Harvard vs. Trump: Can Courts Halt a Presidential Vendetta?

Boston, June 13, 2025— Harvard University, America’s oldest academic titan, is locked in a high-stakes legal duel with the Trump administration. On May 22, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, citing unproven claims of antisemitism and ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Harvard struck back with a lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary block. Now, with Trump’s June 4 proclamation suspending new Harvard visas, the university is urging Burroughs to fortify her order against what it calls a “retaliatory campaign.” This showdown, set for a Monday hearing, could redefine the limits of presidential power over academia.

ALSO READ | Trump Drops the Hammer: Harvard Banned from Enrolling International Students Amid Explosive Allegations

Legal Firepower: Harvard’s Case Strengthens

Harvard’s lawyers, led by Ian Gershengorn, argue the Trump administration’s actions violate First Amendment rights and federal procedures. After Burroughs’ initial restraining order on May 23, Harvard now seeks a broader injunction to prevent “creative re-labeling” of restrictions, fearing new tactics to block visas.

The administration’s demand for extensive student records—disciplinary actions, protest footage, and coursework—sparked this battle, with Harvard claiming it complied but was deemed insufficient.

The Justice Department counters that Harvard’s requested order is unnecessary, insisting Trump’s proclamation should be litigated separately. With $3 billion in federal funds already frozen, the stakes are sky-high.

Did you know?
In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court revoked Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status for racial discrimination, setting a landmark precedent for federal intervention in universities. Harvard’s current fight echoes this clash, testing whether courts will again curb executive overreach against academic institutions.

Campus in Crisis: Students and Faculty Unite

The administration’s moves have galvanized Harvard’s community. President Alan Garber condemned the ban as “unlawful,” rallying nearly 7,000 international students—27% of the student body—who face deportation risks or transfer chaos. Faculty and students, from Swedish undergrad Leo Gerdén to Sierra Leonean Isaac Bangura, voice fears of a fractured academic mission.

At Thursday’s commencement, symbols of protest adorned caps, signaling unity against Trump’s agenda. Harvard’s lawsuit warns that losing international scholars, who drive research and pay full tuition, could cripple its global stature.

A Warning to Academia: Trump’s Broader Crusade

Trump’s targeting of Harvard isn’t isolated. Threats to Columbia, visa revocations for pro-Palestinian activists, and proposed endowment taxes signal a wider war on elite universities. Noem’s accusations—lacking evidence—frame Harvard as a hub of “anti-American” and “pro-terrorist” activity, while her 72-hour ultimatum for student records stunned campus leaders.

Burroughs’ rulings, including a planned injunction, offer temporary relief, but the administration’s hints at new restrictions keep Harvard on edge. This legal fight could set a precedent for how far a president can go to bend academia to their will. What will Monday’s hearing reveal about the future of Harvard’s global mission?