Introduction
A recent opinion piece in The Guardian claims that former President Donald Trump is intentionally targeting Harvard University as political revenge, including removing its ability to host international students. These details sparked widespread concern after a user asked if Trump really tried to expel all foreign students for personal retaliation. We’ve looked into the article’s key claims and verified their accuracy to understand what’s real and what’s exaggerated.
Historical Context
Tensions between conservative political leaders and prestigious universities like Harvard have persisted for decades. During Trump’s first term, friction escalated over accusations of liberal bias, student protests, and foreign funding scrutiny. In 2020, the Trump administration attempted to force international students to leave the U.S. if their classes were fully online, but courts halted that effort. Current developments build on prior disputes and policy conflicts between the political right and academia.
Claim #1: The Trump Administration tried to kick out all international students at Harvard as an act of revenge
This claim is misleading. On May 23, 2025, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a letter revoking Harvard’s authority to host international students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). However, revoking SEVP certification does not equate to immediately expelling all international students, nor was it confirmed that this was part of a coordinated federal plan solely motivated by “revenge.” While the action was widely criticized and coincided with other legal and political pressure tactics on Harvard, the act is not unprecedented and mirrors prior attempts (such as ICE’s 2020 policy). Moreover, preliminary court rulings have already temporarily halted the revocation. Thus, while politically motivated targeting is plausible, the characterization that the Trump administration tried to eject all foreign students exclusively out of revenge over a lawsuit lacks comprehensive evidence.
Claim #2: Harvard lost $2.2 billion in research funds after refusing to comply with “illegal demands” from the Trump administration
This claim is mostly accurate but omits nuance. In April 2025, after Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in response to requests regarding faculty “viewpoint diversity” and foreign funding disclosures, multiple federal agencies froze funding grants. According to multiple sources including Politico and Bloomberg, the frozen research funds tied to various departments totaled near $2.2 billion, though not all funds were canceled—some were under “compliance review.” While the timeline suggests retribution, government agencies cited procedural reviews and transparency concerns rather than direct retaliation. The characterization in the article assumes motivation without documented confirmation, leaning toward speculation.
Claim #3: Official allegations that Harvard coordinates with the Chinese Communist Party are “absurd” and lack evidence
This claim is generally fair. Allegations that Harvard is coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have emerged periodically from conservative lawmakers. However, major investigations—including a 2020 Department of Education probe into foreign funding disclosures—did not conclude that Harvard coordinated directly with the CCP. Accusations made by Trump officials in May 2025 reference general concerns about Chinese influence in higher education, but no conclusive evidence has surfaced tying Harvard to CCP coordination. Therefore, calling these claims “absurd” aligns with findings that no documented proof supports such allegations.
Claim #4: Kristi Noem demanded media footage of all protests at Harvard, signaling suppression of free speech
This claim is accurate. Documents obtained from federal court filings and verified by multiple media outlets confirm that Governor Kristi Noem issued a directive requesting protest footage from universities, including Harvard, citing concerns about “foreign agitators and disorderly conduct.” Civil liberties groups such as FIRE and ACLU decried the move as an intimidation tactic aimed at discouraging dissent. Though Noem’s office claims it was to “gain transparency,” expert assessments support the article’s framing as politically driven signaling likely to chill free speech among students and faculty.
Conclusion
The Guardian’s article mixes factual developments with strong editorial rhetoric and assumptions about political motivation. Although Harvard was indeed targeted through SEVP status revocation and research fund freezes, the article overstates intent and fails to clearly differentiate between verified facts and inferred vengeance. The most serious claims—such as coordinated efforts to remove all international students purely as political punishment—lack definitive supporting evidence but are rooted in a broader pattern of aggressive policy aimed at elite educational institutions. Its tone may alienate readers seeking neutral analysis but highlights real governmental actions worthy of scrutiny.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
If you want clarity in a world flooded with politicized news, misinformation, and half-truths, download the DBUNK app today or follow us on social media. We empower you to uncover the facts and fight misinformation—together.
Link to Original Article
