Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University
President Trump issued a proclamation suspending the entry of foreign nationals seeking to attend Harvard University under student or exchange visitor programs.
The action cites concerns over Harvard's alleged failure to cooperate with federal investigations into national security risks and alleged misconduct among foreign students, insufficient discipline of student conduct violations, and extensive ties to foreign governments, including adversaries.
It also alleges discrimination against American students and faculty.
The president asserts that these actions are necessary to protect national security and uphold the rule of law.
The proclamation sets forth specific procedures including a 90-day review to determine whether to extend the suspension.
Arguments For
National Security Concerns: The proclamation cites concerns about Harvard's alleged failure to cooperate with federal investigations into potential national security risks related to foreign students and research collaborations with foreign adversaries, particularly China. The argument suggests that Harvard's lack of cooperation poses an unacceptable risk to US national security.
Enforcement of Federal Law: The stated purpose is to enforce existing laws pertaining to the Student Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), requiring universities to provide information on misconduct by foreign students and to ensure compliance with federal regulations. This highlights a need to hold universities accountable for upholding their legal obligations.
Protection of American Students and Faculty: The proclamation claims Harvard's practices discriminate against American students and faculty by excessively favoring foreign students and enrolling those from nations hostile to the US. This aims to level the playing field for domestic students and protect their opportunities.
Legal Basis: The proclamation cites sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as legal authorization for the president to suspend entry of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to U.S. interests.
Arguments Against
Overreach of Presidential Power: Critics might argue that the proclamation represents an overreach of presidential authority, potentially violating due process rights of foreign students and universities. It may set a dangerous precedent for executive actions targeting specific institutions.
Potential for Harm to Academic Exchange: Restricting foreign student access to Harvard could significantly harm academic exchange and international collaboration, potentially damaging US global standing in higher education and scientific research.
Lack of Transparency and Due Process: The proclamation's claims regarding Harvard's actions and failures may lack sufficient transparency, and affected parties may be denied due process in challenging the restrictions.
Economic Impact: Suspending foreign student admission at Harvard could negatively impact the university's finances, as well as the broader Massachusetts economy. Foreign students are significant contributors to educational institutions and communities.
Alternative Approaches: Critics might suggest less drastic measures to address the concerns, like increased oversight of SEVP, stricter enforcement of existing regulations, or targeted investigations of specific cases of misconduct, rather than a broad restriction on foreign student admissions.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
This is the formal header of the Presidential Proclamation, indicating its authority and purpose.
Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation’s institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee. That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution’s compliance and commitment to following Federal law. Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others.
This introductory section establishes that admission to US higher education is a privilege conditional on compliance with federal laws.
Harvard University is cited as failing to meet these standards.
The Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) depends fundamentally on academic institutions’ good faith, transparency, and full adherence to the relevant regulatory frameworks. This is for crucial national-security reasons. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries and competitors take advantage of easy access to American higher education to, among other things, steal technical information and products, exploit expensive research and development to advance their own ambitions, and spread false information for political or other reasons. Our adversaries, including the People’s Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States.
This section explains the national security importance of the SEVP and highlights the FBI's concerns about foreign entities exploiting the program for espionage and other malicious activities, specifically mentioning China.
Protecting our national security requires host institutions of foreign students to provide sufficient information, when asked, to enable the Federal Government to identify and address misconduct by those foreign students. In my judgment, it presents an unacceptable risk to our Nation’s security for an academic institution to refuse to provide sufficient information, when asked, about known instances of misconduct and criminality committed by its foreign students. This principle is one reason why SEVP regulations require foreign students to obey Federal and State criminal laws and require universities to keep records about foreign students’ studies in the United States — including records relating to criminal activity by foreign students and resulting disciplinary proceedings — and furnish them to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on request.
This section emphasizes that universities' cooperation with investigations is vital for national security.
It argues that refusing to provide information constitutes an unacceptable risk and points to existing SEVP regulations requiring information sharing as justification.
Crime rates at Harvard University — including violent crime rates — have drastically risen in recent years. Harvard has failed to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus. Given these facts, it is imperative, in my judgment, that the Federal Government be able to assess and, if necessary, address misconduct and crimes committed by foreign students at Harvard.
This section claims a substantial increase in crime rates, including violent crime, at Harvard, and alleges a failure to adequately address it, therefore justifying government intervention.
Despite the risks described above, Harvard University has refused the recent requests of the DHS for information about foreign students’ “known illegal activity,” “known dangerous and violent activity,” “known threats to other students or university personnel,” “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel,” and whether those activities “occurred on campus,” and other related data. Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions. Harvard’s actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students. In my judgment, these actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government’s ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law.
This section details Harvard's alleged refusal to cooperate with DHS requests for information about foreign student misconduct, further supporting the claim of non-compliance and national security risk.
These concerns have compelled the Federal Government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs. When a university refuses to uphold its legal obligations, including its recordkeeping and reporting obligations, the consequences ripple far beyond the campus. They jeopardize the integrity of the entire United States student and exchange visitor visa system, compromise national security, and embolden other institutions to similarly disregard the rule of law.
This section summarizes the conclusion that Harvard is deemed untrustworthy and that its actions jeopardize the integrity and security of the entire US student and exchange visitor visa system.
Harvard University has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries. According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has received more than $150 million in total contributions from foreign governments over the last 5 years, and over $1 billion from foreign sources. Over the last 10 years, Harvard has received more than $150 million from China alone. In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, “repeatedly hosted and trained members of a Chinese Communist Party paramilitary organization,” according to a probe by the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Harvard researchers have also partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China’s military modernization, according to the same probe.
This section raises concerns about Harvard's financial ties with foreign governments, particularly China, and alleges involvement with activities that could aid China's military modernization.
Finally, Harvard University continues to flout the civil rights of its students and faculty, triggering multiple Federal investigations. Harvard’s discrimination against disfavored races in admissions was so blatant that the Supreme Court decision ending the practice nationwide bears Harvard’s name. Yet even after that Supreme Court decision, Harvard and its affiliated organizations on campus continue to deny hardworking Americans equal opportunities. Instead of those Americans, Harvard admits students from non-egalitarian nations, including nations that seek the destruction of the United States and its allies, or the extermination of entire peoples. It is not in the interest of the United States to further compound Harvard’s discrimination against non-preferred races, national origins, shared ancestries, or religions by further reducing opportunities for American students through excessive foreign student enrollment.
This section alleges that Harvard continues to engage in civil rights violations, citing Supreme Court rulings.
It further argues that admitting students from hostile nations exacerbates discrimination against American students.
Considering these facts, I have determined that it is necessary 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. Such restrictions are authorized under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), which authorize the President to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers. Until such time as the university shares the information that the Federal Government requires to safeguard national security and the American public, it is in the national interest to deny foreign nationals access to Harvard under the auspices of educational exchange.
This section states the decision to restrict foreign student entry to Harvard, citing the INA as legal justification.
It directly links this decision to Harvard's alleged conduct and justifies it as being in the national interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I hereby proclaim as follows:
This is the formal declaration of the Presidential Proclamation, outlining the legal authority and purpose of the actions detailed below.
Section 1. Suspension of Entry. The entry of any alien into the United States as a nonimmigrant to pursue a course of study at Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(F) or section 101(a)(15)(M) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) or 1101(a)(15)(M), or to participate in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), is suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation. That suspension and limitation shall expire, absent extension, 6 months after the date of this proclamation.
This section formally suspends and limits the entry of foreign nationals to Harvard University for study or exchange programs, specifying the legal sections and time limit (6 months).
Sec. 2. Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply to aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States to begin attending Harvard University through the SEVP after the date of this proclamation.
(b) The Secretary of State shall consider, in the Secretary’s discretion, whether foreign nationals who currently attend Harvard University and are in the United States pursuant to F, M, or J visas and who otherwise meet the criteria described in section 1 of this proclamation should have their visas revoked pursuant to section 221(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(i).
(c) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States to attend other universities through the SEVP.
(d) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
(e) No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension and limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.
This section details the scope and implementation of the suspension.
It clarifies which aliens are affected, outlines the Secretary of State's role in considering visa revocations, specifies exemptions for students at other universities and those deemed in the national interest, and sets a 90-day review for extension.
Sec. 3. Operational Action to Implement this Order. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate to take all necessary and appropriate action to implement this proclamation. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall also consider using their respective authorities under the INA to impose limitations on Harvard University’s ability to participate in the SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. Any such actions should include an exception for any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
This section mandates inter-agency cooperation to implement the proclamation and authorizes consideration of further limitations on Harvard's participation in relevant programs, with exceptions for those in the national interest.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
This section clarifies that the proclamation doesn't affect existing legal authorities, acknowledges budgetary constraints, and explicitly limits legal enforceability against the government.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
DONALD J. TRUMP
This is the formal closing of the Presidential Proclamation, including the date and the President's signature.