
Beyond Harvard: Could other US universities face international student bans next?
The Trump administration's dramatic revocation of Harvard University's SEVP (Student and Exchange Visitor Program) certification has lit a fuse under America's academic institutions.
What was once unthinkable—targeting one of the world's most prestigious universities over its international student policies—is now a reality. The question echoing across campuses: Who's next?
On paper, the action against Harvard stemmed from its refusal to share foreign student conduct records with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In practice, it appears to signal a broader campaign of scrutiny, particularly aimed at elite institutions with large international populations and visible campus activism.
Federal targets
: Who's in the crosshairs?
Behind closed doors, legal teams at major universities—MIT, Columbia, Yale, and Stanford, among them—are reportedly scrambling to audit compliance procedures, fearing they may be next in line. Several have recently hosted large-scale student protests, including pro-Palestine demonstrations and sit-ins decrying American foreign policy. These expressions of dissent, historically protected under academic freedom, may now be placing institutions at political risk.
US universities in danger:
Federal eyes on the quad
What started in Columbia's manicured lawns has now engulfed campuses from coast to coast. By early May 2024, student protests had erupted in 45 states and the District of Columbia, spanning nearly 140 colleges and universities. What was once considered an isolated campus unrest has crystallised into a nationwide wave of civil disobedience. At the heart of it lies one incendiary issue: US university complicity in global conflicts—and the government's growing intolerance for dissent.
The flashpoint was Columbia University. On April 17, 2024, students unfurled the first Gaza Solidarity Encampment on its campus, calling for full divestment from Israel. Within hours of protest tents being pitched, President Minouche Shafik summoned the NYPD. What followed was the first mass arrest on Columbia's grounds since the Vietnam War protests of 1968. The second wave came days later—students occupied Hamilton Hall, another raid ensued, and more than 100 arrests followed.
The crackdown was swift, brutal, and set a precedent: campus activism is no longer protected territory.
This isn't just about Columbia. Intelligence briefings from federal agencies suggest growing concern over 'ideologically motivated unrest' in higher education. Institutions with substantial international student populations and histories of political activism—Stanford, NYU, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan among them—are reportedly under heightened scrutiny.
As the Department of Homeland Security sharpens its gaze, the implications are staggering. Could divestment protests or refusal to comply with federal data demands—like those cited in the case of Harvard—trigger SEVP decertification elsewhere? Legal scholars believe the precedent has been laid. Once a visa pipeline is severed, universities lose their ability to enroll international students, triggering a cascade of academic, financial, and diplomatic fallout.
If Harvard's fall from grace is the administration's first strike, universities across the country are now in the crosshairs. The message is unmistakable: Campuses that host dissent may risk their ability to host the world.
A fragile future for international students
The psychological devastation is already evident. For students on F-1 and J-1 visas, every move now carries immigration risk. Compelled to weigh the repercussions of even peaceful protest, many are self-censoring or avoiding public discourse completely.
Lawyers specialising in international education report a rise in consultations from both students and institutions. The fear is not hypothetical, it is etched into the existence of students in the land of opportunities. One misstep, one subpoenaed video clip, one institution-wide policy deemed 'non-compliant,' and an entire academic journey can be derailed.
Universities walk a legal tightrope
The White House maintains that the crackdown is related to safety and accountability.
In its official statement on Harvard, it emphasised that 'enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's directive cited not only noncompliance but alleged tolerance of antisemitism and pro-Hamas sympathies—claims Harvard vehemently denies.
The vagueness of the situation is what scares the universities the most.
The
Economic Edge of Politics
Beyond the reputational wound, the economic repercussions are huge.
International students, many of whom pay full tuition, are critical to university budgets. They contribute more than $40 billion annually to the US economy—nearly $8 billion from Indian students alone, according to data presented by the US media reports.
Revoking SEVP status doesn't just impact a university's enrollment, it threatens entire funding ecosystems.
For schools already grappling with declining domestic applications and a surge in operating costs, letting go of the international students could be calamitous.
The fading boundaries of academic freedom
Harvard's case is not a standalone incident - it is a bellwether. As scrutiny intensifies, universities are being compelled to choose between protecting students' rights and safeguarding their federal certification. In a climate where dissent is equated with danger, even the most revered campuses are vulnerable.
The administration's new posture may result in mass revocations overnight. But the threat is real, and the message unmistakable: America's welcome mat for international students is no longer universal. It is provisional. Political. And increasingly, conditional on silence.
As institutions weigh how far they can push back, one truth becomes unavoidable: The future of global education in the US now hangs in the balance, not in faculty lounges, but in federal offices.
Invest in Their Tomorrow, Today: Equip your child with the essential AI skills for a future brimming with possibilities | Join Now
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
All-party Parliamentary delegation led by Shashi Tharoor wraps up US visit
The all-party Parliamentary delegation wrapped up its visit to the US after meeting with US Vice President J D Vance and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau among political and diplomatic leadership to drive home India's strong resolve to combat terrorism emanating from Pakistan. The delegation, led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor , was on the last leg of a multi-nation tour to brief key interlocutors about Operation Sindoor that India launched in retaliation of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. The delegation was one of the seven multi-party delegations India had tasked to visit 33 global capitals to reach out to the international community to emphasise Pakistan's links to terrorism. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Chuck Norris Begs Seniors: Avoid These 3 Foods Like The Plague Roundhouse Provisions Undo The delegation arrived in the US capital on June 3 and over the course of three days held a wide array of meetings on Capitol Hill as well as in Washington, briefing the American government officials as well as lawmakers about India's stance on cross-border terrorism . The Indian team met Vice President Vance, Landau, House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) leadership, India Caucus leadership and Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders and also held meetings and interactions with a host of US Congressmen, think tanks, policy experts, media as well as members of the Indian-American community. Live Events Tharoor described the meeting with Vance at the White House for about 25 minutes on Thursday as "an excellent meeting," and said the vice president was "warm and welcoming and receptive." "Vance expressed complete understanding, first of all, outrage of what happened in Pahalgam and support and respect for India's restrained response in Operation Sindoor," Tharoor told PTI after that meeting. After the delegation met Landau on Friday, a statement by State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that the Deputy Secretary of State "reaffirmed the United States' strong support of India in the fight against terrorism and the strategic partnership between the two countries." "We discussed the US-India strategic relationship, including expanding trade and commercial ties to foster growth and prosperity for both countries," Landau said. The Indian Embassy said in a statement that during the meeting with Landau, the delegation briefed him on the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam, discussed India's subsequent Operation Sindoor, and put forth India's firm resolve to counter cross-border terrorism in all its forms. On the last day of the delegation's scheduled meetings, the delegation oaid homage to Mahatma Gandhi at his statue opposite the Indian Embassy here. "It is striking how many world capitals are adorned with statues or busts of the Mahatma, the 20th century's greatest apostle of peace, nonviolence, and human freedom," Tharoor posted on X afterwards. The team, which had arrived from India in New York on May 24, had travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington for the last leg of the tour. The other members of the delegation were Sarfaraz Ahmad (JMM), Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi (TDP), Shashank Mani Tripathi (BJP), Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP), Milind Deora (Shiv Sena), Tejasvi Surya (BJP) and India's former Ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu. Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. The on-ground hostilities from Indian and Pakistan sides that lasted for four days ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10. PTI


India Today
44 minutes ago
- India Today
FBI chief's 'hit a cop, you're going to jail' warning sparks online outrage
FBI Director Kash Patel faced backlash after issuing a stern warning to anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles, cautioning that anyone assaulting cops or taking the law into their own hands would face jail time. "Hit a cop, you're going to jail. Doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you. If the local police force won't back our men and women on the thin blue line, we @FBI will," Patel had posted on X, warning the demonstrators after a wave of surprise immigration raids in Los Angeles on Friday triggered citywide protests, tense standoffs with police, and dozens of Social media users took a quick note of Kash Patel's warning to the protesters and hit back at the FBI chief, calling him out for the federal agency's different stance taken on the January 6 rioters, with one user saying, "unless you're doing it for Trump". Another user accused him of "overrunning an election".Most of the January 6 rioters were relieved of charges by US President Donald Trump after he took office for the second time this issued "full, complete and unconditional" pardons for around 1,500 people involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The group included individuals convicted of violent acts. The move saw Trump fulfilling a campaign promise within the first few hours of his second online tirade against Kash Patel's stern warning continued as another user wrote, "But if you do it wearing Trump merch while rioting at the US Capitol, you'll get a pardon, right, Kash?" More people joined Patel's online bashing, with some of them sharing pictures and videos of rioters clashing with police on January 6, Kash Patel distanced himself from the pardoning of Capitol riots accused during his confirmation hearing as FBI director, saying, "I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement, and I have included in that group specifically addressed any violence against law enforcement on January 6"."I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement," he from Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also invited online ire for writing that the anti-ICE protests are "designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from US soil". Hegseth added, "a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK".The Los Angeles raids were part of a broader push by the Trump administration to ramp up deportation efforts nationwide. Trump has vowed record-level removals of undocumented migrants, and White House aide Stephen Miller has reportedly urged ICE to make at least 3,000 arrests Watch


Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump Deploys National Guard to LA Over Newsom's Objections
National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday under orders from President Donald Trump, escalating a showdown with California leaders who say the federal deployment is politically driven and unnecessary. The move follows two days of tense protests sparked by sweeping US immigration raids across the region. Trump directed US Northern Command to assume control of the California National Guard and dispatch 2,000 soldiers to the area 'for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense,' the White House said in a statement. Governor Gavin Newsom, who said he was not consulted on the decision, condemned the deployment as an overreach by Trump meant to stoke tensions. 'The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate,' the Democrat wrote in a post on X. 'That is not the way any civilized country behaves.' The troops, from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, were seen arriving at a federal building in downtown LA early Sunday, according to footage aired by KABC. US Northern Command confirmed the deployment on X, saying it was mobilizing Guard units 'to support federal law enforcement.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that Marines could be sent next if protests intensify. Newsom called Hegseth's suggestion of deploying the Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton 'deranged.' Hegseth on Sunday countered that Newsom had allowed violence to get out of hand. 'Deranged = allowing your city to burn & law enforcement to be attacked,' Hegseth said in a post on X. 'There is plenty of room for peaceful protest, but ZERO tolerance for attacking federal agents who are doing their job. The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE.' ICE has pledged to continue ramping up arrests as authorities carry out Trump's promise to oversee the largest deportation effort in US history. The president has also threatened to cut off federal funding to California after disputes over immigration, transgender issues and allegations of antisemitism on college campuses. The LA Police Department closed streets and a metro station late Saturday after clashes near a detention center where people apprehended by federal and local authorities were detained. The site is near the building where the National Guard troops were seen arriving in trucks. 'All the people approaching the Metropolitan Detention Center on foot or in a vehicle are subject to arrest,' the LD said on X late Saturday. 'Leave the area!!' More than 1,000 protesters surrounded a federal building in downtown LA on Friday, and additional demonstrations broke out Saturday in Compton and Paramount, south of the city. Local media reported tear gas and flash-bang grenades deployed to disperse the crowds. Immigration advocates have been holding regular peaceful protests in downtown LA against Trump's enforcement crackdown, with one planned for Sunday at 2 p.m. local time. In an interview with NBC News, Trump border czar Tom Homan defended the National Guard deployment, saying Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass should be thanking the president for helping to restore order. Homan warned the leaders could face arrest if they obstruct immigration enforcement efforts. The White House said the National Guard was being deployed to protect federal personnel and property, including immigration detention centers, citing what Trump described as credible threats of violence that could obstruct enforcement efforts and 'constitute a form of rebellion' against the US government. But the legal basis for the decision could face challenges. Federal law strictly limits the deployment of federal troops within US borders. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, along with amendments and supporting regulations, generally bars the use of the active-duty U.S. military — the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines — from carrying out domestic law enforcement. The law doesn't apply to state-controlled National Guard forces. With assistance from María Paula Mijares Torres. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.