Trump Revokes Harvard’s International Student Certification Potentially Leaving Thousands of Indians in Limbo

The Trump administration has escalated its ongoing conflict with Harvard University by revoking the institution’s ability to enroll international students, a dramatic move that threatens thousands of current students and marks one of the most significant federal interventions in higher education in recent memory.

On Thursday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivered a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber announcing the immediate revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification. This action effectively bars Harvard from enrolling any new international students on F- or J-1 nonimmigrant visas for the 2025-2026 academic year, according to reporting by The Harvard Crimson.

The timing is particularly acute, coming just one week before thousands of international students at Harvard are scheduled to graduate. The decision affects a substantial portion of Harvard’s student body—approximately 6,000 to 7,800 international students according to various reports, representing roughly 27% of the university’s total enrollment.

For current international students, the revocation creates an immediate crisis. Under federal immigration rules, when a university loses its SEVP certification, enrolled international students must choose between transferring to a different institution, changing their immigration status, or leaving the country entirely.

The Administration’s Justification

Secretary Noem’s letter outlined several allegations against Harvard that purportedly justified the revocation. According to reports from The New York Post and Time magazine, the administration accused Harvard of:

• Allowing “anti-American, pro-terrorist” foreign students to “harass and physically assault individuals”
• Creating “an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students”
• Promoting “pro-Hamas sympathies”
• Employing what the administration characterized as racist “diversity, equity, and inclusion policies”
• Alleged coordination with the Chinese Communist Party

Central to the administration’s case was Harvard’s alleged failure to comply with federal records requests. In mid-April, the DHS had demanded that Harvard provide detailed information on international students’ campus activities, including protest participation. The administration claims that Harvard’s partial submission on April 30 was “insufficient” and that the university subsequently “ignored” a follow-up request for additional documents.

This move represents the culmination of an escalating campaign by the Trump administration against Harvard. As reported by The New York Times, the university has already faced significant financial penalties, including over $2.7 billion in frozen federal funding and research grants, termination of a $60 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services, and threats to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

The administration’s actions against Harvard are part of a broader effort targeting elite universities, which President Trump has framed as necessary to combat what he characterizes as ideological bias and campus extremism. However, the specific demands made of Harvard extend beyond typical oversight, including what The New York Times described as “audits of the student body’s ideological views.”

Harvard’s Response and Legal Implications

Harvard has strongly contested the administration’s actions. University spokesperson Jason A. Newton called the DHS move “unlawful” and stated that Harvard remains “fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries.”

The university has previously indicated its willingness to fight federal overreach through the courts, having already filed suit against the administration over attempts to dictate changes to admissions and hiring practices. Legal experts suggest this latest action will likely prompt additional litigation.

The administration has offered Harvard a narrow path to potential reinstatement, giving the university 72 hours to provide extensive documentation including paper records, audio, and video of protest activity by any international student enrolled at any of Harvard’s schools in the last five years, as well as the full slate of disciplinary records of international students at Harvard for the last five years. However, it remains unclear whether compliance would guarantee restoration of SEVP certification.

Economic and Academic Implications

The financial implications for Harvard may be less severe than for other institutions. Unlike many universities that actively recruit wealthy international students to bolster their finances, Harvard provides the same need-based financial aid to both domestic and international students. As noted by college admissions advisor Terry Mady-Grove in The New York Times, “the financial impact on Harvard would be less than at other institutions.”

However, the academic and reputational consequences could be far more significant. Immigration law professor P. Deep Gulasekaram warned that such actions “will damage the reputation of U.S. higher education long earned over the course of centuries, and compromises the U.S.’s position as the global leader in higher education.”

The announcement has created widespread panic among Harvard’s international student community. Leo Gerdén, an international student from Sweden quoted in The Harvard Crimson, called the announcement “devastating” and urged Harvard to “fight the DHS decision as hard as we possibly can.”

Karl N. Molden, another international student, described the stress of potentially having to “transfer out” and “go through this stressful procedure again, find a university, and transfer their credits, and lose all their friends.”

This action against Harvard occurs within a wider pattern of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. As reported by The New York Times, “hundreds of international students across the United States have had their visas revoked in recent weeks,” while Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have arrested students for participating in campus protests.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked some of these broader enforcement actions, ruling Thursday that the government cannot arrest or relocate students based solely on their legal status while related litigation is pending.

The Harvard case represents a unprecedented test of federal power over higher education institutions. The administration’s willingness to use immigration policy as leverage against universities that resist its demands sets a concerning precedent for academic independence.

Whether Harvard will comply with the 72-hour ultimatum or continue its legal resistance remains to be seen. What is clear is that this confrontation has implications far beyond Cambridge, potentially reshaping the relationship between federal authority and academic freedom across American higher education.

The resolution of this crisis will likely have lasting consequences for international education in the United States and America’s position as a destination for global talent and scholarship. As this story continues to develop, the stakes extend far beyond any single institution to fundamental questions about academic freedom, federal authority, and America’s role in international education.

Top photo: Shruthi Kumar, a graduating Harvard University student who went off script and sharply slammed Harvard for the university’s arbitrary action against the students protesting against Israel’s ongoing genocidal war on Gaza. Photo, YouTube screen grab.