A Crisis for International Students: Can Harvard Really Be Dimmed by Trump’s Shadow?

By Nicholas Moore '28

---

The United States of America was founded on legal concepts that promote individuals’ life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Throughout American history, ideas such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and documents like the Bill of Rights have been used to protect individuals’ rights from being violated or abused by the federal government. Issues like the border crisis, high crime rates, the war on drugs, or growing threats in Asia and in the Middle East raise much concern among the American people. Yet, it is vital to this nation and to her core values to respond to these issues in an appropriate and calculated manner. If we do not, we risk the violation of people’s inalienable rights. In such a tumultuous time in history, it is important to reflect on America’s core values and ensure the protection of inalienable rights while maintaining a safe and strong nation. This blog will analyze the Trump Administration’s recent actions, specifically the move to limit the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enroll as a student at Harvard University, in the broader lens of the Supreme Law of the Land and other legal precedents to evaluate the constitutional limits and consequences of the political moves taken by President Trump. 

On May 22, 2025, the Trump administration announced its intention to revoke Harvard’s Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) certification in response to the University’s alleged failure to accurately report the criminal activity of foreign students to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for evaluation, a move that would eliminate the institution’s ability to enroll and retain international students. (1) The Trump administration determined that Harvard’s failure to submit the criminal records of international students meant that either Harvard was unable to effectively police and control its foreign student body or that Harvard was intentionally covering up crimes committed by international students. Either way, the administration believed, Harvard could not be trusted with their SEVP certification. (2)

This intention became action when the Executive Order, “Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University,” was signed on June 4, 2025 to “restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University.” (3) This announcement sent shockwaves throughout the U.S. and sparked debate over the constitutionality of this issue. While revoking Harvard’s SEVP certification is legally permissible, the consequences of doing so may have constitutional barriers, including violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from enforcing or creating any law that infringes on the privileges or immunities of citizens in that state's jurisdiction. (4) The Equal Protection Clause goes on further to state that all individuals, regardless of citizenship, are to have fair and equal treatment under the law. (5) Although the writing of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state governments, the Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause in the amendment applies to the federal government as well, not just to state and local governments. (6) In essence, the federal government, under the Fourteenth Amendment and its provisions, is prohibited from taking action that creates unfair treatment of any person under the law. The Equal Protection Clause has been used to defend minority groups like African Americans or members of the LGBTQ+ community against the government. The question still remains, does President Trump’s actions against Harvard violate this amendment? 

Some may argue that the extreme measure Trump made to revoke the university's SEVP certification, unfairly punishes all foreign students at Harvard, regardless of criminal record. . There are less extreme measures that could be taken to actually target specific students that committed crimes based on facts other than their country of origin. Trump’s actions, instead, could lead to unfair treatment and discrimination of a specific group of people, a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Others believe that Article II of the Constitution allows for the President to enforce immigration laws passed by Congress. According to the American Immigration Council, the President has the power to handle immigration law by using inherent executive power, which are certain powers the president has on the simple basis of holding the presidential office, even if the power is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. (7) As stated by the Executive Order signed by President Trump, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has warned that allowing foreign nationals to attend the institution poses a risk to national security because students at U.S. academic institutions have access to research, technology, and information that could be stolen. (8)

Supporters of this action believe this argument makes this issue a matter in which the President has the ability to exert his executive power. While this is true, Trump's response to this issue may be limited by the Fifth Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment establishes the guarantee that the federal government cannot deprive an individual of their life, liberty, or property without following established legal procedures. (9) The Executive Order signed by the Trump administration undermines the Due Process of Law as it restricts entry for all foreign students, even those with clean records. If students were able to present their case in court and defend themselves in front of a judge, in accordance with the law, the likelihood of the removal of innocent persons would be less. Yet, the executive order to revoke Harvard’s SEVP license results in the mass removal of foreign students' life, liberty, and property without due process of the law, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment.

There are appropriate measures that can be taken to counteract Trump’s executive order like temporary restraining orders and laws like the Administrative Procedure Act. In fact, some judicial tactics have already been taken. On June 6, 2025, two days after Trump signed the order, Judge Allison Burroughs issued a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the Trump Administration from barring Harvard from accepting foreign students. Judge Burroughs argued that there would be “immediate and irreparable injury” if Harvard’s SEVP license was revoked. (10) In addition, Harvard has filed a lawsuit against the US government accusing President Trump of issuing the executive order out of “vendetta” caused by Harvard and students using their First Amendment right to free speech, not necessarily due to national security reasons. (11) Furthermore, more judicial action may occur in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA, passed in 1946, provides a legal framework of procedure that government agencies, typically within the executive branch, use to make, amend, or repeal rules. (12) One provision of the APA under the section 553 regarding rulemaking, states that the agency involved must give the affected individuals the chance to petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of the relevant rule. (13) In this case the agency is the DHS and the interested persons are Harvard and its international students. 

Now, a legal battle between Harvard and Trump unfolds in front of the American people. Only a few months into Trump’s presidential term and the country is on edge. Given the speed of the administration's actions, one must put an enormous amount of trust in the judicial system to keep up with Trump's pace to ensure the balance of power. From riots to congressional hearings, there is a colossal amount of evidence of the increasing tension between the American people and the individuals who govern them. With analysis of recent events, one can conclude that this presidential term is like no other. As new concerns arise, one thing is for certain: this blogger will be on the edge of his seat watching history unfold. 

Endnotes

1. Donald Trump, “Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University,” The White House, June 4, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/enhancing-national-security-by-addressing-risks-at-harvard-university/.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. “U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment,” Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov, Library of Congress, accessed July 14, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/.

5. “Fourteenth Amendment,” Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov, Library of Congress, accessed July 14, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/.

6. “Equal Protection Supreme Court Cases,” Justia Law, accessed July 17, 2025, https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/equal-protection/#:~:text=The%20Equal%20Protection%20Clause%20in,to%20a%20legitimate%20government%20interest.

7. Robert Longley, “What Are Inherent Powers? Definition and Examples,” ThoughtCo, June 23, 2021, https://www.thoughtco.com/inherent-powers-definition-and-examples-5184079#:~:text=Inherent%20powers%20are%20powers%20not,Inherent%20Powers%20of%20the%20President.

8. Trump, “Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University.”

9. “U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment,” Constitution Annotated, Congress.gov, Library of Congress, accessed July 17, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/.

10. Max Matza, “Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Ban on Foreign Harvard Students,” BBC News, June 6, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c991lz2zd0ko.

11. Ibid.

12. “Administrative Procedure Act,” Legal Information Institute, accessed July 14, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_procedure_act.

13. Ibid.