The Trump administration has intensified its confrontation with Harvard University by threatening its ability to host international students and suggesting the withdrawal of its tax-exempt status. These actions augment the conflict between the administration and the prestigious university, which has openly opposed government demands on campus activism, antisemitism, and diversity measures.
On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security instructed Harvard to provide detailed records of foreign students engaged in any “illegal and violent activities” by the end of April. Additionally, the federal government has revoked two grants totaling $2.7 million. President Donald Trump expressed his disdain for Harvard, calling the institution a “disgrace.”
The administration’s actions have targeted two essential aspects of Harvard’s identity: its significant population of international students and its tax-exempt status. International students make up a substantial 27% of Harvard’s community, often engaging in significant research. The university is renowned for attracting global talent and receiving large donations from wealthy benefactors. More than $2 billion in grants and contracts to Harvard have already been frozen by the federal government.
Many international students, such as Leo Gerdén from Sweden, feel vulnerable and fear deportation due to their association with the university. They voice concerns that losing international students would severely impact Harvard’s academic community. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has been discreetly revoking visas and terminating the legal status of international students across U.S. schools. Many affected students have faced these challenges over minor infractions and the lack of a path to regain their legal standing.
The administration’s demands on Harvard have roots in federal scrutiny over elite universities’ campus activities. The government insists on stricter discipline for protesters, rigorous screening of international students for their alignment with “American values,” and significant reforms in leadership and admissions policies. Furthermore, they demand that Harvard ensure diverse viewpoints across its academic departments and student body.
In a response to these impositions, Harvard cited the First Amendment, refusing to comply with the government’s instructions. The university also faced questions about its tax-exempt status on social media, where President Trump suggested that the university might lose this benefit over its political stances. While the White House noted that IRS investigations occur independently of the President, steps to examine Harvard’s tax status followed shortly after Trump’s comments.
Tax exemptions are crucial for universities, enabling them to draw in substantial donations to reinforce their endowments, with Harvard’s being the nation’s largest at $53 billion. Yet, former Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Larry Summers criticized any move to weaponize the IRS against Harvard as a political adversary. Rather than comply, Harvard has reiterated its intention to preserve its autonomy and constitutional rights, despite the financial strains from the administration’s decisions.
The Trump administration had previously halted $2.2 billion in funding for Harvard after its refusal to conform to government orders. Accusations of fostering antisemitism and racial discrimination through controversial protests and initiatives have formed the basis for these actions. In response, the House Oversight Committee announced an investigation into Harvard’s adherence to civil rights laws.
Christopher Rufo, a proponent of GOP educational strategies, has advocated for stripping Harvard of its nonprofit status based on perceived discrimination against certain student groups. This would align with a broader push to force changes at prestigious universities, reminiscent of tactics used during the Civil Rights Movement.
The unfolding conflict at these elite institutions has highlighted the immense power held by the government over academic bodies, raising questions about the future of academic freedom and the possible implications of these governmental pressures on university independence.