Garber Calls New Student Visa Limit ‘Odd,’ Warns of Impact on Graduate Students

Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 called a new federal rule limiting student visas to four years “odd” on Thursday, contrasting the cutoff with the length of many graduate degree programs.

“A typical Ph.D. program usually takes at least six years, so four years is a bit odd as the cutoff for the visa,” Garber said during an interview at the Economic Club of Washington with billionaire financier David M. Rubenstein, the club’s chair.

Garber said shifts in federal immigration policy had created “uncertainty” that could deter international students from coming to the United States to study.

“Imagine that you are an international student contemplating a Ph.D. program in the United States,” he said. “Do you want to take the chance that, in a program that might be expected to take you seven or eight years, do you want to take a chance that you will have to leave at the end of four years because of this visa feature?”

“There are other changes in policy that make it less and less attractive for international students to come to the United States,” Garber added.

Garber pointed to the recruitment of international talent and consistent federal support as essential to universities’ success, arguing that restrictive immigration policies and cuts to federal funding threatened the United States’ ability to compete in scientific research.

“China and other countries are making massive investments. Our appearance of weakness is an opportunity for them to leap ahead,” he said.

In April, Garber warned that China, Canada, and European countries were making active efforts to recruit scientists away from the U.S., putting the country’s top talent — and its historic dominance in scientific research — at risk.

Against that backdrop, Garber said that “every president of a research university I know” is looking at alternative sources of research support — including private-sector and philanthropic contributions — but added that “nobody could replace the federal government.”

While acknowledging that federal funding cuts could push some researchers to leave the country, Garber said he was “more concerned” about the decline in students and researchers coming to the U.S.

“If we send the signal that immigrants are not welcome here, we are giving up access to most of the talent in the world,” Garber said. “That is not a negative statement about US talent. We have fantastically talented people, but talent is widely distributed. And if we say most of the world is off limits, we can’t hope to compete at the highest level.”

Garber estimated that the number of international students coming to the U.S. has fallen by roughly 20 percent nationwide. He added that the effects were already apparent among postdoctoral scholars.

“The way that this will play out, or has the potential to play out, is that fewer scholars, students, researchers from other countries will come to the United States. And we are feeling this immediately when it comes to postdoctoral scholars,” he said. “Many postdoctoral scholars in the United States come from other countries.”

Though Harvard’s overall international enrollment had remained relatively stable over the past year, he said the trend was not consistent across all schools at the University.

“We’ve had big reductions in some schools that are made up for in other schools,” he said.

The new visa rule, which is expected to take effect Sept. 15, will limit F and J visas to a maximum of four years and restrict graduate students’ ability to change their programs of study. The Harvard International Office wrote last week that the changes will have a “significant impact” on Harvard’s international students.

When the Trump administration proposed a similar policy in 2020, then-Harvard President Lawrence S. Bacow wrote in a scathing response letter that a typical Ph.D. takes five to seven years to complete. The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences typically provides Ph.D. students at least five years of support.

Harvard’s international students had already faced uncertainty after the federal government moved to revoke the University’s authorization to enroll them in May 2025. A federal judge blocked the revocation the next day and later issued a preliminary injunction.

Harvard is challenging that move in federal court. It is also defending a district-court ruling restoring roughly $2.7 billion in federal research funding, which the Trump administration appealed in December. Garber acknowledged the maelstrom of legal challenges during Thursday’s event when Rubenstein, a former Harvard Corporation fellow, asked why Harvard had not reached a settlement with the federal government.

“This is my first opportunity to give a disclaimer there. We are the subject of multiple congressional investigations, executive branch investigations, and lawsuits,” Garber said on Thursday. “My lawyer has told me I should not be speaking here today.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly floated claims over the past year that a deal with Harvard was imminent. But after reports emerged in February that a deal was no longer conditional on a cash payment, Trump turned to Truth Social to demand a $1 billion settlement, writing that the government wanted “nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard.”

While much of Garber’s interview focused on Washington, he also addressed some issues closer to home, including grading and final clubs.

Garber reiterated his support for the College’s new grading policy, approved by faculty in May, which will cap all A grades in undergraduate courses at 20 percent of enrollment, with flexibility for up to four additional A’s, beginning in fall 2027.

“I think grades at Harvard have always mattered. They’ll matter more now that we’re addressing grade inflation,” he said.

Garber also alluded to the controversy surrounding final clubs — Harvard’s historically exclusive social organizations — and the College’s attempt to sanction members of single-gender social groups in 2016. The policy barred members from athletic captaincies, leadership positions in recognized student groups, and College endorsement for certain fellowships before Harvard rescinded it in 2020 following a Supreme Court ruling on sex discrimination.

“One thing I want to say — for those of you who know Harvard well and are familiar with the uproar in recent years over final clubs — is those of us who are not in final clubs did not really care whether we were in or out of them,” Garber said, referring to his time as an undergraduate.

“I can’t even begin to enumerate the reasons why I would not have been in a final club,” he added.