Harvard University has been stripped of its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, a decision that now prevents the institution from enrolling new international students and forces current international students to transfer or risk losing their legal immigration status in the United States. This immediate action by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was confirmed in a letter from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to Harvard, as first reported by The New York Times.
The DHS announcement marks a significant escalation in tensions between Harvard and the federal government, particularly under the Trump administration. According to the press release from the department, Harvard’s certification has been revoked “effective immediately,” which means the prestigious university no longer has the legal authority to host international students.
This punitive measure stems from Harvard’s refusal to comply with a recent government request for detailed information about its international student body. Specifically, the Trump administration sought records tied to “criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus.” Harvard declined to provide the requested data, leading to the current crackdown.
Jason Newton, Harvard’s director of media relations and communications, responded strongly to the move in a statement to Forbes. “The government’s action was unlawful,” he asserted. Newton emphasized that the university is “fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars,” and warned that the “retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”
The Trump administration, however, has signaled that it may reconsider the revocation if Harvard complies with its conditions within 72 hours. According to the letter from Noem, the university must provide extensive documentation including audio and video recordings of “any illegal, dangerous or violent activity,” along with evidence of “threats to other students or university personnel” committed by international students over the past five years. The DHS has also demanded access to disciplinary records and video footage of any protest activity involving international students on Harvard’s campus within the same timeframe.
The backdrop to this conflict involves a broader federal investigation. Harvard is among roughly 60 universities under scrutiny for alleged antisemitism. On April 11, the administration accused the school of failing to meet both “intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.” In response to earlier demands, the Trump administration called for “meaningful governance” reforms at Harvard and requested ongoing federal oversight of the institution. Harvard pushed back, stating through its legal counsel that it could not “allow itself to be taken over by the federal government” and refused to “accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.”
Following this refusal, the administration froze an estimated $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard. The university responded by suing the federal government, arguing that the freeze was “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”
Harvard’s international student population is substantial and diverse. According to official university figures, 6,793 international students are enrolled at Harvard during the 2024-25 academic year. This accounts for nearly 27% of the student body. The revocation decision, therefore, has far-reaching implications not just for the university but for thousands of students from around the globe.
Abdullah Shahid Sial, an international student from Pakistan and co-president of Harvard’s undergraduate student body, described the atmosphere on campus to the Boston Globe. “People are more scared than ever…This is a story which is way bigger than an individual. It’s not just about internationals at Harvard,it’s about internationals everywhere…we want to make sure that people put up an opposition.”
In defending the federal government’s action, Noem stated in the DHS release, “Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
The backlash has been swift and vocal. Lawrence Summers, a former U.S. Treasury Secretary who served as Harvard’s president from 2001 to 2006, criticized the administration’s decision in an interview with Bloomberg. “This is vicious, it is illegal, it is unwise, and it is very damaging,” he said. Summers added, “Why does it make any sense at all to stop 6000 enormously talented young people who want to come to the United States to study from having that opportunity? Why is punishing them the right thing to do?”
The revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification, if not reversed, could also trigger broader academic and diplomatic consequences. The university’s international students, many of whom contribute to research, innovation, and the global reputation of American higher education, now face uncertainty about their futures. For Harvard, the move is not just a legal or financial issue, but a fundamental challenge to its identity as a global educational institution.
The administration’s action also sends a chilling message to other academic institutions that might find themselves at odds with federal policies or demands. With the warning issued by Noem, it is clear that the Trump administration is willing to use immigration and funding mechanisms as leverage in disputes with universities.
Harvard now faces a complex and urgent dilemma: whether to comply with the federal demands and potentially compromise its principles of academic independence and student privacy, or to continue its legal battle with the risk of permanent damage to its international programs and funding.
The next 72 hours will be crucial. If the university fails to meet the DHS requirements within that period, the fate of thousands of international students will remain in jeopardy. Meanwhile, Harvard’s lawsuit over the $2.2 billion in frozen grants continues to unfold, adding legal complexity to an already explosive political and academic confrontation.
This conflict between Harvard and the Trump administration underscores a larger national debate over academic freedom, government oversight, and the rights of international students. As this story develops, the outcome may well set a precedent for how the U.S. government interacts with institutions of higher education and how those institutions defend their autonomy in a politically charged environment.