This May, the Department of Homeland Security, working under the direction of the Trump Administration, terminated Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), effectively revoking their ability to take in international students.
This action, which affected around 6,800 students, was rationalized by government officials who accused Harvard of promoting “woke ideology,” fostering antisemitism and engaging in coordinated activity with the Chinese Communist Party.
To put it simply: Trump’s administration banned international students from attending Harvard, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, just because he didn’t like what he felt they stood for.
Fortunately, the ban has not officially gone through. A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the Trump Administration’s attempt to terminate Harvard’s certification.
The impact of this decision far extends beyond academics. For many students whose futures have now been significantly altered, this decision feels deeply personal, considering it was made to reinforce a political agenda.
This move sets a dangerous precedent: that education can now be used as a pawn in politics. International students, many of whom are bright, ambitious and practically uninvolved in our domestic politics, have been caught in what is essentially a tantrum move masked as policy.
In their records, The Department of Homeland Security demanded Harvard to turn over records about international students for any ideals that were “hostile to American values,” a term so vague that it could mean anything from the most severe political treason to peaceful protests.
In response, Harvard refused, citing privacy, academic freedom and their duty to protect students, resulting in the attempted ban.
While national security and public discourse are valid concerns in any functioning democracy, targeting the students to make a political statement is not a solution.
In the words of Luke Barrera ’25, “I don’t feel like protecting democracy is punishing people who want to learn.”
From a logistical standpoint, this decision makes little sense. According to NAFSA, the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers, international students contribute approximately 43 Billion to the U.S. economy each year.
And, on top of that, international students conduct cutting-edge research, serve as bridges between cultures and enrich campus opportunities.
Countries like Hong Kong have stepped forward in response, offering sanctuary to the displaced students and seizing the opportunity to attract the top talents of the world.
The U.S., once a beacon of freedom and higher education, may now be viewed as hostile and unstable.
This is global influence lost—more damage than any international student could have ever done.
Banning these students and likely setting a precedent for other schools is not just insensitive but also economically and intellectually self-destructive.
Upcoming Harvard student, Chase Nam ’25 stated, “This move takes us further from being ready for a global world.”
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the main director of this order, claimed that one of the reasons behind this ban was that Harvard was coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.
For example, Harvard students working on projects for artificial intelligence, microelectronics, and quantum science apparently “could be used to advance China’s military capabilities.”
Although, it is important to try to see their perspective. With an adopted and stricter national security lens, one could argue that the increased national security lens could help prevent espionage and ensure that threatening ideologies aren’t cultivated under the guise of education.
Evidently, this is not the case. Rather than a measured effort to protect national security, this move feels more like the Department of Homeland Security was grasping for any justification to publicly punish Harvard.
It borders less on security enforcement and more on authoritarian overreach.
And let us not forget who suffers most. For these aren’t billion-dollar corporations or businesses—they’re students.
Students, of whom many have chosen to leave their families behind, navigate the process of getting visas and dedicate themselves to getting a future rooted in American education.
Now, they are faced with a possible future where their choices are deportation or indefinite academic suspension.
Their crime? Choosing their dream school to attend.
At the end of the day, while education and politics will always intersect to some extent—through funding, policy, and public discourse—it should never be wielded as a tool for retaliation.
These students aren’t threats; they’re classmates, friends, lab partners, and future leaders.
And if we can’t protect that promise for them, then maybe we’ve forgotten what it really means in the first place.
As the academic year draws close and we prepare to celebrate graduation, I can’t help but think of all the international students who should be celebrating with me too, those whose acceptance letters are in jeopardy.
I believe that they genuinely came here to learn, connect and participate in what we call the “American Dream”. I believe that they deserve better.
