Higher education has long been a space for intellectual exchange, innovation, and the advancement of society. Ideally, universities should remain insulated from political interference. Yet, they are often pulled into the turbulence of geopolitics. A recent example is given by the clash between U.S. President Trump and Harvard University. Since returning to the White House, Trump has pushed elite universities to revise policies he sees as politically biased. From addressing campus protests which were claimed to be “antisemitism”, to dismantling DEI, threatening to deport involved foreign students and withhold fundings.
Harvard had managed to resist. The Department of Homeland Security claimed the university of “fostering violence, promoting antisemitism, and cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party” and revoked Harvard’s ability to enrol international students. While negotiations have reportedly made progress, the episode has already led to legal battles between Harvard and the Trump administration. Trump’s actions have shocked observers and raised international concern.
This case is just the tip of the iceberg. What is more concerning is how it reflects the growing political weaponisation of education. Even academic institutions, once presumed to be apolitical, are becoming arenas of geopolitical contestation such as the increasing rivalry between the United States of America and the Peoples´Republic of China.
Higher Education as Industry and Soft Power Tool
While universities are centres for intellectual exchange, they are also powerful global industries, especially the “Big Four” of the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia, where prestigious institutions and world-class research centres draw students from around the globe.
International students are not just academic participants; they bring enormous economic value. According to a 2023–2024 report by NAFSA, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. These figures underscore the scale of higher education as a national economic asset. Top institutions attract international students who may remain after graduation and become part of the country’s talent base and innovation engine. At the same time, higher education serves as a form of soft power and national branding. When students choose to study abroad, they are not just pursuing academic opportunities. They are not only pursuing academic opportunities but also expressing confidence in the host country’s education system or broader societal values. The soft power of education such as Fulbright Programme is considered as educational diplomacy, where exchange of students and corporation in science and education can serve as a valuable tool to promote values abroad among a young talents.
Academic freedom and open intellectual exchange long celebrated, are not just scholarly ideals but reflections of democratic principles. In this way, higher education embodies both intellectual excellence and ideological appeal. Making it a powerful vehicle for projecting national values and influence.
China’s Deep Footprint in U.S. Higher Education
In recent years, China has actively expanded its presence in global academia through investments, research partnerships, and institutional collaborations. U.S. universities have long been known for their research capacity and international prestige. The U.S. has long been one of the top study destinations for international students, including those from China. Many of whom are enrolled in high-level research programs. Even the children of elite CCP officials, like President Xi Jinping’s daughter, have studied at Harvard.
Such deep educational and financial ties have drawn growing scrutiny. Critics argue that these relationships may grant the Chinese government indirect influence over American campuses, raising concerns about academic independence, research integrity, and national security. Chinese students engaged in advanced research, particularly in STEM field , have also been suspected of leaking sensitive information to China.Harvard, for example, has received $560 million in gifts and contracts from China and Hong Kong. More than any other American university. Hence promoting frequent accusations of being “infiltrated” by CCP.
This perception may partly explain why Harvard became a target of the Trump administration. Notably, in the Trump administration’s accusations against Harvard, China was explicitly referenced. Despite the fact that recent campus controversies, such as protests, antisemitism debates, and DEI policies, are largely unrelated to China. Being mention in this context signals something else. The persistence and deepening of US–China tensions. It reflects how China continues to be considered as a strategic and ideological threat. In this way, education becomes yet another arena shaped by geopolitical anxieties.
A Longstanding Concern, Now Politicised
While earlier U.S. administrations have already introduced measures to curb suspected CCP influence. Including closing Confucius Institutes and tightening visa review on students from China. Trump’s approach marked a more confrontational shift. His administration’s attempt to suspend Harvard’s ability to enrol international students raises questions about proportionality.
If the goal were to reduce CCP influence, more targeted measures such as continued visa scrutiny for students in sensitive STEM fields would have sufficed. Instead, the sweeping nature of the policy could suggest it was not purely driven by a concrete national security threat. Rather, it appeared aimed at punishing institutions perceived as resisting political pressure on matters like curricula, admissions, and faculty governance. In this sense, the policy was less about foreign interference and more about asserting “governance” over higher education itself.
What is at Stake? Reputational and Strategic Risks
While recent developments suggest that negotiations between Harvard and the Trump administration may bring the legal dispute to an end. The broader impacts are unlikely to be reversed. The increasingly hostile environment for international students would impact U.S.’s appeal as a study destination, especially for Chinese students. In 2024, for the first time, Indian students surpassed Chinese students as the largest international student group in the U.S. This shift reflects both the growing difficulty of obtaining visas and the chilling effect of political rhetoric.
Even beyond China, stricter visa policies diminish the overall attractiveness of U.S. higher education. This has potential economic consequences, such as reduced tuition revenues. But also strategic ones. Broad punitive actions, like Trump’s threat to Harvard offer ammunition for China’s propaganda narrative that the U.S. fails to live up to its professed liberal values. This can undermine the soft power the U.S. has long cultivated through its world-renowned universities.
Moreover, these moves help China retain its own top talent. This outcome is very welcomed by CCP which long sought to curb the brain drain. As Beijing continues to invest in its domestic universities. Disillusionment with studying in the U.S. may encourage more students to stay at home or look elsewhere. Indeed, after the Harvard controversy, institutions in Japan, Hong Kong, and China quickly issued public invitations to affected students. Emerging destinations, especially across Asia and other parts of Europe, are increasingly promoting themselves.
As these countries tighten visa policies and post-graduation pathways, the shift is already visible. According to the global application platform ApplyBoard, interest in studying in the Big Four fell by 14% in the year ending January 2025, following a 22% drop the year before. Applicants cited increasingly restrictive visa rules and rising perceptions of hostility as key deterrents. This trend suggests that the politicization of international education is already reshaping the global landscape. With long-term implication for national economies, talent flows, and geopolitical influence.
Global Education in a Fragmenting World
Looking ahead, we can expect more policy interventions and regulatory scrutiny in the higher education sector, especially in areas intersecting with national security. Universities, traditionally spaces for intellectual exploration and talent cultivation, are also sites of advanced research. While some of which may have dual- use implication like the research on latest technological development. In this context, limited monitoring, such as stricter security checks for sensitive programs, may be seen as justifiable.
However, there remains a fine line between legitimate oversight and political overreach. When visa reviews become tools of ideological policing, or when institutions are punished for perceived disloyalty rather than concrete security threats. The result is a chilling effect on academic freedom, global collaboration, and the very openness that defines world- class education. The Harvard case is not just an isolated controversy. It is a warning about how higher education can be caught in the crossfire of geopolitics with consequences that extend far beyond the campus gates.
Further questions:
- What are the potentials and threats of education diplomacy?
- Did you study abroad? What did you learn from it?
- Have you noticed the impact of changing geopolitical landscapes at your facility?
Further Reading
- Badiucao for Human Rights Watch. (2021). “They Don’t Understand the Fear We Have”. How China’s Long Reach of Repression Undermines Academic Freedom at Australia’s Universities.
- Hessler, P. (2025). ” The Uncertain Future of a Chinese Student At Harvard”. The New Yorker.
- Oyen, M. (2025). Trump administration’s conflicting message on Chinese student visas reflect complex US-China relations.
- Sharma, Y. (2025). “Students emerge as bargaining chip in China- US trade talks”. University World News.
