Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard
The Trump administration has escalated a high-profile legal battle with Harvard University by filing an appeal against a federal court order that blocked a presidential proclamation aimed at barring international students from attending the institution.
The case has drawn global attention to the US education system, raising concerns about academic freedom, the treatment of foreign students, and the broader implications of immigration policy on higher education.
The legal dispute centers on a White House proclamation issued on June 4, which accused Harvard of accepting donations from foreign adversaries, specifically referencing Chinese entities. The administration argued that these "entanglements with foreign countries" posed a national security risk, invoking a 70-year-old law designed to restrict the entry of foreign enemies to the US.
This action triggered a lawsuit from Harvard, challenging the legitimacy and motivations behind the proclamation.
Court order blocks policy, criticizes administration's rationale
US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a strongly worded order blocking the enforcement of the Trump administration's proclamation, pending the resolution of the lawsuit. In her decision, she accused the administration of "misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views," as quoted by The New York Times.
Judge Burroughs also criticized the administration's use of international students as leverage, stating it had acted "with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens." She dismissed the national security argument as 'absurd,' according to The New York Times.
Harvard's international community at the center of the conflict
Harvard enrolls approximately 7,000 international students and scholars each year, including around 2,000 recent graduates, accounting for nearly 25 percent of its student body.
The Trump administration's policy threatened their ability to attend classes in person, raising fears of deportation or forced withdrawal.
While the case proceeds through the courts, Harvard has begun developing contingency plans. Some students may be able to study remotely or from international partner institutions. The New York Times reported that the Kennedy School of Government is working with the University of Toronto to accommodate affected students.
A growing debate over foreign influence and academic freedom
The Trump administration's appeal has intensified an ongoing debate over foreign influence in US academic institutions. Citing previous legal precedent, including the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that upheld travel bans for several majority-Muslim countries, the administration is attempting to frame the Harvard case within the same national security context.
As the legal process unfolds, the case is being watched closely both in the US and abroad. Critics argue that targeting international students may harm the reputation and global standing of American higher education institutions.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Trump Justice Department is demanding the University of Virginia president resign
Trump DOJ demands UVA president resign over DEI policy investigation. (AP Photo) In a move described by legal experts as highly unusual, the US Justice Department under President Donald Trump has privately demanded the resignation of University of Virginia (UVA) President James E. Ryan as a condition for resolving a civil rights investigation into the university's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. According to a report by The New York Times, the demand was issued several times in recent weeks by Gregory Brown, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, who is also a UVA graduate and previously sued the university as a private lawyer. The pressure is part of a broader campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives in higher education institutions across the country. Push to reshape higher education through federal influence The Justice Department has told UVA officials that hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding are at risk due to what the department alleges is the university's failure to comply with federal civil rights law. According to The New York Times, the department claims that President Ryan has not dismantled UVA's DEI programs and has misrepresented the university's efforts to comply with executive orders issued by the administration. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo This is the first known instance in which the federal government has tied the outcome of a civil rights investigation to the removal of a university leader. Legal scholars told The New York Times that such tactics are more commonly associated with corporate investigations involving serious wrongdoing, rather than with educational institutions. Behind the resignation demand: politics, DEI, and Trump's agenda President Trump's administration has increasingly focused on reshaping the ideological direction of US universities, which it views as bastions of liberal thought. The push against DEI efforts is part of a broader initiative that began with an executive order targeting such programs across federal agencies, schools, and private companies. The order did not define DEI practices clearly, resulting in inconsistent institutional responses. President Ryan, who became UVA's ninth president in 2018, has emphasized diversity and service as central to the school's mission. He previously served as dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has been praised for his commitment to inclusive academic environments. However, these values have put him at odds with conservative alumni and Republican-appointed board members, who accuse him of promoting a 'woke' agenda, as reported by The New York Times. Ties to America First Legal and conservative pressure Much of the political momentum behind this pressure campaign has been attributed to America First Legal, a group founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The group accused UVA of merely rebranding its DEI programs and called on the Justice Department to 'hold UVA accountable.' Attorney Megan Redshaw, representing the organization, stated in a release quoted by The New York Times, 'Rebranding discrimination does not make it legal. ' Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, who attended UVA Law School alongside Ryan, has also been directly involved in the negotiations, according to The New York Times. Discussions have included members of the university's oversight board, several of whom were appointed by Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. A broader strategy targeting elite institutions This move fits a larger pattern. The Trump administration has already stripped billions in federal funding from elite universities, including Harvard, and has initiated investigations through multiple federal agencies. The case of UVA is seen as a new frontier—targeting not only DEI practices but also university leadership itself. A UVA spokesperson declined to comment on President Ryan's status, as reported by The New York Times. The Justice Department also did not respond to media inquiries. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Major League Baseball Is Too Silent on Immigration Raids
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last week, at the height of the immigration protests convulsing Los Angeles, federal agents showed up at Dodger Stadium, seeking access to the parking lot. Up to that point, the Dodgers had refused to comment on the Trump administration's immigration sweeps and their effect on the city's Latino community. The silence stoked complaints that the team had turned its back on some of its most passionate devotees. By some accounts, Latinos comprise over 40% of Dodger fans. But the morning agents came, the Dodgers finally acted. The team denied them access to the parking lot and a day later announced a $1 million pledge to help immigrant families harmed by the ongoing raids. That's a modest show of support for an organization worth an estimated $7.7 billion, and it hasn't satisfied everyone. But satisfactory or not, it's a clear indication of whose side the Dodgers are taking. Major League Baseball and its 29 other clubs, on the other hand, aren't following the Dodgers' lead, preferring silence. If this is their way of not drawing the ire of President Donald Trump, it's an awkward strategy. Immigration has been essential to baseball's history and continues to fuel its growth. In America's early years, baseball was a new sport for a new country. For immigrants, making a mark on an organized team was an indicator that the player — along with his ethnic group — was upwardly mobile and, finally, an assimilated American. Superstar shortstop and national sensation Honus Wanger, a son of German immigrant parents, was a prime example of this during the late 19th and early 20th century. He uplifted the German-American status, and in his community, he was an icon for making it big. Three-quarters of a century later, Fernando Valenzuela, a Mexican pitcher for the Dodgers, repeated the feat. In 1981, he electrified Los Angeles and his community with a dominant season, including seven complete games and five shutouts, which netted him Rookie of the Year and Cy Young honors (still the only player to win both in the same season).'Fernandomania,' as his early to mid-80s heyday is recalled, was a cultural phenomenon that diversified and drove attendance upward. In 1981, the Dodgers drew an average of 7,500 additional fans when he pitched at home, and an extra 19,000 when he started on the road. Mexican-Americans were an estimated 10% of the team's supporters when he joined the team; now the Dodgers — affectionately known across LA as Los Doyers — are a unifying institution for the city's Latinos. More fans, inevitably, means more kids playing baseball, both at home and abroad. Though there are a range of factors responsible for the growth of baseball internationally, the increase in Latin American and other international players has certainly contributed to the expansion and development of deep international talent pipelines. For MLB teams, bringing that talent to US shores is only constrained by their ability to scout. During the 1930s, a period of notoriously tight immigration restrictions and mass deportations, less than 1% of MLB players were foreign-born. Thankfully, in the post-war period, America decided to open its borders. The result? The number of foreign-born players in the league has seen steady growth over the decades. In 2025, nearly 28% of MLB players are foreign-born, and it's simply impossible to imagine baseball without stars such as Shohei Ohtani and Juan Soto. Those international stars, in turn, are leading a surge of interest in the game and the business of baseball. MLB is on track for its third straight year of attendance growth, and viewership in the US and Japan is surging in 2025. Of course, other factors are in play too, but does anyone seriously think a less international game would be as well-played, entertaining, and lucrative? Trump's immigration policies put that success at risk. For example, under the terms of his recently enacted travel ban, the issuance of new visas to Cuban and Venezuelan nationals is severely restricted. Dozens of players from both countries — Hall of Famers like Tony Pérez and current players like Jose Altuve — have made prominent contributions to MLB for decades. The new policies will make it far more difficult for teams to bring new signees from either country to the US. But even if loopholes are found, the message to players and their families in these baseball hotbeds is hardly welcoming. So far, MLB has chosen to remain silent on these changes, just as it has clammed up over the deportations that are running through its Latino fanbase. Perhaps the league and its teams believe that quiet diplomacy is the best way to approach the Trump administration on immigration-related matters. But if so, there's little public indication that doing so has achieved anything other than damaging relations between the Dodgers and their fans. Meanwhile, other sports are acting. In mid-June, the players associations for the Women's National Basketball Association and the National Women's Soccer League issued a joint statement of support for immigrants experiencing hardship due to the raids. Angel City FC of the NWSL took it a step further and distributed 10,000 T-shirts to fans and players emblazoned with 'Immigrant City Football Club' on the front. Proceeds from sales of the shirts go to an organization offering legal assistance to immigrants. Of course, no team or sport will convince Trump to change his course on immigration. But by showing solidarity with their fanbases, players and teams strengthen the community connections that are critical to growing sports, and the commerce around them. That's a legacy that can outlast any executive order. It's time for Major League Baseball to step up to the plate. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of sports. He is the author, most recently, of 'Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale.' More stories like this are available on
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Zumba dispute shows no signs of cooling down
The controversy surrounding the introduction of Zumba dance on government and aided school campuses in the State as an anti-drug measure appears to linger on with different Muslim organisations steadfastly opposing the initiative. Muslim groups have been opposing the move by raising concerns about Zumba dance's moral and cultural implications for school campuses. However, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), unlike other Muslim groups, has chosen a measured approach to the Zumba the controversy. The party is of the view that it must study the issue before commenting about it. The Muslim League's cautious approach is reflected in its State general secretary P.M.A. Salam's comments, where he pointed out the need for the State government to address the concerns of all sections about the introduction of Zumba dance in schools. While the IUML has not outrightly opposed Zumba, it has sought discussions and considerations of diverse perspectives before moving forward with the programme. The IUML is of the view that any programme should be implemented in a way acceptable to all sections. While Muslim groups like the Samastha Kerala Sunni Yuvajana Sangham (SYS), Samastha Kerala Islam Matha Vidysbhyasa Board, and Wisdom Islamic Organisation are opposing Zumba due to moral and cultural concerns, others are questioning the programme's effectiveness. Moderate groups and individuals in the Muslim community are scrutinising the scientific basis of Zumba as a tool to combat drug abuse among students. C. Mohammed Ajmal, an IIT Madras alumnus and education counsellor, contests the basic idea of the programme. 'Youngsters are turning to drugs in pursuit of pleasure, rather than as a stress-relief mechanism,' he said. In his view, setting and achieving long-term goals can help students discover more significant and rewarding experiences. Wisdom Youth Movement vice president P.P. Naseef urged the government to listen to the concerns of the people who object to Zumba dance before imposing the programme. 'Taking everyone into confidence is always better,' said Dr. Naseef. Meanwhile, the government has decided to proceed with Zumba despite the opposition from Muslim groups. According to Education Minister V. Sivankutty, student can participate in Zumba in their regular uniforms. CPI(M) national secretary M.A. Baby has called upon the people not to mix religion in academics. He said religion should be kept away from public education in a secular country like India. Unless the government finds common ground with protesters, campuses may witness a Zumba showdown when classes resume on Monday.
