DHS has subpoenaed Harvard and moved to revoke its student visa privileges, accusing the university of harboring foreign agitators—allegations critics say lack evidence and violate constitutional rights.
BY PC Bureau
The Trump administration has escalated its confrontation with Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious academic institutions, in a move that critics argue smacks of political retaliation and oversteps legal boundaries. On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued subpoenas to Harvard, demanding detailed records on the alleged “criminality and misconduct” of its international students.
The agency’s actions, coupled with earlier threats to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, have sparked widespread concern about the administration’s motives and the broader implications for academic freedom and international education in the United States.In a post on X, DHS claimed it had attempted to resolve the matter amicably, stating, “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way.”
The agency further asserted, “If Harvard won’t defend the interests of its students, then we will.” The administration has accused Harvard and other universities of allowing foreign students to “abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus,” though it has provided little concrete evidence to substantiate these claims.
READ: In Brotherhood, Mizoram Opens Heart and Borders to Myanmar Refugees
This latest salvo follows a pattern of escalating actions against Harvard. In April, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem demanded the university submit extensive records on foreign students’ activities, including their participation in protests. Harvard complied partially, providing what it described as “information required by law.” However, DHS deemed the response “insufficient, incomplete, and unacceptable,” leading to a dramatic move in late May to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification. This decision, if enforced, would bar Harvard from enrolling international students and issuing F-1 visas, affecting nearly 7,000 students—roughly 27% of its student body—and disrupting their education and legal status in the U.S.
🚨BREAKING: President Trump’s DHS just hit Harvard with a FORMAL SUBPOENA due to their CRIMINALITY of foreign students on campus and refusal to cooperate, per Fox News.
President Trump is putting AMERICAN STUDENTS FIRST! pic.twitter.com/kbr4A15Wx7
— Bo Loudon (@BoLoudon) July 9, 2025
Harvard has pushed back forcefully, filing a lawsuit in federal court in Boston, arguing that the administration’s actions are “unlawful” and constitute a “blatant violation of the First Amendment.” The university contends that the DHS’s demands are retaliatory, aimed at punishing Harvard for resisting the administration’s broader efforts to control its governance, curriculum, and policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). A temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs has so far blocked the SEVP revocation, preserving Harvard’s ability to host international students while the legal battle unfolds.
A Questionable Motive?The Trump administration’s campaign against Harvard raises serious questions about its intentions. Critics, including legal scholars and immigration advocates, argue that the administration is weaponizing federal authority to target institutions that resist its political agenda. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, called the DHS’s actions “likely illegal,” noting that Noem’s letter failed to cite any specific violations of SEVP regulations. “This is clear weaponization of government,” he wrote on social media, emphasizing that the move punishes thousands of innocent students.
Harvard’s lawsuit echoes this sentiment, asserting that the administration’s actions are not about enforcing visa regulations but about retaliating against the university for its refusal to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions, hiring, and protest policies. The administration has also frozen billions in federal grants to Harvard and threatened to strip its tax-exempt status, further intensifying the conflict.
The DHS’s accusations that Harvard fosters “violence, antisemitism, and coordination with the Chinese Communist Party” have been met with skepticism, particularly given the lack of specific evidence. For instance, Noem’s claims about “pro-Hamas sympathies” and “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators” on campus appear to stem from the administration’s disapproval of pro-Palestinian protests, which have been a flashpoint at universities nationwide. Critics argue that targeting international students for their participation in protected speech violates their First Amendment rights and sets a dangerous precedent for academic freedom.
READ: Indian Nurse Nimisha Priya Set to Be Executed in Yemen on July 16
A Chilling Effect on Higher EducationThe implications of the administration’s actions extend far beyond Harvard. With over 1 million international students contributing nearly $44 billion annually to the U.S. economy, the move to restrict their enrollment threatens to undermine America’s position as a global leader in higher education. Miriam Feldblum, president of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, called the DHS’s actions “unlawful and in violation of established regulations,” warning that they create a “climate of fear, uncertainty, and volatility” for students and campuses nationwide.
Harvard’s international students, who hail from over 140 countries, are now caught in the crossfire. The university has pledged to support its students and scholars, with President Alan Garber condemning the administration’s actions as “unlawful and unwarranted.” He warned that the revocation “imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars” and serves as a chilling warning to other institutions.
Legal experts believe Harvard has a strong case. Immigration attorney Charles Kuck noted that the administration’s failure to follow established SEVP protocols—such as providing a clear basis for revocation and an opportunity for appeal—could render the move unconstitutional. The ongoing administrative review of Harvard’s SEVP certification, coupled with a June 4 presidential proclamation suspending entry for new Harvard students on F or J visas, suggests the administration is doubling down on its efforts despite judicial pushback.
A Broader Pattern of Coercion?The Trump administration’s focus on Harvard appears to be part of a larger strategy to reshape higher education. DHS Secretary Noem has hinted at similar actions against other universities, stating on Fox News that the move against Harvard should serve as a “warning” to others to “get your act together.” This rhetoric, combined with the administration’s broader crackdown on student visas and protests, raises concerns about an attempt to suppress dissent and enforce ideological conformity on campuses.
Harvard’s refusal to bow to these pressures has already cost it dearly, with over $3 billion in federal grants frozen or canceled. Yet the university’s legal filings argue that compliance with the administration’s demands would mean surrendering its academic independence—a price it is unwilling to pay.
As the legal battle continues, questions abound: Is the Trump administration’s pursuit of Harvard a legitimate effort to enforce visa regulations, or is it a politically motivated attack on a prominent institution that has resisted its agenda? Why has the administration provided so little evidence to support its claims of misconduct? And what precedent does this set for other universities hosting international students?For now, Harvard’s international students remain in limbo, protected only by temporary court orders. The outcome of this high-stakes showdown will likely shape the future of academic freedom, immigration policy, and the global competitiveness of American higher education. As Pippa Norris, a Harvard lecturer, told The Guardian, “Trump is basically cutting off international knowledge to American students, he is reducing soft power, and therefore weakening America.”
The Trump administration’s actions demand scrutiny. Without clear evidence and adherence to legal processes, its campaign against Harvard risks being seen not as a defense of national security, but as a dangerous overreach that threatens the very principles of free inquiry and diversity that have long defined American academia.
