Politics vs. academia: The U.S. higher education crisis

Editor's note: Chen Qiaoshen is a current affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The independence of the American higher education system is in jeopardy as the Trump administration launches a tough intervention against prestigious universities on what it claims to be "antisemitism" and "national security" grounds.

In late May, the administration revoked Harvard University's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, barring the institution from enrolling new international students. The government is considering similar measures for other universities.

Harvard has been embroiled in a months-long conflict with the Trump administration, which is pressuring the university to reform its campus programming, policies, hiring and admissions processes. The government has called for a crackdown on antisemitism and the removal of what it refers to as "racist 'diversity, equity and inclusion' practices."

In a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced a freeze on new research grants to Harvard, accusing the university of "disastrous mismanagement" and claiming the institution had forsaken its fundamental academic principles.

The move marks a further escalation of the clash between the U.S. government and its higher education institutions.

The administration's actions represent a broader effort to "politically de-risk" universities – reflecting a loss of trust in academia's ability to self-correct. Instead, the government seeks to embed itself within institutional mechanisms, steering them toward a model defined by "security, loyalty and America First."

Diluted autonomy

The Trump administration's actions against Harvard are not isolated. In recent months, the U.S. government has intensified its scrutiny and control over its higher education institutions, especially those that are seen as left-wing.

From freezing research funding to threatening to revoke tax-exempt status, the government has been attempting to reshape the governance model of American universities through financial and legal means.

Universities are no longer ivory towers of free thought, but have become the frontline of political games. The government uses "financial appropriations" as an excuse to require institutions to shape their academic policies according to its will, leaving them to choose either "compliance" or "resistance."

Notably, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, when announcing the decision to bar Harvard from enrolling new international students, said that enrolling international students is a "privilege – not a right," suggesting that the internationalization of higher education must be subject to federal policy.

The essence of the logic is to incorporate academic institutions into the political loyalty assessment system – when an institution's research direction, admissions standards and values are inconsistent with those of the person in power, it may be deprived of core resources or even the right to survive.

Harvard's backlash, including lawsuits and fundraising appeals, highlights elite universities' defense of academic autonomy, but its predicament also exposes the deep reliance of U.S. higher education on federal funding.

The Trump administration threatening universities to compromise by cutting off their funding is in essence reshaping the relationship between educational institutions and the government in the name of "compliance review" and forcing academia to give way to politics.

Internationalization retreat

In the 2024-2025 academic year, international students accounted for 27 percent of Harvard's student population. Their contributions extend far beyond tuition revenue; they help build cross-cultural academic networks and serve as "global spokespersons" for America's soft power.

The Trump administration expelled the group on the grounds of "legal violations," which is in fact using xenophobia to sever the ties between higher education and globalization.

This move is consistent with some recent U.S. policies, including tightening of STEM-related professional visas and restrictions on the entry of Chinese students. It reflects the conservative forces' anxiety about multiculturalism as international students are seen as a heterogeneous force that may impact the value of "America First."

However, the government accused Harvard of antisemitism with a lack of substantive evidence. This selective moral criticism exposes the Trump administration's attempt to simplify complex campus issues into a tool for political alignment.

More ironically, "national security" should have been a line of defense against external threats and the protection of academic independence, but the term has become a tool to suppress independent decision-making of universities and undermine academic neutrality.

Administrative interventions such as prohibiting Harvard from enrolling international students and interfering in the appointment of faculty and staff have seriously challenged the autonomous mechanisms and traditions established by universities in accordance with the law.

When universities become extensions of political power, they risk losing their freedom, diversity and spirit of intellectual inquiry. In the future, universities should serve not as battlegrounds for ideological conflict, but as bastions of reason and critical thought.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)