The Trump administration notified Harvard last Thursday that it would halt the university’s ability to enroll international students and that current international students would have to transfer or leave the school, driving concern among international students and faculty at Stanford. 

The decision took effect when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification had been revoked because of alleged “pro-Terrorist conduct.”

In response to the ban, Harvard sued the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order against the federal action at the university’s request. International students currently make up 28% of Harvard’s student body and 24% of Stanford’s enrolled students.

University president Jonathan Levin ’94 shared a post on LinkedIn Friday that seemed to indirectly criticize the government’s move. “The United States has for decades attracted the best and brightest students from around the world,” he wrote. “It’s self-defeating to send away young people with so much potential to contribute to the country.” The Daily reached out to the University for comment, and was directed to Levin’s statement.

“It could have been me if this was 35 years ago,” political science professor Kathryn Stoner said. Originally from Canada, Stoner received her Ph.D. in Government from Harvard. “It is absolutely inexplicable, and it is hard to see this as anything more than some sort of vendetta that the administration has against Harvard.”

In an appearance on Fox News, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard “should be a warning to every other university to get your act together.” For Stoner, the action was “very chilling because what happens to Harvard could well happen to [Stanford].”

The escalation at Harvard came on the heels of several other actions targeting the school, including freezing $2 billion in federal grants as retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to comply with a lengthy list of demands.

The letter demanded that the school immediately report international students who commit conduct violations to federal authorities and hire external auditors to assess whether its departments are “viewpoint diverse,” among other requirements. 

The administration is also currently reviewing $9 billion in federal grants and contracts to Harvard as part of the government’s efforts to pressure the university.

Larry Diamond ’74 M.A. ’78 Ph.D. ’90, Freeman Spogli Institute senior fellow and a political science and sociology professor, recalls feeling outraged when he heard about the ban on international enrollment. “It’s so radical and it’s so destructive to the national interest,” he said. “Trump wants to make America great again, and he’s destroying a number of the institutions that are responsible for American greatness.”

In the announcement, Noem accused Harvard of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.”

“I think the argument that this is all because Harvard isn’t doing enough to combat anti-semitism is an obvious smoke screen,” Diamond said. “I think it’s an authoritarian effort to take down a symbol of liberal institutions and ideas.”

Regardless of the outcome in court, Diamond said that the damage to Harvard inflicted by Trump’s actions could affect the institution into the future, especially in regards to research funding and grants. 

“Even if the courts restore all of the existing NSF and NIH funding that’s been cut off from Harvard, it’d be very hard to ensure that Harvard could win new grants from a process of ‘blind competitive review’ when there’s so many ways to rig that system,” Diamond said.

Stoner shared Diamond’s concerns about the long-term impacts the action and ensuing legal battle could have, particularly new barriers to international students’ access to U.S. education. “So much damage is already done to our credibility internationally,” she said. “I wouldn’t blame foreign students at all for not wanting to come here.”

Levin abstained from signing a letter opposing the Trump administration’s interference in higher education, which was signed by over 180 presidents of other colleges and universities. In Diamond’s view, combating the effects of Trump’s actions will require a different approach than such letters in the future.

“I think we’ve reached a point where statements are probably having diminishing impact,” Diamond said. “Beyond just making ourselves feel good by making statements, we’ve got to figure out how to move American business…and I don’t see much strategizing going on from the universities to think about how to build broader coalitions with American society.”

While Diamond noted that he has participated in collective statements himself, he hopes to see professors, experts and universities begin to “figure out actually how to effectively combat this.”

“If we don’t do that, I think we’re going to suffer a lot more pain and victimization,” he said.