Tensions between Harvard University and the Trump administration have escalated, with new legal and regulatory actions signaling increased scrutiny of the prestigious institution.
On July 9, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it had issued subpoenas to Harvard University, requesting documents related to its international student enrollment. According to Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, the move follows concerns that the university may have “allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges.” DHS claims Harvard has not fully complied with prior federal requests for information.
Speaking to reporters, President Donald Trump criticized the university, labeling it “totally antisemitic” and asserting that “they’ll absolutely reach a deal” regarding the ongoing disputes. While Trump recently suggested that a resolution could be close, federal actions continue to intensify.
Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton called the subpoenas “unwarranted,” emphasizing that the university remains committed to complying with U.S. law and responding to “lawful requests” from government agencies. Legal challenges have so far blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to restrict Harvard’s international student enrollment, which comprises about one-third of the student body.
Accreditation Under Threat
The pressure on Harvard extended beyond subpoenas. On the same day, the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) jointly sent a notice to the university’s accreditor — the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE). The notice alleges that Harvard is not in compliance with civil rights laws, raising concerns about its eligibility to maintain federal accreditation.
Accreditation is essential for universities to receive federal student aid funding. Although accreditors operate independently and are recognized by the Education Department, any threat to a school’s accreditation status can carry serious reputational and financial consequences.
Harvard strongly denied the accusations. “We disagree with the government’s findings and remain fully compliant with our accreditor’s standards,” Newton said.
NECHE, in a statement to USA TODAY, referred the public to an informational webpage outlining its role and responsibilities, and emphasized that the federal government does not have unilateral authority to revoke a university’s accreditation.
Broader Context
Harvard is not alone in facing such pressure. In June, Columbia University received a similar warning. Its accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, stated on June 26 that Columbia’s accreditation “may be in jeopardy,” though the university remains accredited under a warning status.
The escalating federal oversight reflects a broader campaign by the Trump administration targeting elite institutions over alleged political bias, foreign influence, and civil rights compliance. While critics describe the actions as politically motivated, the administration insists they are enforcing federal law and ensuring institutional accountability.
The unfolding situation at Harvard could have long-term implications for the balance between academic independence and government oversight in U.S. higher education.
