How Trump has targeted Harvard's international students - and what the latest court ruling means
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
President Donald Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University 's enrollment of international students, part of the White House 's effort to secure policy changes at the private, Ivy League college.Targeting foreign students has become the administration's cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation's oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard 's students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard's identity. Courts have stopped some of the government's actions, at least for now - but not all.In the latest court order, a federal judge on Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard's international students - and its broader standoff with the Trump administration - remain in limbo.Here are all the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard's foreign enrollment - and where each effort stands.Homeland Security tries to revoke Harvard's certification to host foreign students In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security's authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program . The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States.Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government's own regulations for withdrawing a school's certification.Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration's ban on hold temporarily - an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security's move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer.The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campus. However, it's usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel - even failing to "operate as a bona fide institution of learning." Other colleges are removed when they close.Notably, Burroughs' order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs' emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical "Notice of Intent to Withdraw" Harvard's participation in the international student visa program."Today's order does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review," Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. "Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University's certification."Trump has sought to ban U.S. entry for incoming Harvard students Earlier this month, Trump himself moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority.Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump's legal justification for the action - a federal law allowing him to block a "class of aliens" deemed detrimental to the nation's interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn't qualify as a "class of aliens," Harvard said in its filing.Harvard's lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard's request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. "We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days," Harvard told international students Friday.At the center of Trump's pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration's demands for further changes.The administration has stepped up scrutiny of Harvard scholars' and students' visas In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism.On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to "public."In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public.Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities - including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools.Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government's recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States.International students make up half the students at some Harvard programs Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the U.S.But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master's program in comparative law are international students.The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government's demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump's claim on Russian crude rubbished
NEW DELHI: US President Donald Trump on Saturday said he had heard about India stopping purchasing Russian crude, adding it would be a good step, a claim the government denied. Trump made the remark after announcing 25% reciprocal tariff on Indian imports, along with additional penalties linked to Russian crude imports. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens,' Trump said. The petroleum ministry, however, clarified that India has not stopped importing Russian crude. A ministry official said Indian oil marketing companies (OMCs) continue to buy Russian oil, with supply decisions based on factors such as price, crude grade, inventories, logistics, and other economic considerations. 'These are long-term oil contracts. It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight,' the official said. The official also emphasised that Indian OMCs do not import crude from Iran or Venezuela — both sanctioned by the US. Russian oil, however, is not sanctioned by the US or the EU. Instead, it is subject to the G7-EU price-cap mechanism, which aims to restrict Russia's revenue while ensuring global oil supplies continue. India has consistently complied with the US-recommended price cap of $60 per barrel on Russian oil. Recently, the EU proposed a lower price cap of $47.6 per barrel, to be enforced from September. The official said India's purchases remain legitimate and fully within international frameworks.
Hans India
27 minutes ago
- Hans India
Trump claims India may exit Russian oil trade
New Delhi/Washington: United States President Donald Trump has said that India may cease purchasing Russian oil, calling it "a good step" if confirmed, while India has defended its sovereign right to conduct energy policy based on national interest. Earlier on Friday, the External Affairs Ministry clarified that India's energy purchases are guided by market dynamics and national interests, adding that the government is unaware of any specific developments regarding Indian oil companies pausing Russian imports. Trump made the remarks while answering reporter's questions, on whether he had a number in mind for the penalties on India and if he was going to speak with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The US President said, "I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens..." During the weekly media briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, when asked about media reports that some Indian oil companies have stopped taking oil from Russia, had said India has made clear its approach on the issue. "You are aware of our broad approach to energy sourcing requirements, that we look at what is available in the market and the prevailing global situation. We are not aware of any specifics," he said. Jaiswal's comments came after a series of statements from the US, including from President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, criticising India for continuing to import discounted Russian oil despite Western sanctions over the Ukraine war.
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
Who's feeling the pain of Trump's tariffs?
In the bygone age that was 2024, America charged levies averaging just 2% on its imports of goods. In the new era of trade wars, it now has an 'effective' tariff of over 16%, the highest since the 1930s (see chart 1). (The Economist) Rates look set to go even higher. On July 31st President Donald Trump signed an executive order that significantly raises tariffs on most of America's trading partners, with the increases due to go into effect on August 7th. Duties on most products from the European Union and South Korea, which recently struck deals with America, will rise to 15%. India faces a tariff of 25%; South Africa, 30%; Canada, 35%. As we published this, Mr Trump seemed inclined to extend America's tariff truce with China. But that still leaves the world's second-largest economy facing levies of around 40% on sales to the world's largest. Who pays for these tariffs, in all their infinite variety? Most economists reckon that ordinary Americans will lose out, as prices in shops rise. Mr Trump and his coterie, by contrast, blithely insist that the rest of the world will shoulder the load by cutting their selling prices. So far, the evidence is giving the know-nothings a glimmer of hope. Mr Trump's critics in the economics profession have history and research on their side. Studies show that when a country imposes duties on its imports, its foreign suppliers often keep their prices roughly the same. The tariff is layered on top. So it was during the first Trump administration, which slapped tariffs on China and others. A study from 2019 found 'complete pass-through of the tariffs into domestic prices of imported goods'. Some foreign firms are taking a similar stance in response to Mr Trump's new levies. In April Ferrari added up to 10% to the price of its cars. Britain's Ineos said it would charge more for its Grenadier off-roader. Canon, a camera-maker, has warned dealers to brace for price increases. But the broader pattern is more benign. There is, for example, surprisingly little evidence so far of tariff 'pass-through' into inflation. In June America's 'core' consumer prices (ie, excluding food and energy) rose by 0.2% on the previous month, below the consensus estimate of 0.3%. Economists have found some evidence of tariff-induced price rises—in car parts, for instance—but they have had to look harder for it than they had expected. What explains these surprising results? American firms, not consumers, may be paying for the trade war by accepting lower profits, suggests research by Deutsche Bank. Some firms also boosted inventories before the tariffs were implemented, allowing them to avoid raising their prices for now. America's foreign suppliers may also be sharing more of the load than they did in Mr Trump's first term. Nintendo, a Japanese electronics firm, is keeping the American price of the Switch 2 games console at $449.99. Many Chinese manufacturers seem prepared to follow Nintendo and absorb duties: Fuling, a supplier of cutlery, says its clients expect it to shoulder 'part of the increased tariff costs'. TIRTIR, a South Korean beauty brand popular with American Gen Zers, has signalled that it can absorb most of the tariffs. Games Workshop, a British manufacturer of war games, also seems resigned to taking the hit, warning investors that tariffs could reduce annual profits by £12m ($16m). 'We found tentative evidence that Korean auto exporters are shouldering the cost of higher US tariffs, at least for now,' wrote Kim Jin-Wook of Citigroup, a bank, in a recent note. The Bank of Japan tracks the prices of the country's car exports to America. In yen terms, they have fallen by 26% in the past year. Some of that decline may reflect exchange-rate movements. An unchanged dollar price brings in fewer yen when the American currency is weak. But that only raises another question: why are Japan's carmakers not raising their dollar prices more vigorously in response? More comprehensive data point in a similar direction. The Economist assembled a series on export prices from a number of America's largest trading partners, including Canada, Germany and South Korea. In the past exporters in these countries have been perfectly willing to raise prices: during the inflationary surge of 2021-22, they increased them by more than 15% over a 12-month span (see chart 2). Yet in the past year the average local-currency price of their exports has fallen by 3.6%. Nothing of the sort happened during Mr Trump's first trade war. (The Economist) Some economists have noted a disconnect between what foreigners report and what American importers say they are paying. For instance, it is hard to find much evidence of plunging prices for Japanese car imports. Economists at Citi speculate that the time it takes to ship a foreign product to an American port may explain the puzzle. It 'implies a lag between falling export prices and when US import-price data would capture the decline', they say. Why might foreign suppliers be so forgiving? Some bosses worry more than before about the American consumer. With high inflation a recent memory, people already think that everything is too expensive. They have little tolerance for paying even higher prices. The opposite may be true of the foreign companies themselves. They are in a good financial position to withstand the tariffs. Aggregate margins of listed companies in emerging markets have become fatter over the past decade, increasing by over two percentage points. European firms have enjoyed similar gains. These companies can afford to take a small hit to profits, at least for now. Before long America's economy is likely to feel the pain of the trade war more acutely. Although some Chinese firms may have lowered their prices, these cuts are not nearly deep enough to offset the huge rise in tariffs they now face, points out Deutsche Bank's research. In addition, foreign companies that have borne the costs until now may not be able to bear them for ever—especially if tariff rates keep ratcheting up. The president loves defying his adversaries, in the economics profession and beyond. But he is always his own worst enemy. © 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on Disclaimer: © 2025, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under licence. The original content can be found on
