Harvard Condemns U.S. Visa Revocation as Retaliation Against Academic Freedom
Harvard University has sharply criticized the U.S. government for revoking its authority to sponsor international students and scholars, calling the move a politically motivated retaliation for the university's defense of academic freedom.
Image Source: Harvard Website, Screengrab
In a message addressed to the Harvard community, Interim President Alan M. Garber stated that the federal action threatens the future of thousands of international students and scholars and represents a broader attempt to interfere in the university’s academic operations.
“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence,” Garber said.
He characterized the federal move as “unlawful and unwarranted,” arguing it seeks to force the university to submit to what he described as the government’s “illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced this week that Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) had been revoked, eliminating the university’s authority to issue F- and J-visas for the 2025–26 academic year.
The agency alleged non-compliance with requests for information, but Harvard refuted this claim. “In fact, Harvard did respond to the Department’s requests as required by law,” Garber said.
The visa cancellation has triggered immediate legal action. Harvard has filed a complaint in federal court and plans to request a temporary restraining order to block the revocation. The university has also pledged institutional support for its international community while the legal process unfolds.
“We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars,” Garber said, adding that the Harvard International Office would provide regular updates.
The decision arrives amid continued tensions between elite academic institutions and the federal government, echoing confrontations seen during the Trump administration, when universities challenged restrictive visa policies and limits on research exchange.
While Trump is no longer in office, university officials have suggested that the ideological pressure on higher education persists under successor agencies and appointees.
Harvard’s rebuke adds to growing concerns among academic leaders that federal authorities are seeking to reassert influence over institutional governance, particularly in matters of international cooperation, curriculum autonomy, and faculty freedom.
Garber emphasized the human cost of the revocation. “For those international students and scholars affected by yesterday’s action, know that you are vital members of our community,” he said. “You are our classmates and friends, our colleagues and mentors, our partners in the work of this great institution.” He added, “Thanks to you, we know more and understand more, and our country and our world are more enlightened and more resilient.”
Framing the revocation as an affront not just to Harvard but to the global academic community, Garber concluded, “We will support you as we do our utmost to ensure that Harvard remains open to the world.”
