On the eve of the fall 2025 academic semester, Harvard University and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) find themselves at the center of a political and legal storm over federal funding, international student access, and sweeping institutional reforms. The Trump administration’s high-profile actions—ranging from multimillion-dollar settlement demands to a controversial ban on foreign students—have not only upended the plans of elite universities but also triggered diplomatic ripples reaching as far as the Belgian royal family.
The administration’s recent move to demand $1 billion from UCLA and $500 million from Harvard, despite Harvard having nearly four times the amount of frozen federal funding, has raised eyebrows and fueled speculation over the motives behind these figures. According to TOI Education, UCLA’s federal grants of approximately $584 million were frozen, while Harvard saw a staggering $2.3 billion locked away. The disparity in settlement demands suggests a strategy that goes beyond simple financial recovery, hinting at deeper political calculations.
UCLA, as a public institution within the University of California system, is directly accountable to state taxpayers and legislators. This structure provides the federal government with multiple pressure points, allowing the Trump administration to challenge a political rival—California—while setting a precedent for reshaping public universities nationwide. As TOI Education notes, California’s consistent opposition to Trump-era policies on immigration and climate change has made UCLA a symbolic target, with the $1 billion demand serving as both a financial and political statement. The administration’s approach appears to energize its base against what it characterizes as "blue state elites."
Harvard, on the other hand, is a wealthy private institution with an endowment exceeding $50 billion, giving it considerable autonomy and resources for legal resistance. Its leverage may explain why, despite facing $2.3 billion in frozen funds, the settlement demand stands at $500 million—half that of UCLA’s. Yet, the scrutiny on Harvard has been no less intense. The administration’s demands have included rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, increasing admissions transparency, and instituting governance reforms. After Harvard rejected these demands in April, the government canceled nearly $3 billion in research grants, attempted to bar the university from hosting international students, and threatened its accreditation, as reported by the Boston Globe.
The fallout from these actions has been felt most acutely among Harvard’s international students. On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a ban on foreign nationals entering the U.S. to study at Harvard. The move threw into question the academic futures of more than half of the 1,000-student Kennedy School body, the highest proportion of international students on Harvard’s campus. According to the Boston Globe, Harvard had prepared a contingency plan—HKS Global—allowing students to study remotely or at the University of Toronto’s Munk School, but administrators announced in August that most international students would be able to return to Cambridge as the federal ban was blocked by a judge on June 30.
Among those affected was Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, heir to the Belgian throne. After earning her Bachelor of Arts in history and politics at Oxford’s Lincoln College, the 23-year-old princess enrolled at Harvard Kennedy School in 2024 for a two-year master’s in public policy. Her return for the fall semester was in jeopardy due to the Trump administration’s ban. However, as Belgian royal journalist Wim Dehandschutter told Hello! magazine, "There are no concrete reasons why she would not be able to return to Harvard in September." The princess reportedly declined any special consideration to avoid preferential treatment, a move that underscored the sensitivity of the situation. "Even if Trump were to make an exception for Elisabeth, because she is the daughter of a reigning king and a future queen herself, that would send a strange message from the royal family and could lead to significant criticism that they condone discrimination against other students," Dehandschutter observed.
The Belgian royal family, for its part, opted for understated communication to avoid diplomatic tensions with the United States. As Dehandschutter explained, "I suspect they don’t want to create tensions with the U.S. The ban on foreign studies was a decision of President Trump, a head of state like King Philippe and therefore a ‘colleague.’" The palace’s cautious stance highlights the broader diplomatic stakes involved when domestic policy decisions intersect with the lives of international students and foreign dignitaries.
While Princess Elisabeth and most of her international peers are now able to return to Harvard’s campus, the experience has been fraught with uncertainty. Some students faced delays in visa interviews and travel restrictions, while others had to consider deferring enrollment or studying remotely. According to the Boston Globe, the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) estimated that these disruptions could result in a 15 percent drop in total international student enrollment this fall, with new enrollments potentially declining by as much as 40 percent nationwide. For Massachusetts alone, the projected economic loss could reach $619 million, the third highest in the country after California and New York.
Harvard’s Kennedy School Dean Jeremy Weinstein had previously stated that remote study options would only be implemented if there was “sufficient demand from students who are unable to come to the United States due to visa or entry restrictions.” As it stands, only a small number of students will study in Canada this fall, while the majority have managed to return to Cambridge. Colin Jun, a Kennedy School student from South Korea, shared his relief with the Boston Globe: “The fact that I was able to come in itself already released a lot of stress I had. I’m very confident that I can continue to study at HKS without an issue.”
Despite the reprieve for students, the Trump administration’s broader campaign against Harvard continues. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem accused the university of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus” when she issued the order to end Harvard’s ability to host international students. Federal investigations into Harvard’s visa program, employment records, and even university patents have followed, all part of what officials describe as an effort to overhaul the university’s governance and admissions practices. The administration’s actions have not been limited to Harvard; similar settlement negotiations have taken place with Columbia University and Brown University in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, UCLA’s draft settlement with the administration includes sweeping institutional reforms: bans on overnight protests, restrictions on race-based scholarships and hiring, identification requirements for protestors, limits on transgender healthcare and athletics, and enhanced oversight of international students. The scope of these changes reflects the administration’s demand for comprehensive systemic reform, using financial leverage to drive institutional change.
As the academic year begins, universities, students, and policymakers alike are grappling with the implications of these unprecedented federal interventions. For Princess Elisabeth and her fellow students, the ability to return to campus marks a personal triumph amid political uncertainty. For Harvard, UCLA, and the broader higher education community, the outcome of ongoing legal and political battles may well shape the landscape of American academia for years to come.
