Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University
Record date: 2025-06-10
Proclamation 10948 of June 4, 2025 Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University A Proclamation Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee. That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution's compliance and commitment to following Federal law. Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others. The Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) depends fundamentally on academic institutions' good faith, transparency, and full adherence to the
What this record contains
- Federal Register document
- 2025-10668
- Publication date
- 2025-06-10
- Citation
- 90 FR 24493
- Issuing office
- Executive Office of the President
Official record excerpt
Proclamation 10948 of June 4, 2025 Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University A Proclamation Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee. That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution's compliance and commitment to following Federal law. Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others. The Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) depends fundamentally on academic institutions' good faith, transparency, and full adherence to the relevant regulatory frameworks. This is for crucial national-security reasons. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries and competitors take advantage of easy access to American higher education to, among other things, steal technical information and products, exploit expensive research and development to advance their own ambitions, and spread false information for political or other reasons. Our adversaries, including the People's Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States. Protecting our national security requires host institutions of foreign students to provide sufficient information, when asked, to enable the Federal Government to identify and address misconduct by those foreign students. In my judgment, it presents an unacceptable risk to our Nation's security for an academic institution to refuse to provide sufficient information, when asked, about known instances of misconduct and criminality committed by its foreign students. This principle is one reason why SEVP regulations require foreign students to obey Federal and State criminal laws and require universities to keep records about foreign students' studies in the United States—including records relating to criminal activity by foreign students and resulting disciplinary proceedings—and furnish them to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on request. Crime rates at Harvard University—including violent crime rates—have drastically risen in recent years. Harvard has failed to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus. Given these facts, it is imperative, in my judgment, that the Federal Government be able to assess and, if necessary, address misconduct and crimes committed by foreign students at Harvard. Despite the risks described above, Harvard University has refused the recent requests of the DHS for information about foreign students' “known illegal activity,” “known dangerous and violent activity,” “known threats to other students or university personnel,” “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel,” and whether those activities “occurred on campus,” and other related data. Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions. Harvard's actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students. In ( printed page 24494) my judgment, these actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law. These concerns have compelled the Federal Government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs. When a university refuses to uphold its legal obligations, including its recordkeeping and reporting obligations, the consequences ripple far beyond the campus. They jeopardize the integrity of the entire United States student and exchange visitor visa system, compromise national security, and embolden other institutions to similarly disregard the rule of law. Harvard University has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries. According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has received more than $150 million in total contributions from foreign governments over the last 5 years, and over $1 billion from foreign sources. Over the last 10 years, Harvard has received more than $150 million from China alone. In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, “repeatedly hosted and trained members of a Chinese Communist Party paramilitary organization,” according to a probe by the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Harvard researchers have also partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China's military modernization, according to
The excerpt is reproduced from the public federal record and may omit later sections, tables, signatures or attachments. Open the official source for the complete text.
Questions for accountability
- What legal authority does this foreign policy action cite?
- Which agencies or officials were directed to act?
- What measurable implementation, cost, deadline or later court action followed?
How to use this page
This is a source-record entry, not a truth-rating by itself. It preserves the action, date and original government publication so it can be connected to later claims, implementation records, court decisions, costs and measurable outcomes. Editorial claim reviews on this site use separate finding labels and explain the evidence for those findings.