logo
Trump admin starts 30-day countdown on Harvard foreign students

Trump admin starts 30-day countdown on Harvard foreign students

Yahoo29-05-2025
The Trump administration began a 30-day countdown for Harvard to respond on Thursday as it filed a formal notice with federal courts to withdraw the prestigious institution from the federal program allowing the school to accept foreign students.
The court filing included a letter sent to Harvard Director of Immigration Services Maureen Martin on Wednesday.
'This notice advises your school of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program's (SEVP) intent to withdraw you school's SEVP certification for failing to comply with the federal regulations detailed below,' the letter begins.
The issues named in the letter are:
that Harvard failed to comply with reporting requirements
that Harvard failed to maintain a campus environment 'free from violence and antisemitism'
that there were national security concerns related to Harvard's practices with foreign entities
Harvard now has 30 days to provide evidence that it followed the law with respect to the above issues, according to the letter.
The filing comes as Harvard and the Trump administration are set to appear in federal court in Boston on Thursday.
It also took place the same day as Harvard's commencement ceremony.
Read more: Shadow of Trump administration hangs over Harvard University commencement
About 27% of Harvard's undergraduate and graduate students are international, according to 2024 to 2025 data.
This filing follows letters both earlier this month and in April escalating the Trump administration's position on whether foreign students can be allowed at Harvard.
In a statement accompanying last week's letter on the social media platform X, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem wrote that the administration was holding Harvard accountable 'for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.'
Harvard responded immediately with a 72-page lawsuit against the Trump administration, leading to a federal judge blocking the administration from revoking the certification.
'For those international students and scholars affected by yesterday's action, know that you are vital members of our community,' Harvard President Alan Garber said at the time. 'You are our classmates and friends, our colleagues and mentors, our partners in the work of this great institution. Thanks to you, we know more and understand more, and our country and our world are more enlightened and more resilient. We will support you as we do our utmost to ensure that Harvard remains open to the world.'
The Student and Exchange Visitor Program, also known as SEVP, allows higher education institutions to issue visa application forms to prospective international students after admitting them. The forms are used to apply for a visa to enter the United States.
The certification requirements include that the school is operational and instructing students, has the necessary facilities and adequate finances to operate, provides instruction to a degree or objective and meets state requirements to operate, according to the Department of Homeland Security website.
Read more: Trump is threatening to block international students from Harvard. Is that legal?
Institutions are recertified every two years, but can be evaluated at other points in time if they have information suggesting that it isn't complying with regulations.
If the certification is taken away, an institution isn't allowed to enroll international students. Current students would have to choose between transferring to another institution, leaving the U.S., or changing their immigration status, according to the ICE website.
An example of the certification being stripped occurred at Herguan University in California in 2016 after its CEO pleaded guilty to providing fraudulent documents to the Department of Homeland Security, according to East Bay Times.
Harvard has been in a battle with the federal government since April. There has been a wave of federal research grant terminations at Harvard University, in addition to a $60 million in multi-year grants,$450 million cut and a $2.2 billion freeze.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has also told the institution that the federal government would be barring Harvard University from acquiring new federal grants while the university continues to refuse to comply with the administration's demands for change on its campus.
Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon that they share the same 'common ground,' but the university 'will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear.'
Garber pushed back on the administration through a lawsuit in April. The institution argues that its constitutional rights had been violated by the government's threats to pull billions of dollars in funding if the school didn't comply with demands for an overhaul.Following the $450 million announced cuts, the university amended its lawsuit.
'No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' the suit reads.
Due to the federal cuts, Harvard announced that it was committing $250 million of 'central funding' to support research impacted by suspended and canceled federal grants.
MassLive reporter Juliet Schulman-Hall contributed to this article.
Harvard commencement speaker says it's fitting to 'hear from an immigrant like me'
Many foreign students already fleeing Harvard University due to Trump order
Protesters pack outside Harvard commencement as families focus on their graduates
Shadow of Trump administration hangs over Harvard University commencement
Trump proposes a 15% cap on foreign students at Harvard
Read the original article on MassLive.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump threatens to withhold trade deals from Thailand, Cambodia amid conflict
Trump threatens to withhold trade deals from Thailand, Cambodia amid conflict

The Hill

time7 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump threatens to withhold trade deals from Thailand, Cambodia amid conflict

President Trump threatened to withhold potential trade deals from Thailand and Cambodia amid a border conflict that has displaced tens of thousands of civilians and left at least 32 people dead. Trump said on Saturday that he spoke with Cambodia's prime minister Hun Manet and that he called Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai to 'request' a ceasefire and an end to the cross-border war. 'We happen to be, by coincidence, currently dealing on Trade with both Countries, but do not want to make any Deal, with either Country, if they are fighting — And I have told them so,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. 'Many people are being killed in this War, but it very much reminds me of the Conflict between Pakistan and India, which was brought to a successful halt,' the president added, referring to U.S. efforts to help broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May after the two exchanged tit-for-tat strikes. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has continued on Saturday, its third day. In Thailand, 19 people were killed, while in Cambodia, the death toll has reached 13, according to The Associated Press. The conflict has erupted after five Thai soldiers were wounded on Wednesday from a land mine explosion. In another Saturday post on Truth Social, Trump, who is visiting Scotland, said he had a 'very good conversation' with Wechayachai, Thailand's acting prime minister. 'Thailand, like Cambodia, wants to have an immediate Ceasefire, and PEACE. I am now going to relay that message back to the Prime Minister of Cambodia,' Trump wrote on Saturday. 'After speaking to both Parties, Ceasefire, Peace, and Prosperity seems to be a natural. We will soon see!' Trump's conversations with leaders of Cambodia and Thailand come as he has threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs on a host of countries, including the two currently at war. Both Bangkok and Phnom Penh would face a 36 percent reciprocal rate, which Trump and other administration officials said would go into effect on Aug. 1.

Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge

The Hill

time7 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge

President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'

Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid
Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid

The Hill

time7 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized President Trump over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire, increased aid to the war-torn enclave and the release of all remaining hostages held by the Palestinian militant group. 'During the first six months of Donald Trump's time in office, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a breaking point, hostages are still being held by Hamas despite the President's promise they would be released and the pre-existing ceasefire the administration inherited has been breached,' Jeffries said in a statement on Friday. 'The starvation and death of Palestinian children and civilians in an ongoing war zone is unacceptable.' 'The Trump administration has the ability to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis. They must act now,' he added. Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on Thursday that the U.S. will step away from peace negotiations in the region and is now considering alternative ways to free the hostages taken by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack on Israel. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement. 'It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.' The Hill has reached out to the White House spokesperson for comment. Dozens of aid groups have warned that the Gaza Strip is on the brink of starvation, with one in five children being malnourished in Gaza City, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while waiting in food lines, according to the UN. Israel has argued that Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist group, 'operates every day to create a perception of crisis.' U.S. allies, including Australia, the United Kingdom and France, have similarly sounded the alarm over humanitarian conditions in the strip and have called for more aid. The House Democratic leader also reupped his calls for a two-state solution in the nearly two-year conflict. 'It is imperative that humanitarian aid be surged into Gaza immediately, the remaining Israeli hostages be released and the ceasefire negotiated by the Biden administration restored. We need a just and lasting peace,' Jeffries said in his statement. 'Ultimately, that will only occur through a two-state solution that facilitates a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a Palestinian state that provides dignity, self-determination and prosperity for its people,' the New York Democrat added. To help out the Palestinians, Israel is allowing Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to air-drop aid packages into Gaza. The 2023 terrorist attack left some 1,200 Israeli's dead and roughly 250 hostages were taken captive. Nearly two years later, the Israeli military has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to local health affiliates. That number does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store