Harvard Sues Trump Admin After It Tries to Silence What POTUS Can’t Outsmart
This is how authoritarianism starts, by targeting the boldest minds and hoping the rest stay silent
This isn’t about policy, it’s about control. When a president tries to illegally silence Harvard, he’s not protecting America, he’s protecting his ego.
Audio Version: Want to hear this post in my actual voice (no AI robots here)? Hit play, or listen and subscribe to the feed in your favorite podcast app (Apple podcasts and Spotify).
Update (09-03-25): Judge rules Trump administration's funding freeze against Harvard was unlawful
An Unprecedented and Alarming Overreach
Imagine waking up to find the U.S. government has effectively banned Harvard University from enrolling any international students. As a lawyer and an American, I am deeply alarmed by this unprecedented move. The Trump administration has yanked Harvard’s certification to host foreign students, a draconian step that forces current international students to transfer out or face losing their legal status.
In plain terms, Washington is telling thousands of bright young people: You’re no longer welcome at one of America’s top universities, simply because of where you come from. This heavy-handed action isn’t just about Harvard or its students, it strikes at the core of academic freedom, the rule of law, and the values of an open society.
For all the reasons shared in this article, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration today (Friday, May 23, 2025). I discuss all the issues below, in everyday language and with commentary, but if you like, you can read the full lawsuit here.
The Trump Administration’s Bogus Claims
Why would a presidential administration target a private university in such an extreme way? The Trump administration claims it has good reasons, citing everything from national security to campus safety and even ideology.
Homeland Security officials argue that Harvard’s campus has become unsafe, saying the university allowed “anti-American, pro-terrorist” protests that harassed Jewish students. They point to recent tensions on campus over the Israel–Palestine conflict, accusing Harvard of tolerating antisemitism and violence.
Administration spokespeople also insist there are national security concerns, even alleging that Harvard has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, including claims that it hosted members of a Chinese paramilitary group involved in human rights abuses. And on top of that, federal officials blast Harvard’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), suggesting that these programs are “racist” or otherwise problematic.
In short, the government’s argument is that Harvard has been misbehaving so badly, coddling extremists, endangering students, and undermining American values, that extraordinary intervention is justified.
On the surface, these claims sound dire. No one wants campuses overrun by violence or hate. No one wants foreign spies infiltrating our institutions. And of course, everyone should condemn genuine antisemitism or discrimination of any kind.
But do these accusations hold water? And even if Harvard has problems, does that justify the federal government essentially blackmailing a private university into ideological submission? When we examine the facts, it becomes clear that the administration’s case is built on exaggeration, misdirection, and a dangerous disregard for the law.
International Students Are Not the Enemy
Let’s start with the national security and crime arguments. The administration would have us believe Harvard’s international students as a group are a menace, potential spies, criminals, or “agitators.” This is a classic fear-mongering tactic that doesn’t square with reality.
Harvard has welcomed students from around the globe for centuries. The vast majority of these students are young scholars, not criminals, who have come to learn and contribute. If a few individuals break the law or threaten safety (regardless of their nationality), the solution is to hold those individuals accountable, not to punish an entire category of people. We don’t shut down an entire airport because one passenger is caught misbehaving, and we shouldn’t shut down a university’s foreign student program because of isolated incidents or unproven suspicions.
The claim that Harvard is somehow a hotbed of espionage or terrorist training is especially outlandish. Yes, students from countries like China study at Harvard, as they do at many U.S. universities, and some might later work in their home governments. But Harvard is not secretly training foreign militaries or plotting against America. There’s zero evidence that the institution itself is colluding with hostile powers.
If anything, America’s openness in education has been a strength, not a weakness: by educating the world’s brightest, we’ve built goodwill and influenced many future world leaders. Branding every international student as a security threat is a cynical generalization that flies in the face of decades of positive outcomes. It’s scapegoating, plain and simple, and it’s particularly galling coming from a U.S. administration.
Our country has long been proud of attracting talent from around the world. Turning that proud tradition into a paranoid witch hunt harms America’s reputation and future far more than a few exchange students ever could.
Antisemitism as a Pretext, Not a Policy
Now let’s talk about the antisemitism issue, because it’s important and emotionally charged. In recent months, like many campuses, Harvard saw heated protests and debates over the war between Israel and Hamas. Some student demonstrations and statements were indeed offensive to Jewish students and alumni. Antisemitism is a real problem in society that absolutely must be confronted. On that, we can all agree.
But the Trump administration’s response is completely wrongheaded. Instead of working to protect Jewish students through lawful means (like enforcing anti-discrimination laws or supporting campus dialogues), they have chosen to wield a sledgehammer against Harvard as a whole.
Revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students does nothing direct to combat antisemitism. It looks more like retaliation, punishing the university’s leadership for not cracking down in the way Washington wanted. If certain student groups said or did hateful things, address those specifically. Don’t throw thousands of unrelated students out of the country as collateral damage.
Ironically, by using Jewish students’ safety as a rationale for this broad attack on Harvard, the administration is politicizing the fight against antisemitism. They are leveraging a legitimate concern as a convenient pretext to justify an illegitimate power grab. That should anger those of us who truly care about combating hate: such a heavy-handed move creates backlash and division, rather than education and understanding. It’s using Jewish students as pawns in a political game, rather than actually ensuring they feel safe and supported.
Harvard, for its part, was already taking steps to address antisemitism on campus – commissioning studies, engaging with student groups, and yes, facing tough conversations about the line between free speech and hate speech. These are not easy issues, but they are best handled by educators and communities, not by federal agents cutting off visas.
By intervening in this extreme way, the government short-circuited the university’s own processes and essentially said, “Do it our way, or we’ll destroy your community.” That is not how you solve prejudice or protect anyone, that’s how you breed resentment and fear.
Targeting Diversity and Independence
And what about the attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs? The Trump administration’s ultimatum to Harvard included demands to eliminate DEI initiatives, claiming these programs are part of the problem. This is part of a larger ideological crusade we’ve seen from the right wing, portraying “wokeness” or diversity efforts as some kind of evil.
Let’s cut through the noise: DEI programs are about ensuring everyone on campus feels welcome and has equal opportunity, including people of all races, religions, and backgrounds. If anything, a well-run DEI program would help reduce bias and hatred (such as antisemitism) by fostering understanding among students. To call Harvard’s diversity efforts “racist” (as the administration has) flips reality on its head. It’s like accusing a hospital of causing disease.
It’s pretty obvious that the government’s issue with Harvard isn’t really about one particular incident or policy, it’s about Harvard’s overall culture and independence, which this administration despises. Harvard is known for being a liberal, global institution that doesn’t toe any party line. Many Harvard students and faculty have been outspoken critics of President Trump’s policies over the years.
The university’s leadership did not rush to implement the edicts from Washington; in fact, Harvard’s president and governing board flatly refused demands to overhaul their admissions and governance to fit the administration’s dictates. And that is their right.
Harvard is a private institution with its own charter and mission. It has constitutional rights to academic freedom and to decide its own values. The federal government does not get to micromanage Harvard’s curriculum, hiring, or which student clubs it recognizes. By trying to do so – by saying, “Eliminate programs we don’t like, or we’ll wreck your funding and student body” – the administration is breaching a fundamental American principle: that private institutions (especially universities) should be free from excessive government control, particularly control driven by political ideology.
From a legal perspective, this raises serious red flags. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts the government from punishing private entities for speech or forcing them to adopt certain views. Yet here we have the government effectively punishing Harvard because it dislikes the viewpoints expressed on campus and the university’s approach to diversity. That is a blatant abuse of power. It’s the kind of thing that, if allowed to stand, would mean no institution can ever feel safe disagreeing with those in power.
This Isn’t the First Time Trump Has Tried to Strong-Arm Harvard
This isn’t the first time Trump’s administration has tried to bulldoze Harvard into submission. Earlier in 2025, the White House issued a direct threat: comply with sweeping demands, including dismantling DEI programs, disbanding certain student organizations, and handing over internal records, or lose billions in federal support. The ultimatum was clear: fall in line or face financial destruction.
When Harvard refused to play along, the administration made good on its threat, freezing $2.3 billion in federal research funding and then revoking the university’s ability to enroll international students. It was a political chokehold masquerading as policy. Harvard, to its credit, didn’t back down. It didn’t fold. It sued.
And Harvard didn’t come to court empty-handed. The university brought in legal firepower from both sides of the aisle, led by William Burck, a former White House lawyer under George W. Bush, and Robert Hur, a former U.S. Attorney and special counsel with deep prosecutorial experience. These aren’t just top-tier litigators, they’re attorneys who’ve gone toe-to-toe with Trump’s orbit before.
In fact, Burck had been advising the Trump Organization until the moment he took on Harvard’s case. Trump was so enraged by Burck’s involvement that he publicly attacked him, and the Trump Organization cut ties.
That tells you everything you need to know about how personal this fight has become. Harvard didn’t just refuse to ask “how high” when Trump said jump, it called the bluff, exposed the abuse of power, and chose to defend the Constitution instead of cower to a bully.
A Political Power Play Masquerading as Policy
When you put all the pieces together, it becomes clear that this isn’t about safety or law at all, it’s about politics and control. The move to bar international students and the laundry list of demands foisted on Harvard read like an authoritarian wish list.
The message from the Trump administration is loud and clear: “Fall in line with our ideology, or we will make your life hell.” This is a political attack aimed at forcing ideological compliance from an independent university. It’s not a good-faith policy decision made after careful study or genuine concern for student welfare. If it were, the administration would be working cooperatively with universities to address problems, not ambushing them with sudden edicts and punitive orders.
Consider the timing and context. This action didn’t happen in a vacuum, it follows months of public feuding with elite universities over campus protests and “woke” policies. It also follows the administration’s pattern of labeling any institution it doesn’t like as fundamentally un-American.
It’s an open secret that certain officials (and perhaps President Trump himself) see places like Harvard as hotbeds of opposition, elite enclaves that need to be taught a lesson. By going after Harvard so aggressively, the administration aims to chill dissent not just at Harvard, but everywhere. The intent is to send a national message: no matter how prestigious or powerful you think you are, you’re not beyond the reach of our retribution. It’s hard to read this as anything but ideological retaliation.
We’ve seen this kind of tactic in other countries where democracy is backsliding. Authoritarian leaders often start by attacking universities and cultural institutions, because those are places where independent thought thrives. They manufacture a pretext – say, “national security” or “moral crisis” – and then swoop in to seize control or scare others into self-censorship.
That’s exactly what’s happening here, and it’s chilling to witness in the United States. No matter what your personal politics are, we should all be able to recognize the difference between genuine governance and using government power to bully opponents. This is the latter, and it’s unacceptable.
A Broader Campaign Against Higher Education and Legal Voices
Harvard is not the only target. This action is part of a broader campaign of authoritarian overreach that should have every American concerned. In recent weeks, we’ve also seen the Trump administration strong-arm other universities and even law firms in similar ways.
Columbia University, for example, was faced with a stark ultimatum: implement a series of policy changes dictated by Washington, including placing an entire academic department under special oversight, or lose billions in federal funding. Faced with the prospect of financial ruin, Columbia’s leadership felt they had no choice but to submit to some of these outrageous demands.
The result? A chilling precedent where the government dictates how a university teaches and who it hires, all under threat of punishment. Professors and free speech advocates rightly decried that capitulation as an attack on academic freedom, but the very fact it happened shows how far this campaign has already gone.
It’s not only colleges. Big law firms have also found themselves in the crosshairs. In a move that shocks the conscience of anyone who values the rule of law, President Trump ordered sanctions against certain major law firms that he deems politically unfriendly. Firms that have represented causes or clients contrary to the administration’s views, or that have robust diversity hiring programs, suddenly faced threats: loss of government contracts, intrusive investigations, even blacklisting of their attorneys from federal work.
Under this pressure, some of the country’s top firms quietly made “deals” with the administration, pledging to redirect their resources toward causes the White House favors and scaling back initiatives (like some diversity programs) that drew officials’ ire. As a lawyer, I find this both infuriating and terrifying. So much so that I was a signatory on two amicus briefs supporting each firm fighting Trump’s executive orders.
Lawyers are supposed to be free to advocate for clients and principles without fear of government retaliation. That independence of the legal profession is a pillar of our justice system. But this administration is effectively saying, “Represent views we like, not ones we don’t, or we will punish you.” This is a direct assault on the rule of law, just as the actions against universities are an assault on academic freedom.
When you connect the dots, the pattern is unmistakable. From campuses to courtrooms, the Trump administration is pressuring independent institutions to either conform or be crushed. The tools vary, cutting off visas here, yanking funding there, launching investigations, issuing executive orders, but the motive is the same: consolidating power and silencing opposition. This is not normal governance. It is a creeping authoritarianism that has no place in the United States of America.
If They Can Do This to Harvard, They Can Do It to You
Some readers might be thinking, “Well, Harvard is rich and elitist, why should I care?” Here’s why: if the government can do this to Harvard, it can do it to absolutely anyone.
Harvard, for all its ivory tower reputation, is still a private organization operating under the rule of law. If even Harvard can be targeted and strong-armed in this way, what’s to stop the government from coming after a public state college? Or a local business? Or a non-profit community group? The answer is nothing, unless we draw a line and say this is unacceptable.
Today the pretext is antisemitism on campus and foreign student visas. Tomorrow it could be something else that becomes the excuse to intrude on your school or company. Think about it: could a future administration ban a particular community college from teaching certain subjects because it claims “national security” or some moral panic? Could they pressure a corporation by revoking licenses or contracts because the CEO supported the wrong candidate or social cause? Once this door is open, it can swing both ways and hit anyone.
It’s not hard to imagine a scenario down the road where a liberal administration, citing this precedent, tries to punish a conservative institution in a similar manner. The point is, no matter your politics, you don’t want the federal government turning into an ideological enforcer. That’s a road that leads straight away from democracy and toward a authoritarian state.
Everyday Americans might not feel an immediate impact from Harvard’s foreign students being sent away. But we will all feel the effects if this mentality spreads. We’ll feel it in a country that is less free, less innovative, and more fearful.
Students will think twice about speaking their minds, or they’ll only say what those in power want to hear. Schools will hesitate to invite certain speakers or teach certain topics, worried about federal retaliation. Employers might shy away from fair hiring initiatives or pro-bono work that could put a target on their backs. In other words, the chilling effect will touch the lives of regular people who just want to learn, work, and live without Big Brother looming over their shoulder.
Defending Democracy and Academic Freedom
We are at a pivotal moment. This attempt to bar international students from Harvard might seem like a niche issue affecting one campus, but it is actually a bellwether for the health of our democracy. If we allow this kind of overreach to go unchallenged, we normalize the idea that the government can bully any institution into compliance. That is not the America our founders envisioned, nor is it a country most of us want to live in.
As a lawyer, I have faith that our legal system can and will check some of these excesses, indeed, Harvard has already gone to court to fight back, and I’m confident the law is on its side. Courts have historically been protective of academic freedom and skeptical of executive power grabs.
But court battles take time, and they are not guaranteed. What’s needed right now is public outcry. We, the people, must make it crystal clear that we won’t stand for this. Alumni, students, faculty, business leaders, and everyday citizens alike should raise their voices. Speak up in defense of institutions’ right to be free from political intimidation.
Let your elected representatives know that this behavior by the executive branch is beyond the pale. Support organizations that are challenging these actions legally.
Most importantly, stay informed and do not become numb to these tactics. Authoritarian shifts often happen gradually, under the guise of protecting the public from some alleged threat. It’s our job as citizens to see through that and demand accountability. Today it’s international students at Harvard. Tomorrow it could be your own community’s rights on the line.
In the end, this is about more than Harvard, more than universities or law firms. It’s about what kind of country we want to be. I believe in an America where universities can welcome bright minds from everywhere, where dissent and debate are not only tolerated but cherished, and where no leader can trample on freedom without pushback from the people.
The attempt to bar Harvard from enrolling international students is a stark test of those values. We must rise to the occasion and push back, for the sake of our students, our democracy, and our future.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
This post is free.
But free doesn’t build the future.
Independent journalism only works when people like you choose to lean in, not just with attention, but with support.
If my work and message resonates with you,— today’s a great day to take the leap.
It’s also a unique gift to a family member or friend who is interested in this kind of commentary on breaking political news and democracy.
At just $5 a month. $50 a year. It’s a small investment in something bigger than all of us.
See Harvard’s lawsuit (click on image)
I posted President Garber’s message on Facebook this morning. He also has an excellent interview on video with the Wall Street Journal. It’s really about academic freedom when Trump doesn’t get his way, he goes for blood and attacks. He simply doesn’t know any other way. Unfortunately for him, it won’t work this time and probably anytime. The only negative about having this go up to the Supreme Court is that Ketanji Brown Jackson will probably have to recuse herself since she sat on the Harvard board of overseers for a few years.
Update: Judge rules Trump administration's funding freeze against Harvard was unlawful
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-trump-administrations-funding-freeze-for-harvard-was-unlawful/