Last week, the Trump administration announced that it is revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. This comes after weeks of legal battles after the university sued the White House in April over a $2.2 billion funding freeze, claiming that the Trump administration was engaging in governmental overreach.
The university received a letter from Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reading, “I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked.”
The Trump administration “is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” she continued.
In the hours after, outrage poured in. Harvard’s president called the action “unlawful” and released a statement noting that “this retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”
Harvard wasn’t alone. Several other universities have also referred to Trump’s attack on higher education as government overreach, including Princeton University and Brown University. Ted Michell, president of the American Council on Education, described the move as “illegal” and “small-minded.” In response, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White issued a nationwide injunction preventing immigration authorities from revoking international students’ legal status while litigation continues. The judge’s order cited concerns over constitutional rights and due process.
My initial reaction was that this had to be unconstitutional. Right? The Trump administration can’t just revoke a private institution’s right to enroll international students, right?
The most probable reality is that these actions are unconstitutional. Supreme Court precedent from Sweezy v. New Hampshire treats academic freedom as a core First Amendment concern. Goss v. Lopez safeguards universities’ academic freedom and due process. In this case, the higher education battle would fit into the larger liberal narrative about Donald Trump’s presidency: the erosion of constitutional norms is altering our faith in government, and the foundations of the rule of law are following. Some have claimed that we are in a constitutional crisis, and Democratic politicians are claiming that Trump is “actively destroying the rule of law.”
Yet what’s even more unsettling is the possibility that the Trump administration could be acting within the bounds of the Constitution.
In the words of a White House spokesperson, “Enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right.” Courts have long maintained that foreign nationals lack a constitutional right to enter or remain in the United States. For example, in 1970, Ernst Mandel, a self-described Marxist from Belgium, was denied entry after being invited to an event at Stanford University. When the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the executive branch’s right to refuse visas to foreign scholars in a 6-3 decision.
Additionally, to enroll international students, universities must also hold SEVP certification. The Department of Homeland Security delegates the administration of the SEVP process to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and this certification is a privilege by law and by no means a constitutional guarantee. Receiving federal benefits such as funding or the ability to enroll international students, is a privilege rather than a right.
The Trump administration may be acting within the law, yet I argue that this unprecedented exploitation of legal precedent could pose the gravest threat to the nation’s well‑being. Thursday’s actions give us a glimpse into how our constitutional landscape is changing in potentially legal ways that are threatening norms that have existed in the United States. The shrewdness of the Trump administration to weaponize current laws and take advantage of legal ambiguities is damning, and I fear that this could be more threatening than blatant violations of the Constitution. A more covertly acting Trump administration could muffle public outrage and stall institutional resistance. By using funding and admissions policies as weapons rather than outright banning speech, this would subtly undermine academic freedom and teach universities to self-censor before any constitutional concerns are raised.
What Trump is doing is strategic, and he is uncovering ways to perform governmental actions that we all may know are governmental overreach, but are perfectly legal. The gradual deterioration of the values that underpin our system and the deliberate manipulation of legality are the greatest existential threats to the welfare of our country and the health of our democracy.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
