Enfeebling universities or seizing control is an early chapter in the authoritarian playbook, studied eagerly by the likes of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. “Would-be authoritarians and one-party states centrally target universities with the aim of restricting dissent,” Jason Stanley, a scholar of fascism at Yale, wrote in the Guardian in September. Last month, he announced that he was leaving the US for Canada because of the political climate and particularly the battle over higher education.

It is not merely that universities are often bastions of liberal attitudes and hotbeds for protest. They also constitute one of the critical institutions of civil society; they are a bulwark of democracy. The Trump administration is taking on judges, lawyers, NGOs and the media: it would be astonishing if universities were not on the list. They embody the importance of knowledge, rationality and independent thought.

In a typically brazen reversal, Donald Trump has accused his administration’s top target – Harvard – of being the “threat to democracy”. The administration is attacking diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and says it is tackling the failure of universities to root out antisemitism – a claim widely challenged. Most Trump supporters are unlikely to take issue with cutting billions of dollars of public spending on wealthy elite institutions. A pragmatic counter-argument would be that much of that money goes to scientific and medical research that will enrich the US as a nation and benefit vast numbers of people who have never ventured near an Ivy League university.

The administration’s outrageous demands of Harvard include federal oversight of admissions, the dismantling of diversity programmes, an end to recruitment of international students “hostile to American values”, and the compelled hiring of “viewpoint diverse” staff.

Harvard has commendably chosen to fight back. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” wrote its president, Alan Garber. It is suing the government over the freeze on $2.2bn in federal funding, part of a threat to withhold $9bn. That is encouraging others to speak out. Over 150 university presidents have signed a joint letter denouncing “unprecedented government overreach and political interference”.

Many have pointed out that the world’s richest university can afford to stand firm thanks to its unrivalled $53bn endowment and sympathetic billionaire alumni. But its the same prestige and power that have surely made it the primary target: force it to fold, and weaker institutions will follow. It’s worth noting that Harvard toughened its position after faculty, students and alumni pushed hard for it to do so, warning that concessions would only encourage the administration. Columbia acquiesced to an extraordinary list of demands but $400m of withheld funding has yet to be restored, and the administration is reportedly seeking to extend control over the university.

Whatever comes of Harvard’s suit, this is an administration that has already chosen to ignore court rulings. It may step up its assault, by revoking charitable status and clamping down on international students. (Many may already be concluding that studying in the US, however eminent the institution, may not be worth the hostile immigration environment.) But Harvard is fighting back not just because it can, but because it must. In doing so, it is defending not only academic freedom, but democracy more broadly – and inspiring others to do so.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

The US government is restoring the legal status of hundreds of international students after a wave of lawsuits challenged the abrupt suspension of their visas.

The sudden policy reversal was announced during a court hearing in Oakland, California, which brought together eight lawsuits filed by international students who argued that the federal government had terminated their right to remain in the US without due process. Attorneys in those cases had asked the court to issue a nationwide injunction covering all students whose official records granting them legal status were terminated since 1 March, and were at risk of deportation.

On Friday, assistant US attorney Elizabeth D Kurlan said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) was developing a new policy to govern how records are terminated on the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (Sevis), a federal database used to track international students’ immigration status. A similar announcement was made in a court in Washington.

In recent weeks, numerous students received notifications that their records were terminated with little explanation, jeopardizing their legal right to remain in the US and sparking outrage and confusion. Some said they had their status revoked for infractions as minor as a speeding ticket.

“DSOs [designated school officials] certified to assist international students) around the country are freaking out because out of nowhere they’re starting to see Ice manipulating the Sevis system to terminate students’ records around the country,” plaintiffs’ attorney Brad Banias said in an earlier interview.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), once a Sevis record is deleted from the database, which is often called being “terminated”, a student immediately falls out of status and risks deportation or future visa denials unless they quickly depart the US or regain lawful status.

Until the new Ice policy is finalized, Sevis records for the plaintiffs and other students affected by similar terminations will remain active or be reactivated. On Thursday afternoon, students across the country began receiving official notices from their schools stating that their Sevis records had been unexpectedly reactivated.

The news has brought some relief but not a full resolution, with some students saying the change has already caused irreparable harm.

“They call it a ‘restoration’, but for those of us who lived through it, who’s accountable for what we lost?” said one California student, who asked to remain anonymous. She was in the US on an F-1 work authorization when her Sevis record was terminated in April, she suspects due to being fingerprinted when she received a driving ticket six years ago. Her employer fired her the next day after learning she could no longer legally work.

The judge ordered the government to submit an explanation of the policy and its legal impact by the end of Friday. All plaintiffs in the hearing were granted 14-day temporary restraining orders (TROs) shielding them from deportation or any adverse legal consequences.

Marc L Van Der Hout, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said he believes Ice’s new policy is a direct response to a recent order from the US district judge Jeffrey S White, who presided over Friday’s hearing in Oakland and had already granted TROs in some of the eight lawsuits.

“They’re trying to argue the court doesn’t need to act now – but they’re only doing this because of Judge White’s order, 1,000%.”

According to data collected by National Association of Foreign Student Advisors (Nafsa), more than 1,400 students have reported Sevis terminations so far this year, with about 40% of them from India and China.

Nationwide, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed in 21 states challenging Sevis terminations. In at least 45 cases, judges have granted temporary restraining orders, citing possible violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and due process protections.

Kurlan added that Ice retains the authority to terminate Sevis records for other reasons, such as a student failing to maintain lawful status or engaging in what it considers to be removable conduct.

Pam Johann, a lawyer for the US government, argued against the request for national relief in the Oakland courthouse on Friday, stating that the agency’s ongoing actions to restore Sevis records make such an order unnecessary. Government lawyers responded that Ice was already addressing the issue in real time and that a nationwide injunction would be an “extraordinary remedy”.

Judge White pushed back. “Seems like with this administration, it’s a new world order every single day,” he said. “I think the administration writ large has a tendency to do everything in this particular area on an ad hoc basis, and we have to now consider it.”

The plaintiffs’ attorney John Nicholas Sinodis said unresolved gaps in Sevis timelines could still put students at risk of deportation or future visa denials. Lasting harm had already been done, especially for those who filed for reinstatement or left the US believing their status had ended.

Following the news, plaintiff expressed a mix of relief and lingering anxiety. “I’m worried my record might still have a stain, and it could cause problems later with jobs, visas, or getting through immigration,” said one, who asked to stay anonymous due to concerns about retaliation.

According to court records, their status was terminated based on an arrest record on reported domestic violence two years ago that did not result in any charges.

Despite the uncertainty, they remain confident about the eventual outcome. “I believe we will win, because I know very clearly that I don’t deserve this.”