Higher Education, Homeland Security, and the Language of Transparency
- Alana Sobelman
- Jul 10
- 3 min read
In recent months, the Trump administration has accused leading universities like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Virginia of opacity, claiming that a lack of transparency poses a threat to homeland security and justifies aggressive actions—including the deportation of international students and threats to federal funding.
But what does transparency really mean in this context? And how does the Trump administration’s version differ from the student-centered transparency championed by organizations like TrustED?
President Trump’s second term has seen a wave of executive orders and public statements targeting higher education institutions for what he describes as “dangerous secrecy.” The administration’s rhetoric links university transparency directly to national security, arguing that undisclosed foreign funding, incomplete reporting, and insufficient cooperation with federal authorities create vulnerabilities that adversaries can exploit.
Key actions and claims include:
Executive Orders on Foreign Funding: Trump signed orders demanding full disclosure of all foreign gifts and contracts, threatening to revoke federal funds from universities that fail to comply. An April 2025 White House memo announced that the move is to “protect national security, academic integrity, and American excellence”.1
Targeting International Students: The administration has detained and deported international students, often citing vague or unproven links to foreign policy concerns or activism. In some cases, students have been removed for their political speech or alleged associations, with officials invoking rarely used provisions of immigration law to justify these actions.2
Pressure on University Leadership: High-profile institutions like Harvard and Columbia have faced demands for detailed records on foreign students, faculty, and funding. The administration has accused these universities of “deliberate indifference” to both antisemitism and national security risks, using these claims to justify threats to accreditation and federal support.3
The administration justifies these actions in a White House Proclamation entitled “Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University”: “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.”4
While the stated goal is to safeguard the nation, the activities proposed and enacted by the administration have created obvious alarm across the higher education sector:
Protesting Risks Deportation: Students have been targeted for deportation based on their activism or political speech, with legal experts warning that these actions chill free expression and academic inquiry.
Opaque Enforcement: University leaders report confusion and fear as student visas are revoked for unclear reasons, and compliance demands shift rapidly.
In stark contrast to the administration’s approach to institutional transparency (in the name of homeland security), TrustED’s view of transparency is rooted in the needs of both students and universities.
As a refresh, TrustED transparency means:
Empowering Students: Making tuition, cost, and financial aid information clear and accessible so students can make informed choices about their education.
Accountability for Equity: Publishing data on outcomes, access, and institutional practices to ensure universities are serving all students fairly.
Building Trust: Fostering open dialogue between students, families, educators, and institutions to rebuild trust eroded by opacity and exclusion.
The core difference between the versions of ‘transparency’ is this: Where the Trump administration is tending to use transparency as a tool for control—often to justify punitive measures—TrustED sees transparency as a means to empower, inform, and include. The goal is not to police or punish, but to make higher education more accessible, equitable, and responsive to the needs of those it serves.
It is fair to acknowledge that transparency in foreign funding and institutional governance is important. Universities should be accountable for the sources of their funding and the integrity of their operations. But the current approach conflates legitimate transparency with surveillance and control, most often at the expense of students and their families, and the very openness it claims to promote.
TrustED’s mission advances the idea that true transparency illuminates and opens; it builds bridges between students and institutions and tackles the barriers preventing the growth of trust and equity. The future of higher education depends on the balance between trust and accountability, not between compliance and control.
Comments