On Thursday, Harvard celebrates its 374th commencement while fighting off a full-throated executive branch attack.
Last week, President Donald Trump moved to prohibit Harvard University from enrolling and educating international students. That unprecedented move was immediately challenged in court, with U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts issuing a temporary restraining order. For the moment, Harvard’s nearly 7,000 international students are safe. But this threat, to both Harvard and the more than 1 million foreign students studying across the United States, will have wide-ranging implications across the country and, indeed, the world.
For the moment, Harvard’s nearly 7,000 international students are safe.
Nonprofit public and private colleges and universities serve the public good in a variety of ways. This justifies their nonprofit status, which in theory should allow all of resources to be allocated to their educational missions. Depending on the institution, this mission could include generating groundbreaking research; creating, preserving and disseminating knowledge; and educating the next generation of young people to enter the labor market and contribute to the strength of our economy. Making that education available to all families, regardless of their incomes, contributes to equal opportunity and economic and social mobility.
In 2023-24, about 6% of all college students were international. At Harvard, about 25% of students are international. For institutions that are educating graduate students in Ph.D. programs, the goal is to train the next generation of researchers to contribute to making discoveries to solve the world’s challenging problems. As of July 1, Harvard held over 5,800 patents, supported 96 startups in the last five years and has over 900 active technology licenses with over 650 industry partners. Innovations supported by Harvard’s research mission are wide-ranging, from 3D printing advances to new antibiotics and other health care improvements.
Harvard historically has used its best judgment to recruit and educate the next generation of America’s and the world’s skilled workforce and innovators. And it has been tremendously successful in this endeavor so far.
There is an added benefit to the United States if these talented researchers remain here rather than return abroad; they then can contribute more directly to innovation and discovery in our domestic economy. According to the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan policy organization, about 41% of international students graduating from U.S. institutions remain long-term in the United States, but three-quarters of highly trained Ph.D. recipients do.
It turns out you can put a number on this value. Undergraduate students, too, often contribute to our economy in a variety of ways. Many will work for U.S. companies, here or abroad, contributing to our skilled workforce that helps us innovate and compete in world markets. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, “international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities contributed $43.8 billion and supported 378,175 jobs to the U.S. economy during the 2023–2024 academic year.” (MSNBC hasn’t independently verified NAFSA's analysis.)
Given all the benefits international students provide our country, it is a bit difficult to ascertain what is the ultimate objective of Trump’s policy. When international students enroll in the United States, we are actually selling a service on the global market — access to higher education — in which we are highly competitive. The trade balance on these services is in our favor. It is a contradiction to encourage other countries to open their markets to our exports while telling our domestic producers of higher education services that they can’t essentially sell abroad.
Given all the benefits international students provide our country, it is a bit difficult to ascertain what is the ultimate objective of Trump’s policy.
And if the goal is to increase the enrollment of lower-income domestic students, at Harvard or any other school targeted with this policy, there would be more effective alternative policies, such as increasing Pell grants and/or making Title IV funds contingent on a certain share of the student body’s being lower income.
Importantly, many institutions in the United States recruit international students, not only for their contributions to the education offered all students, but also because they contribute to tuition revenue, on which many institutions primarily depend. For some of the more tuition-dependent colleges and universities — and this includes both public and private institutions — losing that revenue could result in dire consequences. Without the tuition from full-pay international students, schools may have to cut back on need-based aid — meaning some additional American students will find college financially out of reach.
Harvard has already made great progress increasing the number of lower-income students in its student body, significantly increasing need-based aid. Currently, 24% of Harvard undergraduates pay nothing, and families with incomes above $100,000 up to $200,000 go tuition-free. Trump’s measures would very likely change this calculus, reducing resources available for need-based financial aid.
Higher education more broadly is facing a domestic demographic cliff over the next 15 years; the number of graduating high school seniors in the United States could fall by an estimated 13%. Institutions are going to have trouble finding domestic students, particularly those able to pay, to fill those seats. Many institutions could be pushed to the brink, accelerating mergers and closures, further disadvantaging their existing and future students. Since 2020, 79 public and nonprofit colleges have closed or merged or announced that they will be doing so in the near future.
Even for wealthier institutions like Harvard, the societal impact of these restrictions would be significant.
Thus the administration’s policies, if implemented, would, of course, weaken Harvard. But there are real people who would also suffer as a result: international students, yes, but also potentially deserving but socioeconomically disadvantaged American. With fewer resources available for need-based financial aid, Harvard would have to admit fewer low- and middle-income students in favor of high-income domestic students.
These policies run counter to long-held conservative positions on the appropriate role of government intervention in the private sector. They would endanger Harvard's ability to recruit and educate innovators and leaders who contribute billions of dollars to the American economy and help fuel scientific breakthrough around the world. And they would potentially make it even harder for some American students to attend the colleges of their choosing. It’s hard to see how this serves anyone, let alone the public good.