On May 22, 2025, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it was immediately revoking Harvard University’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program (SEVP) certification in retaliation for the university’s refusal to share student records. The announcement came after a disagreement between Harvard and the DHS over the legality of sharing the records.

The revocation, which was announced in a statement issued by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, was the latest in a series of actions to compel Harvard’s compliance with the administration’s demands. Previously, the administration had frozen more than $2 billion (see report) in research grants and contracts, after which the university filed a lawsuit seeking to restore the threatened funds.

SEVP certifications, which are issued by the DHS, authorizes higher education institutions to issue certification of university enrollment to international students. Typically SEVP certifications are revoked only following a lengthy investigation, usually when an issuing institution is suspected of bad faith. When an institution’s SEVP status is revoked, all current international students are required to transfer to another college or university within the SEVP program or risk losing their legal immigration status in the US. An institution without SEVP status is also unable to enroll new international students. According to Harvard’s data, international students make up about a quarter of the university’s enrollment. The revocation of SEVP status would therefore have significant repercussions for the academic life, campus community, and finances of the university.

The SEVP revocation followed a month-long back-and-forth between the university and the government over student records. On April 17, the DHS sent a letter to Harvard alleging that international students enrolled at Harvard had been involved in dangerous or violent activities and demanding that the university submit the disciplinary records of international students, including information about their participation in protests. The letter threatened to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification if it did not comply. On April 30, Harvard provided partial records to the government. It was unclear precisely what information Harvard shared, but, according to the university, it provided all information that it was required to share by law. The DHS responded with a new student records request. Harvard and the government spent several days disputing the legality of the new request before DHS announced that it would revoke the university’s SEVP certification.

On May 23, Harvard filed a lawsuit, accusing the DHS of not following the proper process for terminating SEVP certification. Hours later, a US district court judge issued a temporary restraining order barring the government’s action. On May 28, the DHS issued a formal letter, notifying Harvard of the government’s intention to revoke its SEVP certification. The letter appeared to backtrack on DHS’s original announcement that the certification would be immediately revoked by giving Harvard 30 days to contest the decision. On May 29, the same judge extended the restraining order on government action until a preliminary injunction is issued.

Scholars at Risk is concerned about formal state pressure on institutional autonomy and academic freedom. In this instance, the government’s failure to follow normal procedures, including failure to conduct a transparent investigation and to afford the university due process and an opportunity to rebut any evidence presented strongly suggests an attempt to force compliance with extralegal demands or risk serious harm to the academic and financial standing of the institution. This suggestion is supported by the parallel actions of the administration against the university, including threatened investigations, withholding or cancellation of research grants and contracts, and unilateral demands for external control over hiring, admissions, research and teaching content, and administration.

While legislative and executive officials have an oversight role over institutions receiving public funds or benefits, they have a responsibility to refrain from abusing the oversight role in ways that erode autonomy and academic freedom, including by threatening, imposing extra-legal sanctions, or otherwise dictating academic or operational decision-making. Formal government threats and pressures undermine university autonomy, academic freedom, and the university’s ability to contribute to democratic society generally.

Sources:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/trump-administration-revokes-harvards-ability-to-enroll-international-students
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/05/22/trump-administration-strips-harvards-sevis
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/us/politics/trump-harvard-international-students.html
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/05/23/harvard-wins-injunction-protect-international
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/17/dhs-harvard/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/1/harvard-dhs-response/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/23/international-student-enrollment/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/25/what-to-know-harvard-suit/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/29/harvard-international-students-hearing/
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/22/harvard-university-loses-student-and-exchange-visitor-program-certification-pro
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/Notice%20of%20Intent%20to%20Withdrawal%20-%20Harvard%20University_signed.pdf