In a move that shocked academia and ignited backlash across the nation, the Trump administration in 2020 threatened Harvard University — and institutions like it — with a sweeping immigration policy targeting international students. The proposal? If universities didn’t offer in-person classes during the COVID-19 pandemic, their foreign students would face deportation or visa revocation.
The Policy That Sparked a Firestorm
In July 2020, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that international students attending schools that had shifted to online-only classes due to the pandemic would no longer be allowed to stay in the United States. They would be required to leave the country or transfer to a school with in-person instruction — or risk deportation.
For institutions like Harvard, which had announced a fully remote curriculum for the fall semester, this put thousands of students in jeopardy.
Harvard and MIT Strike Back
The response was swift. Within days, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, arguing that the policy was arbitrary, capricious, and designed to pressure universities into reopening physical campuses — despite the public health risks.
In a strongly worded statement, Harvard President Lawrence Bacow condemned the policy as cruel and reckless:
“We believe that the ICE order is bad public policy, and we believe that it is illegal.”
Public and Political Backlash
The proposed ban drew criticism from universities, lawmakers, tech companies, and global education advocates. Over 200 universities signed amicus briefs in support of the Harvard-MIT lawsuit. Major corporations like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft also rallied behind the students, citing the importance of international talent in American innovation and research.
Critics accused the Trump administration of using international students as pawns in its push to reopen the economy, regardless of pandemic conditions.
A Quick Reversal
Just a week after the initial announcement — and amid growing legal and public pressure — the Trump administration abruptly rescinded the policy. In a courtroom hearing, federal officials said they would abandon the directive and return to more flexible visa guidelines introduced earlier in the pandemic.
The reversal was a win for international students, universities, and advocates of global education. But it also underscored the fragile position many international students found themselves in during the Trump era — navigating a political landscape that increasingly viewed them through a lens of suspicion rather than opportunity.
Lasting Impact
Although the policy was rolled back, the episode had a chilling effect. It sent a message to international students and scholars that their place in the U.S. could be subject to sudden policy shifts, even in the midst of a global crisis.
For Harvard, and the broader academic community, it was a wake-up call about the importance of defending academic freedom, protecting students regardless of their nationality, and standing up to policies that undermine the core values of higher education.
