This week, the American Council on Education (ACE) was joined by 22 higher education associations filing an amicus brief in support of Harvard against the administration’s efforts to uphold Trump’s June 2025 proclamation barring international students from the institution.
“If the federal government may punish a university for its perceived ideology or that of its students, then the marketplace of ideas collapses into a monopoly of dogma,” the brief warns.
It urges the court to affirm the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Allison Burroughs last June, which blocked Trump’s attempt to prohibit foreign nationals seeking to study at Harvard from entering the US.
The signatories have said the proclamation represents an unprecedented executive overreach threatening institutional autonomy and academic freedom, as well as violating the First Amendment.
“Over the last year, the current administration has engaged in an unprecedented effort to coerce institutions of higher education to behave in a manner that reflects the administration’s preferred ideology, including by reshaping their faculty, curriculum and student body,” the document reads.
“When Harvard resisted the administration’s unlawful demands, the administration retaliated with extreme sanctions, including the proclamation issued in this appeal.”
The case arises from multiple attempts by the Trump administration bar international students from attending the Ivy League institution last spring.
Initial efforts were led by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempting to strip Harvard of its SEVP Certification, which enables US institutions to enrol international students – a move halted by federal district judge Allison Burroughs.
Weeks later, Trump escalated efforts and issued his own presidential proclamation aimed at achieving the same result, which was met with a preliminary injunction from judge Burroughs, who said Trump’s directive implicated core constitutional protections.
Appealing judge Burroughs’ decision, the administration argued the proclamation was legal under the president’s immigration authorities – citing the familiar argument relating to national security concerns. This took the case to First Circuit appeals court, where it is now being heard.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump’s proclamation cites Harvard’s alleged “violent crime rates” and deficient reporting on foreign students as rationales for the directive, alongside its “entanglements” with the Chinese Communist Party and “discriminatory” admissions practices reducing opportunities for American students.
If the federal government may punish a university for its perceived ideology or that of its students, then the marketplace of ideas collapses into a monopoly of dogma
American Council on Education et al.
The brief argues that the proclamation is “fundamentally inconsistent with institutional autonomy – at Harvard and other educational institutions across the country” and that the administration’s actions are unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent for all US colleges.
“The administration’s actions at issue in this case are directed at Harvard, but they reverberate throughout every state in the nation,” the brief states, arguing that punishing a university for its perceived ideology is “the antithesis of American values”.
It highlights the targeted nature of Trump’s directive, which would allow international students into the US seeking to study at any institution but Harvard – signalling the intervention is punitive, not regulatory, the amici said.
They emphasise the value of international students, “who … enrich and strengthen our community in innumerable ways”.
“But these benefits are unattainable when schools are prohibited from enrolling international students because they do not pass the government’s ideological litmus test.”
The brief contextualises the case within the administration’s long-running assault on Harvard, involving the freezing of federal grant funding, threats to Harvard’s tax-exempt status and requests for information regarding Harvard’s international students.
The administration’s appeal is expected to be considered in the coming months.
In the federal funding fight, judge Burroughs found in September 2025 that the administration acted unlawfully when it cut Harvard’s research grants – a case also heading to the court of appeal after the administration disputed the ruling.
Despite the ongoing attacks on America’s oldest institution, Harvard’s overseas enrolments rose to their highest level since 2002 this academic year, making up 28% of the total university population.
Harvard University has just fired a resident dean, Gregory Davis, for his views. Davis was never accused of any wrongdoing in his job. But old social media posts written before his current job at Harvard were denounced by conservatives who objected to his hateful remarks about Donald Trump and the police. The right-wing website Yardreport exposed his posts and declared that his comments “disqualify him from serving in his role at Harvard. They reveal an ideology unbefitting of American society, let alone its most elite institution of higher education. The university must fire him immediately.”
Davis’s firing bears a strong resemblance to Harvard’s 2019 dismissal of a faculty dean, Ronald Sullivan (and his wife), because he joined the defense team for Harvey Weinstein. The Sullivan purge was a shameful episode condemned by the ACLU, FIRE and many other groups, and often cited as evidence of Harvard’s evil wokeness by the National Review (“Harvard Launches an Attack on the Culture of Liberty”) and many conservatives. Let’s hope there’s similar outrage about what just happened to Davis.
The Davis firing exposes a problem of repression at Harvard that transcends ideological borders and threatens everyone’s freedom. But while Harvard has silenced both conservatives and liberals in the past, today the target is aimed squarely at leftists accused of the new academic crime: activism.
Harvard’s newly permanent president, Alan Garber, was recently interviewed on the Identity/Crisis podcast and revealed disturbing views about activism and academic freedom.
Garber blamed campus censorship on the younger generations: “Students came to us that way, with a set of expectations that they would not hear language or thoughts that would be offensive to them,” he said, which Garber (correctly) called “inimical to the exercise of free speech.” Garber claimed that among faculty, “there has been a generational shift” in “free speech”: “If you were to speak to older faculty, around my generation, the idea that some views should not be expressed, or that certain speakers should get priority because of historical grievances of some kinds … that’s anathema … but that changed with young generations of faculty.”
Yet it’s not the young faculty and students but the old administrators like Garber who are doing the repression at Harvard. It’s almost laughable to hear Garber say that “I have long been a believer in pretty much unfettered free speech” in the wake of Davis’s firing and so many other examples of repression at Harvard.
In December, the Garber administration purged Mary T. Bassett, director of the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, and announced that—despite the literal name of the center—it would no longer be allowed to address human rights and instead will focus solely on the less controversial territory of children’s health. The center’s Palestine Program for Health and Human Rights had drawn attacks, and although Harvard rejected the explicit Trump administration demands for an external audit of the center, Harvard officials on their own went much further than the Trump regime and imposed this ban on controversial ideas at the center.
This is a warning to all programs and all faculty at Harvard: Engage in activism and advocacy at the risk of your careers.
In the podcast, Garber reminisced about his time teaching at Stanford: “We had a rule that the faculty … in their teaching, they had to be completely objective.” He added, “That’s what had shifted, and that’s where I think we went wrong.” But complete objectivity is more of a delusion than a dream. Garber declares, “I’m pleased to say that I think there’s real movement to restore balance in teaching and to bring back the idea that you really need to be objective in the classroom.” Garber mentions that as part of Harvard’s fight against antisemitism, “we’re hiring new people”—and it doesn’t take much guessing to figure out which views those new hires are expected to have.
The irony is that Garber is Harvard’s most powerful political activist. Anti-activists like Garber are the worst kind of activists—the ones who delude themselves into thinking that they are the purveyors of objective truth, purely logical and immune from the evils of having a point of view—because their point of view is simply the facts. When an activist like Garber is unaware of his own biases and imagines himself to be objective and incapable of bias, that sense of superiority makes him feel entitled to silence the “activists.” And his position of power as president gives him the ability to punish his ideological enemies in the name of objectivity.
Garber makes a cartoonish dismissal of activism, claiming that education “is not about how to sling slogans.” There are reasonable critiques of what some left-wing activists do in the classroom—but claiming that they just “sling slogans” is such a dishonest dismissal that it shows Garber is ignorant of what academic activism looks like, and this helps explain why he’s unable to see his own activist presidency.
Garber is fond of proclaiming his devotion to institutional neutrality, but a university truly committed to neutrality cannot punish activism (and should not even condemn it). The neutral university must protect the freedom of all scholars and students, whether they engage in activism, oppose activism or try to avoid controversial issues. A neutral university judges scholars based on their scholarly achievement and never presumes that all activists are inherently unscholarly, as Garber believes.
Garber wants to paint a scarlet A on activists and purge them from the university: “Our mission is not to provide advocacy about an issue,” he says, “it’s to provide scholarship, it’s to provide an accurate view, as objective a view as possible.” But telling the truth in a biased world sometimes requires advocacy and activism. Accuracy often violates the “objective” ideal of telling both sides equally. Even if you personally refrain from advocacy on everything, academic freedom requires a college president to respect and defend faculty who disagree and engage in advocacy.
Garber is free to reject these principles and argue for his delusions of objectivity. But when he seeks to impose his biased viewpoint on the entire university and violate the academic freedom of those who disagree, then he’s no longer a mere advocate for flawed delusions of objectivity. Garber is an activist president abusing his power to silence those he opposes.
The Trump regime’s demands of Harvard were so extreme that Garber was forced to reject a settlement. But Garber’s latest words and actions send a clear message to the Trump administration: Trust me. Garber and the Trump regime share a common enemy in left-wing activists. All the government needs to do is back down a little, and Garber will do their bidding. Garber is setting the terms of a settlement where he will implement most of Trump’s demands. It appears Garber will gladly sacrifice the academic freedom of Harvard’s faculty, staff and students as long as Harvard’s autonomy and money are preserved.
John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Trump administration on Thursdayfiled to appeal the ruling against the federal government’s roughly $2.2 billion freeze of Harvard University’s research funding.
In September, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughsstruck down the freeze orders, ruling the government acted unlawfully and violated the university’s First Amendment rights when targeting Harvard’s funding and attempting to force myriad policy changes at the university.
Burroughs entered a final judgment in October concluding the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and its actions were “arbitrary and capricious.” The administration’s appeal fulfills its promise in September to contest the ruling.
Dive Insight:
In Burroughs’ final ruling on Oct. 20, she permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the funding freeze orders. She also barred the government from issuing new grant terminations or withholding “funding to Harvard in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights,” or for alleged discrimination without following the proper steps under civil rights law.
The administration filed its appeal of the ruling with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
White House spokesperson Liz Hustonsaid in a statement Friday that Harvard “failed to protect its students, allowing harassment and discrimination to run rampant on its campus.” She added that the university “is not entitled to taxpayer funding, and we are confident the university will be held fully accountable for their failures.”
Meanwhile, a Harvard spokesperson said in an emailed statement Friday that the university remains “confident in our legal position.”
“The federal district court ruled in Harvard’s favor in September, reinstating critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities,” the spokesperson said.
The appeal follows a monthslong legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration.
At the end of March, President Donald Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced it would review some $9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts. U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon at the time claimed the university failed “to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination” in the wake of 2024’s tumultuous season of pro-Palestinian protests.
Days later, the Trump administration sent Harvard a wide-ranging, unprecedented set of demands backed by threats to the university’s federal funding. Those demands included changing “biased” departments, governance reforms, and the elimination of all of Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The administration followed up with even stricter demands that called for a viewpoint “audit” of Harvard’s students and faculty, and for the institution to reduce the power of faculty and administrators involved in activism. After Harvard President Alan Garber rebuked the Trump administration for overstepping its authority,the government froze over $2 billion in funding to the university.
In Burroughs’ initial ruling in September, the judge questioned the Trump administration’s rationale in issuing grant termination letters. The federal government said it was trying to end institutionalized antisemitism at Harvard, but Burroughs concluded that a connection was “wholly lacking” between its actions and its official motivations.
The evidence didn’t “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” Burroughs wrote in her ruling. “Even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”
Since then, the government has reinstated most of the university’s frozen funding.
Over the months of litigation, several media reports have cited anonymous sources predicting an ever-nearing settlement between Harvard and the Trump administration. Trump himself said as much in September.
Officials also announced that the center will hone its primary focus to children’s health.
John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images
The director of Harvard University’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights will step down in January after seven years at the helm, dean of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health Andrea Baccarelli announced Tuesday. News of her departure follows months of criticism of the center’s Palestine Program for Health and Human Rights.
Mary Bassett’s last day as director will be Jan. 9, 2026, after which she will remain a professor of practice in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department. Kari Nadeau, a professor of climate and population studies at Harvard, will serve as interim director. Bassett did not respond to a request for an interview Thursday. A Harvard spokesperson did not answer Inside Higher Ed’s questions about Bassett’s departure, including whether she was asked to step down, and instead pointed to Baccarelli’s message.
Baccarelli also announced that the center will shift its primary focus to children’s health.
“Over the past years, FXB has worked on a wide range of programs within the context of human rights, extending across varied projects, including those related to oppression, poverty, and stigma around the world,” he wrote. “We believe we can accomplish more, and have greater impact, if we go deeper in a primary area of focus.”
The center’s Palestine Program for Health and Human Rights drew increased scrutiny after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack in Israel, including from former Harvard president Larry Summers and New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik. In previous years, the program partnered with Birzeit University in the West Bank, but Harvard declined to renew that partnership in the spring. In their April report on antisemitism on campus, Harvard officials detailed complaints from students about the program’s webinars, in which speakers allegedly “presented a demonizing view of Israel and Israelis.”
“One student told us that the FXB programming created the impression that ‘Israel exists solely to oppress Palestinians, and nothing else,’” the report stated.
At the time of his initial arrest, Gouvea said he was hunting rats.
APCortizasJr/iStock/Getty Images
Immigration authorities arrested Carlos Portugal Gouvea, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, on Wednesday after his J-1 visa was revoked for shooting a BB gun outside of a Boston-area synagogue Oct. 2, the day of Yom Kippur. Gouvea agreed to voluntarily leave the United States rather than be deported.
The Department of State revoked Gouvea’s visa Oct. 16, and a month later, Gouvea accepted a plea deal “on the charge of illegal use of the air rifle while his other charges for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and vandalizing property were dismissed,” the Department of Homeland Security wrote in a news release.
Gouvea shot the pellet gun outside Temple Beth Zion in Brookline, Mass., just a few miles south of the Harvard campus, The New York Times reported. Private security guards for the synagogue heard a loud noise outside, and the temple was put in a lockdown. When a guard saw Gouvea behind a tree and attempted to arrest him, they engaged in a brief physical struggle and then Gouvea fled, the Times reported. He was later arrested by Brookline police. Gouvea fired two total shots, one of which police later discovered had shattered a car window. Harvard officials put Gouvea on administrative leave shortly after his October arrest.
In its news release, the Department of Homeland Security called the act an “anti-Semitic shooting incident,” a characterization federal officials have maintained since the incident.
“It is a privilege to work and study in the United States, not a right. There is no room in the United States for brazen, violent acts of anti-Semitism like this. They are an affront to our core principals as a country and an unacceptable threat against law-abiding American citizens,” Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, said in a statement. “We are under zero obligation to admit foreigners who commit these inexplicably reprehensible acts or to let them stay here. Secretary Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and commit anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism should think again. You are not welcome here.”
At the time of his initial arrest, Gouvea said he was “hunting rats.” He was not charged with a hate crime by local police, and leaders from Temple Beth Zion told the Times they did not believe the shooting was motivated by bias.
“From what we were initially told by police, the individual was unaware that he lived next to, and was shooting his BB gun next to, a synagogue, or that it was a religious holiday,” Benjamin Maron, the synagogue’s executive director, and Larry Kraus, its president, wrote in the statement to the Times. “It is potentially dangerous to use a BB gun in such a populated spot, but it does not appear to have been fueled by antisemitism.”
A lawyer for Gouvea also told the Times in October that the matter was “a total misunderstanding of an entirely innocent situation.”
The institution emphasized the incoming class’s geographic diversity and first-generation student population.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
The share of Black, Latino and international students in this year’s incoming Harvard University class declined from last year’s freshman class, The Washington Post reported.
Black students made up 12 percent of the Class of 2029, down two percentage points from the previous year; Latino students comprise 11 percent of this year’s incoming class, compared to 16 percent last year. International student enrollment is also down, from 18 percent of last fall’s freshman class to 15 percent this year. Only eight international students deferred their admissions, despite reports that many international students were unable to arrive in the U.S. in time for fall classes due to visa issues.
Harvard emphasized the incoming class’s geographic diversity, noting that students come from all 50 states and 92 countries. It also said 20 percent of the Class of 2029 are first-generation students.
The data comes at a time when the Trump administration is attacking colleges for allegedly violating the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action by continuing to consider race in admissions—although admissions officials argue this isn’t happening. The administration specifically targeted Harvard earlier this year, ordering the institution to “cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof” in favor of “merit-based admissions.”
Some colleges have stopped publicizing the racial makeup of their incoming classes this year, though it’s unclear if that’s related to the Trump administration’s scrutiny of admissions.
The HEPI / Kaplan Soft-Power Index looks at the number of very senior world leaders (monarchs, presidents and prime ministers) who studied at a higher level in another country.
Countries that have educated a significant proportion of the world’s most senior leaders are thought to benefit from a boost to their ‘soft power’.
The results for the leading two countries, the US and the UK, are broadly comparable to those for recent years but other countries, like France and Germany, fare worse than in past years while Russia and India have improved their position.
For the first time, the results are being published according to the institution that world leaders studied at. Harvard University and the University of Oxford lead the pack, with Sandhurst, the University of Cambridge, the LSE and the University of Manchester making up the rest of the top 6.
When launching the Soft Power Council in early 2025, the UK’s then Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon. David Lammy MP, said, ‘Soft power is fundamental to the UK’s impact and reputation around the world. I am often struck by the enormous love and respect which our music, sport, education and institutions generate on every continent.’ The HEPI / Kaplan Soft-Power Index offers one way to measure the extent of this soft power.
In 2025, the United States remains comfortably in first place, as their higher education institutions have educated 66 senior world leaders, which is only slightly lower than the US total for 2024 (68). The UK remains in a comfortable second place, having educated 59 world leaders. France performs less well than in the past but stays in third place, with 23 leaders.
The Index is based on a snapshot of world leaders for early August 2025. Changes since then are not reflected in the data. The Index should not be regarded as the only way to measure soft power and should be used alongside other sources of information.
Since the Soft-Power Index was launched in 2017, 81 (42%) of the countries in the world have had at least one very senior leader educated at a higher level in the UK. The Index is regularly quoted by UK Government Ministers – for example, last year’s results featured in this week’s Post-16 Education and Skills white paper.
World leaders educated in countries other than their own
For the first time this year, the results are also being published according to the institution that the leaders attended, with Harvard (15) and Oxford (12) topping the tree.
Harvard alone has educated more senior world leaders than all higher education institutions in Russia (13). Harvard has also educated more senior world leaders than Italy (5), Spain (5) and Germany (4) combined.
Key findings
The strong performance of the United States represents the country’s second best ever total (equal with 2022 but slightly down on 2024).
In terms of absolute score, the United Kingdom matches the best it has done since the Index began in 2017 (59), equalising the record that was also hit in 2019 and 2021.
France fares worse than in the past, with a big drop-off of 17 since 2019 from 40 to 23, but retains third place.
Russia posts its best performance, with 13 world leaders educated there, beating its previous high of 11 in 2022.
Australia (9, +2) remains in fifth place, while Switzerland is in sixth place (7, +1).
India scores its best ever performance. In 2022, only two serving very senior leaders had been educated to a higher level in India; in 2025, five had been – this is the same total as for Spain and also Italy.
Germany drops out of the top 10 for the first time, having educated just four serving world leaders, the same number as Canada, Germany, Morocco, the Netherlands and South Africa – and the same number as for the LSE alone.
The higher education institution that has educated the most current world leaders while they were international students is Harvard University (15), closely followed by the University of Oxford (13).
Five of the six best-performing institutions are situated in the UK, meaning world leaders educated in the UK tend to have been concentrated in a smaller number of institutions. While Harvard is the only US institution to have educated more than three serving world leaders, the UK has five institutions that have educated more than three: Oxford (13); Sandhurst (8); Manchester (6); Cambridge (5); and the LSE (4).
Institutions attended by very senior world leaders
Ranking
Higher education institution
Number of world leaders
1
Harvard
15
2
Oxford
12
3
Sandhurst
8
4
Manchester
6
5
Cambridge
5
6
LSE
4
7=
Boston
3
7=
Bristol
3
7=
George Washington
3
7=
New York
3
7=
Pennsylvania
3
7=
UCL
3
7=
US Army Command and Staff College
3
The 15 world leaders educated at Harvard are: i) the Prime Minister of Bhutan (Tshering Tobgay); ii) the President of Botswana (Duma Boko); iii) the Prime Minister of Canada (Mark Carney); iv) the King of Denmark (Frederik X); v) the President of Ecuador (Daniel Noboa); vi) the Prime Minister of Greece (Kyriakos Mitsotakis); vii) the Prime Minister of Israel (Benjamin Netanyahu); viii) the Prime Minister of Jordan (Jafar Hassan); ix) the Prime Minister of Lebanon (Nawaf Salam); x) the Prime Minister of Luxembourg (Luc Frieden); xi) the President of Moldova (Maia Sandu); xii) the Chief Minister of Sierra Leone (David Moinina Sengeh); xiii) the President of Singapore (Tharman Shanmugaratnam); xiv) the Prime Minister of Singapore (Lawrence Wong); and xv) the Prime Minister of South Korea (Kim Min-seok).
The 12 world leaders educated at the University of Oxford are: i) the King of Belgium (Philippe); ii) the King of Bhutan (Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck); iii) the Prime Minister of Canada (Mark Carney); iv) the President of East Timor (José Ramos-Horta); v) the Prime Minister of Hungary (Viktor Orbán); vi) the Emperor of Japan (Naruhito); vii) the King of Jordan (Abdullah II); viii) the President of Montenegro (Jakov Milatović); ix) the King of Norway (Harald V); x) the Sultan and Prime Minister of Oman (Haitham bin Tariq); xi) the President of the Philippines (Bongbong Marcos); and xii) the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands (Jeremiah Manele).
Nick Hillman OBE, the Director of HEPI, said:
International students bring enormous benefits to the UK. They all spend money while they are here and some then contribute to the UK labour market after studying. The diplomatic benefits are less well understood even though they can be equally important. In 2025, over a quarter of the countries around the world have a very senior leader educated in the UK, which amounts to tremendous soft power.
The current UK Government have established a Soft Power Council and promised a new education exports strategy. These are welcome, but they are counterbalanced by the incoming levy on international students, huge dollops of negative rhetoric and excessive visa costs.
Recent new obstacles standing in the way of people wanting to study in Australia, Canada and the United States provide an opportunity for the UK to steal a march on our main competitors. We are at risk of squandering this opportunity.
Linda Cowan, Managing Director of Kaplan International Pathways, said:
It is fantastic to see how many of our best known universities are educating foreign leaders. This year’s list also highlights the growing diversity and range of institutions contributing to the UK’s soft power, including Cranfield, Leicester, Liverpool and Westminster.
Another trend to watch is the expansion of transnational campuses of British universities abroad, such as in India and the UAE. These initiatives have the potential to further enhance the UK’s soft power by extending the reach of our higher education sector beyond students coming to the UK – a development to watch going forward.
Professor Irene Tracey, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, said:
That so many world leaders have studied at Oxford speaks to the transformative power of education — to shape ideas, deepen understanding, and inspire service on the global stage.
Professor Duncan Ivison, the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, said:
If soft power is fundamental to the UK’s impact and reputation around the world, then so too are the UK’s outstanding universities.
The HEPI / Kaplan Soft-Power Index makes clear just how important international students are to the UK’s global influence – both now and into the future. Extraordinary future leaders get their start at many of our universities and retain a deep affection for our country long after. And yet the Government is, at the same time, putting up obstacles to welcoming future international students to the UK with a proposed international levy, higher visa costs and reducing the graduate visa route.
We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the UK the global destination for the best and the brightest in the world given what is happening elsewhere – and especially in the US and Canada. Let’s not blow it.
The 59 leaders educated in the UK lead 55 countries (as a small number of places – Bahrain, Luxembourg, Namibia and the United Arab Emirates have two very senior leaders educated in the UK). Changes affecting the UK list for 2025 are outlined in the table below. They include:
The Rt Hon. Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada since early 2025, studied Economics at the University of Oxford.
Taye Atske Selassie, the President of Ethiopia since late 2024, studied International Relations and Strategic Studies at Lancaster University.
The President, Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, and Prime Minister, Elijah Ngurare, of Namibia, who have both been in post since early 2025, studied in the UK – the Namibian President studied at Glasgow Caledonian University as well as Keele University and the Prime Minister studied at University of Dundee.
The Prime Minister of Rwanda since July 2025, Justin Nsengiyumva, studied Economics at the University of Leicester.
The Prime Minister of Sri Lanka since autumn 2024, Harini Amarasuriya, studied Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh.
Click here to download a table showing all the countries with at least one senior leader educated in the UK for the whole period from 2017 to 2025.
The 66 world leaders from 58 countries educated in the United States head the following countries:
Bahrain (2); Bangladesh; Belgium; Belize; Bhutan (2); Botswana; Bulgaria; Cambodia; Canada; Costa Rica; Denmark; Dominica; Dominican Republic; East Timor; Ecuador; Egypt; Finland; Greece; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti (2); Iceland (2); Ireland; Israel (2); Ivory Coast; Jordan (2); Kuwait; Latvia; Lebanon; Liberia; Luxembourg; Malawi; Malaysia; Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Moldova; Monaco; Montenegro; Namibia; Nigeria; Palau; Palestine; Panama; Paraguay; Philippines; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Sierra Leone (2); Singapore (2); Slovenia; Somalia; South Korea; Spain; Sudan; Switzerland; Togo; Tonga; and Vatican City.
Notes for Editors
1. Leaders are defined as heads of state and heads of government (monarchs, presidents and prime ministers). Countries often have more than one (such as a president or monarch and a prime minister).
2. Countries are included if they are members of, or observers at, the United Nations, currently numbering 195 places. Palestine is therefore included but Northern Cyprus, for example, is not.
3. The HEPI / Kaplan Soft-Power Index is a measure of tertiary education. This is defined broadly but distance learning and transnational education are excluded for the soft-power benefits are thought to be less.
4. Leaders change throughout the year, so we provide a snapshot for August 2025. For example, the fieldwork was undertaken prior to the recent change of leadership in Thailand.
5. Each country is treated equally and we do not claim each individual result provides good evidence of positive soft power. No one is excluded on moral grounds.
6. Some people are educated in more than one other country and they can therefore count towards the totals for more than one country.
7. While we use multiple sources to obtain information, the educational background of some national leaders is opaque. HEPI welcomes feedback that would enable us to build up a more complete picture.
8. When new information comes to light, we update the figures. So there are some slight differences in the figures provided here for earlier years compared with what we have published in the past. For example, in the preparation of the 2025 numbers, we found new information that reduced the recent past total for the US (as we discovered two leaders were distance learners rather than in-person learners).
9. King Charles III’s higher education was delivered in the UK (at the University of Cambridge), the country where he was born and lives, and he is head of state of other countries in part by virtue of his position in the UK. So we have opted to exclude this information. This matches how we treat the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, who is one of the heads of state (Co-Prince) of Andorra.
10. The University of the West Indies (UWI) serves 18 countries and territories in the Caribbean. Attempting to unpick the place of study for those world leaders who studied at the UWI is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, we have assumed that each one studied in their home nation. This is the same practice as followed in earlier years.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Harvard University could lose access to all federal grants and contracts under proceedings initiated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Monday.
The agency’s Office for Civil Rights has referred the university for suspension and debarment, the process by which the agency can cut off entities from federal grants and contracts if it determines that wrongdoing renders them “not responsible enough to do business” with the government.
The move represents the latest federal effort to bend Harvard to the Trump administration’s will through financial pressure. The administration has sought to use multiple federal agencies to gain increased influence over the higher education sector, singling out Harvard as a prime target.
Dive Insight:
On Monday, HHS’ OCR recommended excluding Harvard from federal funding, arguing the move would protect the public interest. The agency cited its June notice that formally accused Harvard of being in “violent violation” of Title VI by being “deliberately indifferent” to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its campus.
Title VI forbids institutions that accept federal funds from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.
HHS can pursue the debarment process when an entity — in this case Harvard — does not voluntarily agree with the agency’s terms to return to compliance with Title VI,according to Paula Stannard, director of HHS’ OCR. HHS and three other federal agencies on the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism in June called for Harvard to “institute adequate changes immediately”but did not publicly detail what those changes should be.
Stannard said Monday that Harvard has the right to a formal hearing during the suspension and debarment process.
“An HHS administrative law judge will make an impartial determination on whether Harvard violated Title VI by acting with deliberate indifference towards antisemitic student-on-student harassment,” Stannard said.
Harvard has 20 days to request the hearing. The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Suspension and debarment applies to all federal grants and contracts, not just those from HHS. And agencies across the federal government can initiate suspension and debarment proceedings. If sustained, debarment is not permanent and typically lasts under three years, according to a 2022 HHS report.
Monday’s announcement is unrelated to HHS’ joint civil rights investigation with the U.S. Department of Education into Harvard and the Harvard Law Review.The agencies opened the probe in April,citing allegations of “race-based discrimination permeating the operations” of the student-run journal.
Months before HHS formally determined Harvard had violated Title VI, the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force froze over $2.2 billion of the university’s grants and contracts.
The halt cameafter Harvard President Alan Garber publicly rebuked the Trump administration’s call for increased federal control of the institution. Its demands includedthat the university hire a third party to audit the viewpoints of Harvard students and employees,halt all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts,and reduce the power of certain faculty and administrators involved in activism.
A federal judge ruled in early September that the Trump administration violated the university’s First Amendment rightsand didn’t follow proper steps when it suspended the funding. No evidence indicated that “fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” the judge wrote.
The judge’s decision barred the Trump administration from cutting off Harvard’s federal funding in retaliation for the university exercising its free speech rights or without following the procedural requirements of Title VI. However, the judge noted that her ruling didn’t prevent the Trump administration from “acting within their constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authority.”
Trump administration officials appealed the decision and said it would keep Harvard “ineligible for grants in the future.”
Harvard is facing increasing pressure from the Trump administration after winning back its frozen grants in court.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights announced Monday that it’s moving to cut off Harvard University’s eligibility to receive federal funding.
The announcement comes amid a power struggle between Harvard and the White House.
While the Trump administration has accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism to run amok on campus—and the university has acknowledged concerns on the front—it has sought sweeping power over the institution and changes that go beyond addressing antisemitism. The HHS Office for Civil Rights previously found that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color and national origin, and acted with “deliberate indifference toward discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students,” according to an HHS news release.
Now HHS OCR has recommended cutting off federal funding to Harvard “to protect the public interest” through a suspension and debarment process operated by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources. Suspension would be temporary and debarment would last “for a specified period as a final determination that an entity is not responsible enough to do business with the federal government because of the wrongdoing,” according to the agency. The move comes less than two weeks after the Education Department placed Harvard on heightened cash monitoring—a highly unusual move given the university’s significant resources.
Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
“OCR’s referral of Harvard for formal administrative proceedings reflects OCR’s commitment to safeguard both taxpayer investments and the broader public interest,” HHS OCR director Paula M. Stannard said in a statement. “Congress has empowered federal agencies to pursue Title VI compliance through formal enforcement mechanisms, including the termination of funding or denial of future federal financial assistance, when voluntary compliance cannot be achieved.”
Harvard has 20 days to request a hearing in front of an HHS administrative law judge, who will decide whether the university violated Title VI.
Monday’s announcement is the latest salvo by the federal government after Harvard emerged initially victorious in a legal battle over more than $2 billion in frozen federal research funding. While a judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally froze funds granted to Harvard, the federal government has continued to pressure the private institution to make changes to disciplinary processes, admissions, hiring and more. Other Ivy League institutions, such as Columbia University and Brown University, have agreed to such deals, under federal scrutiny.
Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.
John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images
The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits.
By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.
“It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”
Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.
According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote.
“Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote.
The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard.
The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday.
“Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”
The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.
As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S.
Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does.
During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.
But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.
The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said.
“To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”
