The public clashes between Harvard University and the Trump administration often appeared to centre on immigration, science policy, and perceived elitism. However, beneath the surface lay a more fundamental tension: a collision between an administration guided by an “America First” doctrine and the nation’s oldest and most prominent university functioning as a powerful non-state actor in global diplomacy. To analyse their feud through this lens is to tell the story of how the Ivy League university, operating as a modern diplomatic power, fought to defend its international character and protect its core mission from the fire of domestic politics. Harvard’s influence extends far beyond that of a typical university. With an endowment exceeding $50 billion, which rivals the budgets of some nations, its reach is immense. This power is not just financial; it is also diplomatic. Through initiatives like the Belfer Center and Kennedy School programs, the university facilitates essential backchannel dialogues, bringing together officials and experts from conflict zones, often outside the formal channels of statecraft. Its research shapes international norms on everything from public health to governance, and its faculty frequently advises governments and world organisations. More than anything, its international student body creates an extensive, lifelong network of future global leaders, a core diplomatic asset. This is cemented by high-stakes partnerships with foreign entities, allowing Harvard to operate with the reach and complexity of an almost sovereign entity.
This globalist worldview directly clashed with the Trump administration’s philosophy, and the confrontation was not just rhetorical; it unfolded in courtrooms, laboratories, and the public sphere.
Clashing philosophies and direct legal confrontations
The friction began almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust swiftly condemned the President’s executive order restricting travel from several Muslim-majority nations, describing it as “deeply disturbing”. She pledged support for affected students and scholars, and Harvard joined lawsuits challenging the ban. The university also declared itself a “sanctuary campus,” a symbolic stance meant to support undocumented students, which positioned it directly against the administration’s strict immigration policies. This was not just a political statement but a defence of the university’s diplomatic function as a global crossroads for talent. As The New York Times reported, this decision resonated across many elite campuses, but it also made Harvard a prominent target for conservative criticism.
The conflict over people, the lifeblood of academic diplomacy, escalated dramatically in July 2020. The administration issued a directive threatening the visa status of international students whose universities moved online during the pandemic. For Harvard, planning an online model was an existential threat to its global student body. President Lawrence S. Bacow led a swift counter-attack, and a successful lawsuit filed with MIT forced the administration into a humiliating reversal. This was a clear demonstration of Harvard leveraging its legal and institutional power to protect its most vital diplomatic asset: its international community.
The feud went beyond mere policy differences. Trump frequently used language that depicted elite universities, such as Harvard, as bastions of liberalism, political correctness, and a disconnect from “real America.” He described their leadership and faculty as part of a coastal elite that fundamentally opposed his agenda and his supporters. This narrative struck a chord with his base but deepened the hostility between the White House and Cambridge.
The last battle
In the spring of 2025, the longstanding feud between Harvard University and the Trump administration escalates into a high-stakes battle over academic freedom, federal funding, and the future of international education in the United States.
The conflict had been escalating for months. Citing concerns over the university’s handling of campus antisemitism, the administration demanded sweeping oversight of faculty hiring and admissions. Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, refused these demands, stating in a public letter, “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights”. In response, the administration froze $2.2 billion in federal research grants. On April 21, Harvard filed a lawsuit, claiming that the administration’s actions constituted unlawful retaliation.
Just as the universities’ request for oversight was granted, the administration intensified the conflict dramatically. On May 22, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the administration was revoking Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). As a result, the university was barred from enrolling international students, leaving approximately 6,700 scholars, about 27% of its student body, in uncertainty.
Harvard quickly condemned the action as “unlawful” and a serious threat to academic freedom. Panic spread across the campus as students, some just days away from graduation, confronted an uncertain future in a struggle that jeopardized not only the university’s funding but also its identity as a global crossroads for talent and ideas.
As news of the lawsuit spread, the academic community came together in support. On June 6, a coalition of eighteen of the nation’s leading research universities, including MIT, Princeton, Yale, and Johns Hopkins, requested permission from a federal judge to file an “amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in favor of Harvard. They argued that the funding terminations “inflict grievous harm that extends well beyond Harvard,” warning that these actions could disrupt the entire U.S. research ecosystem and undermine the 80-year partnership between the government and academia.
Several major universities, including Columbia and Cornell, have faced funding cuts but did not participate in the legal brief. Columbia previously agreed to comply with certain government conditions, while Cornell has yet to issue any statements.
The judge has approved the universities’ request to submit their brief, and there were no objections from the Trump administration. Oral arguments in the case are set to begin on July 21.
A test of institutional sovereignty
In response to various challenges, Harvard adopted a diplomatic approach to defend itself. The lawsuits filed were not simply protests; they were calculated assertions of the university’s institutional sovereignty. Leaders consistently framed their actions around the core values of global scholarship and institutional autonomy. Harvard also utilised its extensive network, mobilising alums, corporate partners, and peer institutions to create a broad coalition opposing the visa rule. This occurred while Harvard navigated other sensitive international relationships, carefully balancing important research links with rising geopolitical tensions and scrutiny, a delicate diplomatic act.
Ultimately, the conflict between Harvard and the Trump administration is a crucial test of institutional sovereignty. The legal battles revealed that major universities must sometimes actively defend their operational and financial independence to maintain their global roles. These battles highlighted the ongoing vulnerability of international students and scholars to changing national politics, but they also demonstrated the resilience of an institution built on a global model. These confrontations, fought in courtrooms and the public square, transcended issues of visas or taxes; they were fundamentally about preserving a university’s ability to operate independently within the global knowledge ecosystem. This episode starkly illustrated both the substantial soft power of an institution like Harvard and its extensive efforts to uphold that power when its foundational principles are threatened.
800 years of student protest by Aleksej Kisjuhas
Think student protests are a modern phenomenon? Think again. The fight for academic freedom and social justice is a tradition that stretches back 800 years. In 1229, a brawl in a Parisian tavern escalated into a two-year university-wide strike, bringing the intellectual heart of the city to a standstill. These early activists, including students and professors, proved that when authority ignores justice, closing down the classroom can be the most powerful weapon.
Click to show page navigation!
