columbia, Harvard, NYU, UCLA, and UC Berkeley — and planned meetings with students and administrators at each institution.

Then, on March 10, the Department of Education’s civil rights office issued formal warnings to 60 institutions, including Ivy League colleges. They warned them of potential enforcement actions if they did not fulfil their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Under this, students must get uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities, the government said.

Columbia University was among the first targeted, with $400 million in federal funds frozen unless it met White House demands. The university responded by tightening protest rules, introducing disciplinary measures, and launching a review of its Middle East curriculum — all clear concessions to the government.

The Trump administration subsequently cut funding to multiple elite institutions: $4 million from Princeton, $1 billion from Cornell, $790 million from Northwestern, and $175 million from Trump’s alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. Reports indicate Brown University risks losing $510 million in federal contracts and grants as the campaign expands. Harvard is just the latest Ivy League institution at the receiving end of the crackdown.

What were the demands made of Harvard University?

Harvard received two letters from the task force on April 3 and April 11, seeking “several broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform” that the government viewed as necessary for Harvard to remain “a responsible recipient of federal taxpayer dollars.”

The reforms demanded from Harvard include restructuring “biased” programs to promote viewpoint diversity, implementing consistent disciplinary policies, such as banning protest masks, and holding student groups accountable for violations. It asked Harvard to “review and report on disciplinary actions for antisemitic rule violations since October 7, 2023.”

Additional mandates require the university to “implement merit-based admissions policies,” ceasing “all preferences based on race, color, or national origin…” and report students deemed “hostile” to American values to the federal government. It also called for dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, as they “teach students, faculty, staff, and leadership to make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes, which fuels division and hatred…”

On April 14, Garber rejected the federal government’s “unprecedented” demands, calling them unlawful and intrusive. He emphasised that reforms “will not be achieved by assertions of power,” arguing the demands violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution (guaranteeing freedom of speech) and academic freedoms. This response triggered the funding freeze and Trump’s threat to its tax-exempt status. Losing the exemption could cost Harvard millions of dollars each year.

How have other universities responded to threats of funding cuts?

Many have attributed Harvard’s strong stance to its $53.2 billion endowment, which could soften the impact of any federal funding cuts. Harvard’s defiance, experts hope, will encourage other institutions to follow suit.

Columbia University, which initially agreed to several federal conditions, has since taken a firmer tone. In a recent letter, it said it is engaged in “good faith talks” but would “reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence.” Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber also wrote on LinkedIn, “Princeton stands with Harvard,” and called Trump’s actions “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”

So far, however, no university has challenged the administration’s actions in court. The only lawsuit, from universities including Brown and MIT, has opposed the Energy Department’s cuts to indirect research grant funding.