06-10-2025

Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University

ProclamationView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Presidential Proclamation 10948, issued by President Donald J. Trump, temporarily suspends the entry of new international students and exchange visitors who intend to study or conduct research at Harvard University. It cites national security risks, alleging the university has refused to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with requested information on foreign students' misconduct, has extensive financial ties to foreign adversaries like China, and has violated students' civil rights.

Money: The proclamation itself does not appropriate funds. However, it references Harvard's significant foreign funding, including over $1 billion from foreign sources in the last five years and more than $150 million from China alone over the past decade.

Your Impact: The most immediate and direct effect is on prospective international students and exchange visitors who have been accepted to Harvard but cannot enter the U.S. to begin their programs. Current international students at Harvard may also face visa revocation at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Status: The proclamation was issued on June 4, 2025. However, its implementation was blocked by a temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 5, 2025, and a preliminary injunction was issued on June 23, 2025, pending further court orders.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive proclamation suspends entry into the United States for any foreign national holding or seeking an F, M, or J visa to begin a course of study or exchange program at Harvard University. The suspension is set to expire 6 months from the date of the proclamation unless extended. The order does not automatically apply to currently enrolled students but directs the Secretary of State to consider revoking their visas on a case-by-case basis. The proclamation also instructs federal agencies to consider limiting Harvard's ability to participate in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is the system that allows institutions to enroll international students.

Core Provisions:

  • Suspension of Entry: Prohibits any alien from entering the U.S. as a nonimmigrant to pursue studies at Harvard under F, M, or J visas.
  • Duration: The suspension is effective for 6 months from June 4, 2025, unless extended.
  • Scope: Applies to new students and exchange visitors seeking to begin programs at Harvard. It does not apply to students at other universities.
  • Discretionary Visa Revocation: The Secretary of State is authorized to consider revoking the F, M, or J visas of current Harvard students.
  • Review for Extension: The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are required to submit a recommendation on extending the suspension no later than 90 days after the proclamation's date.
  • National Interest Exception: An exception can be made for any individual whose entry is determined to be in the national interest by the Secretaries of State or Homeland Security.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The proclamation states its purpose is to protect U.S. national security.

  1. To address risks posed by Harvard University's alleged refusal to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with information about criminal and other misconduct by its foreign students.
  2. To counter the exploitation of the student visa program by foreign adversaries, such as the People's Republic of China, who allegedly use students to steal technical information and spread propaganda.
  3. To respond to Harvard's extensive financial entanglements with foreign adversaries, which the administration claims could compromise the university.
  4. To address Harvard's alleged violations of civil rights, particularly in its admissions processes.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Higher Education, Technology, Research & Development.
Timeline: The suspension took effect on June 4, 2025, but was judicially blocked on June 5, 2025. The proclamation itself has a 6-month lifespan, expiring in December 2025 unless extended.
Scope: The order is specific to Harvard University and all prospective international students and exchange visitors planning to attend.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Scrutiny Era (2020-2025):

  • 2020: The Department of Education under the first Trump administration began an investigation into Harvard for allegedly failing to report over $1.1 billion in foreign funding, as required by law.
  • June 29, 2023: The Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The proclamation cites this decision as evidence of Harvard's discriminatory practices.
  • October 2023: A report from the Harvard University Police Department showed that crime on campus increased by 46% in 2022 compared to a 10-year low in 2021, though the total number of crimes remained lower than most years in the preceding decade. The proclamation highlights rising crime rates as a key concern.
  • 2024-2025: House Congressional Committees, particularly the Select Committee on the CCP, intensified investigations into Harvard's ties with China. The committee alleged Harvard trained members of a sanctioned Chinese paramilitary group and that its researchers collaborated with Chinese military-linked universities. A Campus Reform audit found Harvard received over $150 million from China in the last 10 years.
  • May 22, 2025: The Department of Homeland Security blocked Harvard from enrolling new international students, an action that was also met with a temporary restraining order.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • National Security Focus: The proclamation is part of a broader administrative strategy to counter perceived national security threats from China, focusing on intellectual property theft and foreign influence within U.S. higher education.
  • Leveraging Allegations: The administration compiled several distinct criticisms of Harvard—foreign funding, the affirmative action ruling, campus crime, and alleged non-cooperation with federal investigators—into a single executive action to justify the severe penalty.
  • Political Messaging: The action targets a high-profile, elite institution often viewed by conservatives as a symbol of liberal ideology, making it a potent political statement.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This proclamation directly affects a specific group: international individuals seeking to study or conduct research at Harvard University.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For supporters of the proclamation, a potential benefit is a perceived strengthening of national security by preventing potential espionage and intellectual property theft at a leading research university.
  • Some may see it as holding a powerful institution accountable for what they view as discriminatory admissions policies and a lack of transparency.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (While in effect):

  • Prospective international students and scholars accepted to Harvard are barred from entering the U.S. for their programs, causing significant disruption to their academic and professional lives.
  • Current international students at Harvard face uncertainty, with the possibility that their visas could be revoked.
  • Harvard University's research and academic programs could be disrupted by the inability to bring in new international talent.

Long-term:

  • If the policy is upheld and expanded, it could create a chilling effect on international student enrollment in the U.S., diminishing American universities' global competitiveness and the cross-cultural exchange they foster.
  • It could lead to a permanent reduction in the number of international scholars and researchers contributing to innovation in the U.S.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Prospective F, M, and J visa applicants for Harvard University; Harvard University's administration and faculty.
Secondary Groups: Current international students at Harvard; U.S. tech and research sectors that rely on talent from top universities; families of affected students.
Regional Impact: The impact is concentrated on Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but has broader implications for the U.S.'s reputation in international education.

Bottom Line: The proclamation creates a significant barrier for international students and scholars hoping to join the Harvard community and introduces a new level of federal oversight and conflict with a major American university.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Turn Off the Spigot"

Core Stance: The administration and its supporters view this action as a necessary step to protect national security and hold an unaccountable elite institution in check.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Universities, especially those receiving federal funds and foreign donations, must be transparent and cooperate fully with federal law enforcement on national security matters.
  • ✓ China and other adversaries are actively exploiting the openness of American higher education to steal research and advance their own military and economic goals.
  • ✗ Harvard has demonstrated a pattern of flouting the law, from discriminatory admissions to failing to report foreign gifts, and should face consequences.

Legislative Strategy: Using executive authority to act swiftly where legislative action might be slower or more contested. The proclamation is part of a broader pattern of scrutiny on universities from Republican-led committees and the administration.

Democratic Position: "Xenophobic and Misguided"

Core Stance: Opponents generally view the proclamation as an overreach of executive power, a xenophobic attack on international students, and a threat to academic freedom.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Singling out one university is punitive and politically motivated, not a serious, comprehensive security strategy.
  • ✓ International students are a vital part of the academic ecosystem, contributing to research, innovation, and the U.S. economy. They are already among the most vetted nonimmigrants.
  • ⚠️ While acknowledging the need to protect against espionage, they argue that targeting all students from all countries destined for one university is misguided and counterproductive.

Legislative Strategy: Supporting the legal challenges against the proclamation and advocating for policies that protect international students and academic exchange, while also addressing legitimate security concerns through more tailored measures.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The proclamation relies on sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Section 212(f) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)): "[W]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Constitutional Implications:

[Presidential Authority]: The executive branch has historically been granted broad, though not unlimited, authority by Congress under the INA to control the entry of non-citizens. The Supreme Court has often been deferential to the President's power in this area, particularly when national security is invoked.
[Precedent]: The Trump administration previously used this authority broadly, most notably in the "travel ban" cases. While courts have acknowledged the president's power, legal challenges have argued it does not allow the executive to subvert other parts of immigration law, such as the right to seek asylum. The targeting of a single institution is a novel application.
[Federalism]: This is primarily an issue of federal immigration power, not federalism, as the authority to admit or exclude non-citizens rests with the federal government.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The proclamation was immediately challenged in court, and a temporary restraining order was granted, followed by a preliminary injunction. Legal challenges are likely based on arguments that the proclamation is an arbitrary and capricious use of executive authority, exceeds the powers granted by the INA, and infringes on academic freedom. Harvard and advocacy groups argue that there is no legitimate national security justification for a blanket ban on all international students attending one university.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call or Write the White House: Contact the White House comment line at (202) 456-1111 or use the online contact form to express your support for Proclamation 10948 and the administration's national security stance.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Select Committee on the CCP or the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to support their investigations into foreign influence at universities.
  • Join an Organization: Find and support organizations that are critical of foreign influence in U.S. higher education and advocate for stricter controls.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Use the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to tell your representatives you oppose Proclamation 10948 and support the rights of international students.

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit an opinion piece to your local newspaper explaining the value of international students to your community and the U.S. economy.
  • Join an Organization: Support advocacy groups that work to protect the rights of international students and promote academic freedom, such as NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), or the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS).