Loading …

More Than a Grudge Match: When a President Targets a University

A federal judge has, for the moment, shielded Harvard University from the full force of the executive branch. The temporary extension of a restraining order against the Trump administration is not a final victory, but a crucial pause in a profound constitutional showdown.

This is not merely a dispute between a president and a university he dislikes; it is a test of whether the vast powers of the federal government can be wielded against a private institution for what appears to be ideological reasons.

At stake are fundamental principles of free speech, due process, and the rule of law.

The conflict forces us to ask a critical question: In a free society, is there a constitutional line that prevents a president from using the administrative state as a weapon to silence or cripple institutions he deems politically hostile?

A Proclamation and a Question of Intent

The administration’s strategy is a two-pronged assault. First, the Department of Homeland Security moved to revoke Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is the lifeblood of its ability to host international students. Second, President Trump issued a proclamation to bar foreign nationals from entering the U.S. if their destination is Harvard.

The official justification for this unprecedented action is that Harvard has been “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.” This rhetoric paints the university not as a place of learning, but as a threat to national security.

However, Harvard’s lawyers argue this is a pretext. They claim the actions are a plain violation of the law, designed to inflict “continued chaos and lasting damage on Harvard for no compelling reason.”

This conflict forces us to look beyond the accusations and analyze the government’s intent—is this a legitimate enforcement action, or is it unconstitutional retaliation?

The First Amendment in the Crosshairs

At its core, this is a First Amendment battle.

While the government has broad authority over immigration, that power is not a blank check to be used for unconstitutional ends. The principle of academic freedom—the right of universities to determine for themselves what may be studied, taught, and debated—is a cornerstone of free expression.

The administration’s actions create a chilling effect that strikes at this principle. By targeting Harvard for the perceived political environment on its campus, the government is sending a powerful message to all academic institutions: police the speech and ideas we find unacceptable, or you may be next.

If the government can cut off the flow of international scholars and students to a specific university because it disapproves of protests or research conducted there, it gains a powerful lever to enforce ideological conformity. This is precisely the kind of government overreach the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

The Power of the Purse and the Rule of Law

The attack on Harvard’s international student body is not happening in a vacuum. It is part of a broader, “whole-of-government” pressure campaign that includes freezing over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts and threatening the university’s tax-exempt status. This is not just a policy dispute; it is the use of the immense power of the federal purse and the administrative state to coerce a single, private institution.

This is where the rule of law comes into play.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires government agencies to act in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious.

Harvard argues that there is no rational basis for these punitive actions, and that they violate the due process rights of both the university and its 7,000 international students whose lives have been thrown into uncertainty.

The role of the judiciary, in this case through Judge Allison Burroughs, is to determine if the executive branch is acting within the bounds of these laws or based on political animus.

As legal scholars have noted, we are in “uncharted territory.” While presidents have often had fraught relationships with academia, the use of such a wide array of federal powers to target one university is a new and alarming development.

The temporary restraining order is just that—temporary. The larger constitutional questions remain, and their answers will define the relationship between the government and our most essential private institutions.