Washington, May 23 – For years, Harvard University’s extensive ties with China were seen as a global asset offering cultural exchange, academic collaboration, and significant financial support. Thursday, those same connections have transformed into a political flashpoint, with the Trump administration accusing the institution of facilitating foreign influence and threatening national security.
In a dramatic move on Thursday, the administration announced its decision to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. The justification? Accusations have surfaced claiming Harvard is fostering hostility toward Jewish communities and engaging in secretive collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party. Among those affected would be Chinese nationals, who comprised nearly 20% of Harvard’s foreign student body in 2024, according to university figures.
On Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the directive after Harvard challenged it in court, claiming the move violated its constitutional protections—especially its right to free speech.
While the timing and severity of the administration’s measures have shocked many, concerns over Beijing’s influence on American campuses—particularly at elite institutions like Harvard—are not new. For years, U.S. lawmakers, especially on the Republican side, have voiced alarm over China’s access to advanced American research and its potential misuse for political or military gains. Critics suggest that Harvard, whether knowingly or not, has enabled channels through which foreign agendas may operate with minimal scrutiny.
A senior White House official stated Friday, “Harvard has allowed itself to be used by the Chinese Communist Party for too long. The school ignored harassment conducted by CCP affiliates on campus, choosing silence over accountability.”
Despite repeated requests, Harvard has not issued a public response to the accusations. However, in its legal filings, the university argues that the government’s actions are retaliatory, rooted in a misinterpretation of its institutional stance and protected speech. Harvard maintains that its relationships with Chinese entities are transparent, educational, and in full compliance with U.S. laws.
The school’s historical connections with China span decades, involving research initiatives, think tanks, and academic centers focused on Chinese studies. These collaborations have not only fostered dialogue but have also brought in substantial philanthropic contributions, enhancing Harvard’s global reach and prestige.
Yet, these same partnerships are now under scrutiny. Former Harvard President Larry Summers, though sometimes critical of university decisions, expressed deep concern over the government’s latest actions. “This is possibly the most serious threat Harvard has faced in its modern history,” he remarked in a recent interview. “By turning away global talent, we risk surrendering our position as the world’s intellectual leader. That’s a far greater strategic win for China than any alleged influence campaign.”
The Chinese embassy in Washington responded by urging the U.S. to avoid politicizing academic exchanges. “Educational cooperation benefits both nations and should be encouraged, not stigmatized,” a spokesperson said.
Despite public denials of wrongdoing, several aspects of Harvard’s recent engagements have raised eyebrows. Significantly, the university is said to have maintained its public health training efforts with representatives of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) even after the U.S. sanctioned the group in 2020. The group was sanctioned for alleged involvement in human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims and other minority populations in China’s Xinjiang region. Government sources indicated that such interactions persisted as late as 2024.
Beijing has consistently denied allegations of abuse in Xinjiang. Still, both the Trump and Biden administrations have formally labeled China’s policies in the region as genocide.
Questions have also been raised about Harvard’s acceptance of major financial donations from individuals with links to organizations viewed as tools of Chinese soft power. One prominent case involves Ronnie Chan, a Hong Kong billionaire who helped arrange a $350 million gift in 2014, resulting in the university’s public health school being renamed in honor of his father. Chan is affiliated with the China-United States Exchange Foundation, an organization that, under U.S. law, must disclose its activities due to its classification as a foreign principal.
Additionally, Harvard has faced criticism in recent years for hiring practices and oversight of researchers’ affiliations. One of the most well-known incidents involves former professor Charles Lieber, a leading nanotechnology expert. Lieber was convicted in 2021 for concealing his ties to Chinese institutions while receiving U.S. research funding. Despite this, he recently accepted a full-time teaching position at a university in China.
That case emerged under the now-defunct “China Initiative,” a federal program launched in 2018 to combat espionage and intellectual property theft. The initiative was discontinued under the Biden administration amid concerns that it promoted racial profiling and hindered international research cooperation.
More recently, campus incidents have fueled the debate around foreign student involvement in domestic political matters. In April 2024, a Chinese exchange student reportedly physically removed a fellow Harvard student from an event after they interrupted a speech by China’s ambassador. Observers viewed the act as an unsettling example of political suppression, executed not by staff or security, but by a peer possibly acting under foreign influence.
As scrutiny intensifies, the Department of Education has requested records from Harvard regarding its foreign funding sources. Officials said a preliminary review revealed inconsistencies in how the university reported large donations and contracts with foreign entities.
While national security concerns over foreign interference are legitimate, experts caution against sweeping decisions that could damage the open, global nature of American academia. Yaqiu Wang, a human rights researcher and former Chinese student in the U.S., called the administration’s approach “misguided and harmful.”
“There are valid fears regarding China’s efforts to silence critics and gain intellectual property,” Wang acknowledged. “But banning foreign students from Harvard is not the answer. It undermines our values and sends the wrong message to the world.”
As political tensions escalate and legal battles unfold, Harvard stands at a crossroads—caught between its tradition of global openness and a shifting political climate that increasingly sees international collaboration as a security threat.