Beyond Harvard: Could other US universities face international student bans next?

The Trump administration’s dramatic revocation of Harvard University’s SEVP (Student and Exchange Visitor Program) certification has lit a fuse under America’s academic institutions.What was once unthinkable—targeting one of the world’s most prestigious universities over its international student policies—is now a reality. The question echoing across campuses: Who’s next?On paper, the action against Harvard stemmed from its refusal to share foreign student conduct records with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In practice, it appears to signal a broader campaign of scrutiny, particularly aimed at elite institutions with large international populations and visible campus activism.

Federal targets: Who’s in the crosshairs?

Behind closed doors, legal teams at major universities—MIT, Columbia, Yale, and Stanford, among them—are reportedly scrambling to audit compliance procedures, fearing they may be next in line. Several have recently hosted large-scale student protests, including pro-Palestine demonstrations and sit-ins decrying American foreign policy. These expressions of dissent, historically protected under academic freedom, may now be placing institutions at political risk.

US universities in danger: Federal eyes on the quad

What started in Columbia’s manicured lawns has now engulfed campuses from coast to coast. By early May 2024, student protests had erupted in 45 states and the District of Columbia, spanning nearly 140 colleges and universities. What was once considered an isolated campus unrest has crystallised into a nationwide wave of civil disobedience. At the heart of it lies one incendiary issue: US university complicity in global conflicts—and the government’s growing intolerance for dissent.The flashpoint was Columbia University. On April 17, 2024, students unfurled the first Gaza Solidarity Encampment on its campus, calling for full divestment from Israel. Within hours of protest tents being pitched, President Minouche Shafik summoned the NYPD. What followed was the first mass arrest on Columbia’s grounds since the Vietnam War protests of 1968. The second wave came days later—students occupied Hamilton Hall, another raid ensued, and more than 100 arrests followed.The crackdown was swift, brutal, and set a precedent: campus activism is no longer protected territory.This isn’t just about Columbia. Intelligence briefings from federal agencies suggest growing concern over “ideologically motivated unrest” in higher education. Institutions with substantial international student populations and histories of political activism—Stanford, NYU, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan among them—are reportedly under heightened scrutiny.As the Department of Homeland Security sharpens its gaze, the implications are staggering. Could divestment protests or refusal to comply with federal data demands—like those cited in the case of Harvard—trigger SEVP decertification elsewhere? Legal scholars believe the precedent has been laid. Once a visa pipeline is severed, universities lose their ability to enroll international students, triggering a cascade of academic, financial, and diplomatic fallout.If Harvard’s fall from grace is the administration’s first strike, universities across the country are now in the crosshairs. The message is unmistakable: Campuses that host dissent may risk their ability to host the world.

A fragile future for international students

The psychological devastation is already evident. For students on F-1 and J-1 visas, every move now carries immigration risk. Compelled to weigh the repercussions of even peaceful protest, many are self-censoring or avoiding public discourse completely.Lawyers specialising in international education report a rise in consultations from both students and institutions. The fear is not hypothetical, it is etched into the existence of students in the land of opportunities. One misstep, one subpoenaed video clip, one institution-wide policy deemed “non-compliant,” and an entire academic journey can be derailed.

Universities walk a legal tightrope

The White House maintains that the crackdown is related to safety and accountability. In its official statement on Harvard, it emphasised that “enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s directive cited not only noncompliance but alleged tolerance of antisemitism and pro-Hamas sympathies—claims Harvard vehemently denies.The vagueness of the situation is what scares the universities the most.

The Economic Edge of Politics

Beyond the reputational wound, the economic repercussions are huge. International students, many of whom pay full tuition, are critical to university budgets. They contribute more than $40 billion annually to the US economy—nearly $8 billion from Indian students alone, according to data presented by the US media reports. Revoking SEVP status doesn’t just impact a university’s enrollment, it threatens entire funding ecosystems.For schools already grappling with declining domestic applications and a surge in operating costs, letting go of the international students could be calamitous.

The fading boundaries of academic freedom

Harvard’s case is not a standalone incident – it is a bellwether. As scrutiny intensifies, universities are being compelled to choose between protecting students’ rights and safeguarding their federal certification. In a climate where dissent is equated with danger, even the most revered campuses are vulnerable.The administration’s new posture may result in mass revocations overnight. But the threat is real, and the message unmistakable: America’s welcome mat for international students is no longer universal. It is provisional. Political. And increasingly, conditional on silence.As institutions weigh how far they can push back, one truth becomes unavoidable: The future of global education in the US now hangs in the balance, not in faculty lounges, but in federal offices.