The Wall Street Journal has condemned the Trump administration for its "narrow-minded assault" on Harvard.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board criticized the Trump administration's May 2025 attempt to strip Harvard University of its authority to enroll international students, arguing that the move would hurt students, research and one of the United States' longstanding advantages in attracting highly skilled people from around the world.

The dispute followed a May 22 action by the Department of Homeland Security that sought to revoke Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP. Without that certification, Harvard would have been unable to sponsor international students in the affected visa categories.

What the Journal's editorial argued

In an editorial published after the DHS action, the Journal's board described the move as a "narrow-minded attack" on the United States' ability to attract global talent. The board argued that many of Harvard's international students are graduate students who participate in research and teaching, and that forcing them to leave or transfer could disrupt laboratories, academic programs and faculty recruitment.

The editorial also questioned why students who were not responsible for campus protests or other conduct cited by the administration should bear the consequences of a dispute between the federal government and the university.

That concern was substantial in scale. Harvard reported that it had 6,793 international students in the 2024-25 academic year, representing 27.2% of its student population.

Why the Trump administration targeted Harvard

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said the administration was acting because Harvard had failed to comply adequately with federal requests for information and because of broader concerns involving antisemitism, campus safety and the university's relationships with Chinese entities.

Those were administration allegations and policy justifications, not findings by a court. Harvard rejected the government's characterization and argued that the revocation was unlawful and retaliatory.

The White House also pushed back against the Wall Street Journal editorial. Spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the newspaper's editorial board should consider reporting about antisemitism and other problems on Harvard's campus, and accused the university of failing to address serious concerns raised by the administration.

What the SEVP revocation would have meant

SEVP certification is the federal authorization that allows eligible schools to enroll international students in certain visa categories and issue the documentation they need to maintain student status in the United States.

When DHS announced the revocation on May 22, the government said Harvard would no longer be able to enroll new international students under the affected programs and that existing students could face the need to transfer to another institution to maintain lawful status.

The consequences therefore extended beyond admissions. The action created immediate uncertainty for thousands of students over visas, enrollment, research appointments, housing, travel and academic plans.

Harvard sued and won an immediate temporary reprieve

Harvard filed suit in federal court on May 23, arguing that the administration had violated the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The university also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.

U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted temporary relief that same day, blocking the government from giving effect to the revocation while the legal challenge proceeded. Harvard President Alan Garber said the order allowed the university to continue enrolling international students and scholars pending further proceedings.

A hearing was set for May 29 to determine whether the temporary protection should continue. The court's temporary order did not resolve the merits of Harvard's lawsuit; it preserved the status quo while the case was litigated.

The larger dispute between Harvard and the administration

The international-student fight was part of a broader confrontation between Harvard and the Trump administration over federal research funding, campus governance, antisemitism, academic independence and the university's tax-exempt status.

Harvard maintained that the federal government was attempting to exert improper control over decisions involving curriculum, faculty and students. The administration, in turn, argued that federal action was justified by what it described as failures by Harvard to address antisemitism and comply with government demands.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which had also criticized President Trump on other issues, focused its criticism in this case on the consequences for students and for America's ability to recruit scientific and technical talent.

What happened next

The May 23 temporary restraining order remained only an interim step. On May 29, the federal court extended protections for Harvard's international students while the litigation continued. Harvard later reported that the court agreed to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the May 22 summary revocation from taking effect.

That later ruling meant international students could continue their studies and related activities while the case proceeded, but it did not end the wider legal and policy dispute between Harvard and the federal government.