By Ariane O’Rourke
Under the renewed Trump administration, Harvard University has become the focus of sweeping federal measures that threaten both its funding and its capacity to host international students.
Over the past several months, President Trump has escalated his long-running feud with elite universities by ordering federal agencies to sever ties with Harvard and freeze vital support. In late May, the White House instructed agencies to cancel all government contracts with Harvard — roughly $100 million worth — as part of what it calls a total break with the institution. This came on top of an earlier freeze of over $3.2 billion in federally funded research grants to Harvard, ostensibly in retaliation for the university’s perceived failure to stamp out antisemitism on campus. At the same time, the administration has also moved to revoke Harvard’s ability to enrol international students, stripping the university of its certification to sponsor student visas. That order, which would bar new foreign students from attending Harvard, has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
In parallel, the State Department announced extraordinary “extreme vetting” measures specifically targeting anyone needing a nonimmigrant visa. This included a directive for screenings of online presences, such as monitoring personal social media accounts and even asking applicants to make their accounts public for review. These measures mark an unprecedented attack on the autonomy of private higher education, with the Trump administration openly leveraging federal power to pressure Harvard into compliance with its political demands.
The administration claims its actions protect student safety and civil rights, citing concerns about antisemitism, affirmative action, and foreign influence. Harvard officials, however, argue these moves are politically motivated and amount to an attack on academic freedom. Interim President Alan Garber rejected federal demands to overhaul hiring practices, eliminate DEI programs, and increase surveillance of foreign students, stating that Harvard “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” The university has also launched multiple lawsuits in response to the Trump administration’s mandates.
This is not merely an institutional dispute: what’s at stake is the future of American higher education and the global perception of US openness and competitiveness. The consequences could be dire.
International students are not only academic contributors but also major economic drivers. In 2023–24, over 1.1 million foreign students studied in the US, contributing nearly $44 billion to the national economy. Harvard’s 6,800 international students alone generated an estimated $384 million. They often pay full tuition, effectively subsidising domestic students and keeping smaller colleges afloat. While they represented just 4.6 percent of US higher education enrollment in 2020, international students contributed nearly 28 percent of total tuition revenue. This significant contribution underscores the role of international students in sustaining economic health within and beyond US universities.
Beyond the financial aspect, international students fuel US innovation. Around 70 percent of full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and computer science are international. Nearly a quarter of the American STEM workforce is foreign-born. With declining numbers of domestic high school graduates expected over the next decade, slashing visa access means undermining critical industries from within.
Many of the Trump administration’s funding freezes target research grants that support high-priority public-interest work. Halting this research not only impacts Harvard but also delays medical and scientific progress worldwide. The US funds around 30 percent of all research and development, allowing for a competitive edge in global markets. Harvard, as a leading research institution, leverages its government grants to produce R&D that is vital for the US economy, health, national security, and global scientific leadership.
The Trump administration’s efforts are set to have long-term consequences. Foreign graduates often become influential diplomats, entrepreneurs, and partners in trade. Their ties to the US benefit American soft power and global influence. Driving them away damages not just economic growth but the country’s strategic relationships.
Kristi Noem, Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security, has defended the administration’s actions as aimed at protecting American students and values. The data tells a different story. Restricting Harvard’s funding and international student access undermines a $44 billion economic engine, stifles research, weakens labour pipelines, and tarnishes the US’s global standing. These are not measures to protect American strength, they are a form of national self-sabotage. If allowed to stand, they could do what no foreign competitor ever has: dismantle the foundation of America’s academic and scientific leadership from within.
Moreover, the current campaign sets a dangerous precedent. If the federal government can punish universities for their political positions or campus protests by slashing funding and restricting students, the autonomy of higher education itself is at risk. As the White House reopens discussions with Harvard this week, other institutions are paying close attention; the outcome may shape federal-university relations for years to come.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image Rights: Unsplash