Harvard's Privilege Ends: DHS Revokes Foreign Student Certification Over Campus Chaos and CCP Ties

Harvard University, long revered as a pillar of learning, now faces a reckoning. The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Kristi Noem, has revoked Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, a move that halts new foreign student enrollments and jeopardizes the legal status of thousands already on campus. The reason is clear: Harvard’s leadership has allowed its campus to spiral into a hub of violence, antisemitism, and troubling ties with the Chinese Communist Party. This decision marks a bold stand for safety and integrity in American higher education.

The evidence is stark. From 2022 to 2023, campus crime at Harvard surged by 55 percent, with aggravated assaults rising 295 percent and robberies 560 percent. Jewish students have faced the worst of this turmoil. Harvard’s own 2025 internal study reveals that nearly 60 percent of Jewish students report discrimination, stereotyping, or bias tied to their views on current events. Physical assaults and intimidation are rampant, yet the university’s response has been feeble at best. How long can an institution of Harvard’s stature ignore such a crisis?

Secretary Noem’s action wasn’t impulsive. On April 16, 2025, she demanded records of foreign student misconduct. Harvard’s reply was silence, followed by defiance of a follow-up request from DHS’s Office of General Counsel. By refusing to comply with federal law, the university forced DHS to act. If Harvard won’t safeguard its students or respect government authority, it cannot expect to retain the privilege of hosting international scholars.

Harvard’s problems extend far beyond campus unrest. Its entanglement with the Chinese Communist Party raises serious national security concerns. The university has trained members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a CCP paramilitary group linked to the Uyghur genocide, even after its 2020 listing on the U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals List. These engagements persisted into 2024. What justifies Harvard’s alignment with such a group?

Financial incentives offer part of the answer. Since January 2020, Harvard has accepted $151 million from foreign governments, accounting for over 13 percent of its $1.1 billion in foreign donations. These funds often come with influence, and Harvard’s readiness to accept them prioritizes wealth over principle. Its researchers have also worked with China-based academics on projects funded by an Iranian government agent and collaborated with Chinese universities advancing military technologies, such as aerospace and optics. These partnerships betray American interests under the guise of academic exchange.

Some defend these collaborations, arguing they drive innovation and global understanding. Yet when they involve entities tied to genocide or military threats, the risks outweigh the benefits. DHS’s revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification underscores a critical truth: universities cannot compromise national security for profit or prestige. Harvard’s choices have consequences, and the American public deserves better.

Antisemitism at Harvard has reached alarming levels. A joint-government task force confirmed the university’s failure to address pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment. Pro-Hamas student groups, which fueled antisemitism after the October 7, 2023, attacks, continue to receive recognition and funding. In a glaring example, a protester charged with assaulting a Jewish student was selected as the Class Marshal for Harvard Divinity School’s commencement. How does rewarding such behavior align with claims of inclusivity?

Jewish students face both physical and institutional hostility. One student, set to share his Holocaust survivor grandfather’s story of finding refuge in Israel, was told by conference organizers that it was inappropriate and met with laughter when he sought clarity. This reflects a broader pattern. Over 60 universities, including Harvard, are under federal Title VI investigations for failing to protect Jewish students. Some argue that curbing student protests threatens free speech, but this ignores the reality: harassment and violence cross a line that universities must enforce.

DHS’s decision to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification sets a powerful precedent. Universities nationwide must recognize that federal agencies will no longer tolerate lawlessness or endangerment of students. The Department of Education has issued Title VI warning letters to 60 universities for antisemitic discrimination. The Justice Department canceled $400 million in Columbia University grants and demanded reforms. DHS’s action, alongside terminating $2.7 million in Harvard grants last month, signals a commitment to accountability.

Critics may claim this approach undermines academic freedom. However, the issue is not about silencing debate but ensuring universities meet their obligations. Harvard had ample opportunity to address its campus climate and comply with federal requests. Its defiance led to this outcome. Institutions that fail to protect students or adhere to regulations cannot expect to retain federal privileges.

Harvard’s downfall prompts a vital question: what do we demand of our universities? These institutions mold future leaders and must uphold safety, integrity, and American values. Secretary Noem’s courageous action is a step toward accountability, but broader change is needed. Universities must scrutinize their foreign partnerships, strengthen campus safety, and act decisively against harassment before federal intervention becomes necessary.

For Jewish students, this moment brings hope for safer campuses. They deserve to study without fear. For the nation, it reaffirms that no institution is above the law. Harvard’s leadership assumed they could sidestep responsibility. They miscalculated. The SEVP revocation proves that accountability applies to all, no matter how prestigious.

Will other universities heed this warning? They must choose to prioritize student safety, comply with federal mandates, and safeguard national security. The alternative is clear: follow Harvard’s path and face the consequences. The American people expect nothing less.