After contributions to Virginia, international students face uncertainty due to Trump's visa changes
Virginia's colleges and universities could lose millions of dollars and thousands of jobs after the federal government froze international student visa interviews on Tuesday, mounted efforts to require all foreign students to undergo social media vetting and announced plans to 'aggressively revoke' Chinese students' visas.
The actions, spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the behest of President Donald Trump's administration, are likely to disrupt international students considering attending any of the schools in the commonwealth. Over 21,000 international students were enrolled at Virginia colleges and universities in the 2023-2024 academic year, according to the National Association of Foreign Advisors' Association of International Educators.
International students contributed $807.2 million to Virginia's higher learning institutions in the same period, NAFSA reported in its latest data.
Tim Gibson, president of the Virginia Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said the student visa interview pause and other changes could negatively impact international students, who have proven to make positive contributions to U.S. universities and the commonwealth, and deter international students from pursuing an education in America, including Virginia.
'They just want to learn and they come here because they want to learn from us,' Gibson said, 'and they want to learn at American universities because American universities have a stellar reputation around the world for academic freedom, for having resources to support excellent undergraduate and graduate instruction, and for having the kind of freedom of an openness to explore the questions you want to explore and to make the contributions you want to make.'
George Mason University, located in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia, was the highest recipient of funding from international students, receiving $207.5 million, ahead of Virginia Tech, the University of Virginia, VCU, and Northern Virginia Community College, which rounded out the top five institutions in the commonwealth with the most financial benefit from foreign students during the 2023-24 school year.
Student visas are essential for international students to legally enter, reside, and study in the United States, including at institutions in Virginia, which, if foreign students stop attending, could face financial challenges since students from outside the U.S. pay higher tuition fees compared to in-state students.
Since Tuesday, the administration has directed U.S. embassies and consulates, who are responsible for issuing visas, to suspend new visa interviews for international students seeking to study in the U.S. until further guidance is provided.
The move comes after the administration accused some institutions, including Harvard University, of allowing antisemitism on campus. The administration is attempting to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which enables the university to enroll international students. A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to do so, after Harvard filed a lawsuit to retain the right to admit international students.
On Wednesday, Rubio announced the State Department along with the Department of Homeland Security will be revoking visas for Chinese students, including those with 'connections' to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in 'critical fields.' The agencies will be revising visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, Rubio's statement read.
Gibson said the announcement is concerning for many students, especially graduate students, because they often bring their families who attend daycares and schools in the commonwealth.
'Now they're threatened with deportation for no reason other than paranoia, racism, and xenophobia,' Gibson said. 'Even just making a threat has irreparably harmed the international reputation of our universities and colleges.'
In a statement on Tuesday, NAFSA said the latest action by the Trump administration is another 'misguided' and 'deeply troubling attack' against international students, who are facing arrests, visa revocations and threats to their ability to enroll in certain U.S. institutions.
The association said it's also a waste of taxpayer funding to screen students who are already subject to extensive background checks, compared to business visitors and tourists.
'If the administration believes enhanced scrutiny is necessary, it should be applied uniformly — not selectively to students who have long contributed to American classrooms, communities, and cutting-edge research,' a NAFSA representative said. 'Moreover, there is no urgent justification to halt visa appointments while internal policy updates are considered. This only adds unnecessary delays, fuels uncertainty, and damages our reputation as a welcoming destination for global talent.'
This week's actions aren't the first issues concerning international students the Trump administration has weighed in on.
In January, the administration directed U.S. diplomats and consulates to refer certain student and exchange visitor visa applicants to its fraud prevention unit for mandatory social media checks, through two executive orders focused on protecting the country from foreign threats and combating antisemitism.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
What It Will Take to Get U.S. Citizens to Work the Farm — According to Dolores Huerta
And the 95-year-old Huerta has seen a lot. She first began lobbying the California legislature on farm labor issues when she was just 25, and she founded an agriculture workers union soon after. In her early 30s, she partnered with civil rights leader Cesar Chavez to create the National Farm Workers Association, now the United Farm Workers. For years, she and Chavez worked in tandem, delivering major victories to protect farm workers from exploitation and exposure to dangerous pesticides. President Barack Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012. The Trump administration is now struggling to reconcile its mass deportation efforts with the need to keep farm production going. Huerta is not optimistic about how it will all play out, though she was able to poke at Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins' recent suggestion that automation will soon replace human laborers. 'I guess I could just wait until they get enough robots to do the farm work,' Huerta joked. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. The Trump administration has launched farm raids targeting undocumented immigrants, which has sent a chill through the labor force and industry. You've advocated for farm workers for decades. Does the current climate feel familiar, or are we in a really different place? Oh, it's a very, very different place. Because in the past, in the '50s, when we had this 'Operation Wetback,' they were not putting people in jail. They would repatriate people. They would deport them, take them to the border. Somewhere along the way, I think during Newt Gingrich's time, they started putting people in jail, but then they would let them go. It was not putting people in prisons, like we're seeing right now. The kind of brutality, the horror, the kidnapping, endangering people's lives, separating the families — the way that Trump did in the last administration, and they're doing now, leaving all of these missing children — it's an atrocity, what they've been doing to the immigrant community. Many of those people that they have been picking up and arresting are farm workers. Here in Bakersfield, California, we were the first city to be hit. When Border Patrol came in, they arrested [78] people, and only one person had any kind of criminal record. And when they talk about a criminal record, it could be a traffic stop. It could be just that they came in, and they were deported, and came back in again. These are not violent crimes that we're talking about. They are, you might say, civil infractions, and yet they're being treated like they were criminals. This administration says it wants to get to a '100 percent American workforce.' It also has discussed rapidly expanding migrant visa programs, like H-2A. Do you see those two goals in conflict? How might that play out? Well, I think it would be really great to have American workers to work on farms. Farm work has been denigrated for so many years by the growers themselves, and they did this because they never wanted to pay farm workers the kind of wages that they deserve. Farm workers were essential workers during the pandemic. They were out there in the fields. So many of them died because they never got the proper protections that they needed. But they were out there every single day, picking the food that we needed to eat. Farm workers don't get the same kind of benefits or salaries that others get. We just recently did a study with the University of California Merced. Their average wage is $30,000 a year, $35,000 a year. And on that, they have to feed their families. A lot of them, unless they have a union contract, they're paid minimum wage. They're not respected. The whole visa program, the H-2A program, it's always been there. Cesar Chavez and I, when we started the United Farm Workers, one of the first things that we did was end the 'Bracero Program,' which was a similar [guest worker] program. Now they've increased these H-2A workers in agriculture. This is a step above slavery. They can't unionize. They don't get Social Security. They don't get unemployment insurance. Farmers save money by having these H-2A workers. They cannot become citizens. There is no way for them to even get a green card. If you were trying to get to a 100 percent American workforce, what's the solution here? Does it start with paying more competitive wages for workers? Or is it something else? Well, right now, we're trying to stop a detention center here in California City, which is up here in the Mojave Desert. They are offering the people to work in that center $50 an hour. In California, our minimum wage is $16. That's what a lot of workers get. Let's offer farmworkers $50 an hour, the same kind of a salary that you offer the prison guards, and you'll get a lot of American workers. We have very high unemployment in the Central Valley. We have the prison industrial complex, where a lot of our young people are going to prison. So many of these young people don't have to go to prison if they were paid adequately. I'm sure a lot of them would go and do the farm work, especially if they had good wages to do it. And we still have a lot of young people here in the valley that go out during the summers and they do farm work to help their families. I'm sure a lot of people that we now see that are homeless on the streets and that are able to work would go to work if they were paid $50 an hour. So it's just a matter of improving wages? And training, too. Because farm work is hard work. I mean, you've got to be in good physical shape to be able to do farm work. Why are undocumented workers such a large part of the agricultural workforce? Is it just that these are low-paying, hard jobs that Americans don't want to do, or is there more going on? Well, like I said earlier, the growers have denigrated the work so much that people don't realize that this work is dignified. Farm workers are proud of the work that they do. They don't feel that somehow they're a lower class of people because they do farm work. They have pride in their work. If you were to go out there with farm workers, you would be surprised to see that they have dignity, and they care about the work. They care about the plants. When we started the farm workers union way back in the late '50s and early '60s, you would be surprised how many American citizens were out there. Veterans were out there. The Grapes of Wrath was filmed here. All of those workers in that camp were white. It was the 'Okies' and 'Arkies,' the people that came from Oklahoma and Arkansas and those places to work in the fields. They were all white workers. There were some Latino workers, and then over the years, you had the Chinese, you had the Japanese, and different waves of immigrants that came in to do farm work. When did it change? Well, the growers always fought unionization, as they still do to this day. I'll give an example. There's a company called the Wonder Company. When you watch television, you see all of their ads for pistachios. They're billionaires. The United Farm Workers just won a recognition election, and they refused to recognize the union. When you have a union out there, you have a steward out there in every single crew, and their job is to make sure that there's a bathroom out there in the fields, which farm workers never had before. We had a big movement to get farmers just having toilets in the field and hand washing facilities, cold drinking water, risk periods, unemployment insurance, et cetera. This is the thing that we fought for, and the growers fought against it, right to the end. The Farm Bureau Federation fought against all of these improvements for farm workers, and they continue to fight. You supported the 1986 Reagan amnesty, when 1 million farm workers received legal status. The Trump administration has been adamant, for political purposes, that there will be 'no amnesty.' Do you think the administration could get to some sort of mass legalization for farm workers? If not, what happens next? The problem with this administration is, they're so racist. Racism rules, fascism rules with this administration. I don't know, I guess I could just wait until they get enough robots to do the farm work. What about pesticides? You've long fought against pesticide use in agriculture because of the effect of exposure on farm workers. Now, there's this 'Make America Healthy Again' push to get rid of pesticides. What do you make of that? Well, I think maybe that's one good thing that Robert Kennedy Jr. might do. His father was a champion for the farm workers. The pesticides — we should have gotten rid of those a long time ago. We didn't have pesticides until after World War II. There's a pesticide called paraquat. Paraquat is banned in Europe. It's banned in almost every country except the United States of America, and it is used right here in Kern County in California. It causes cancer. It causes leukemia. It causes Parkinson's disease, and we cannot get it banned in California. We know that when plants are planted, when food is planted, the pesticide is already in the seeds. We were trying to stop that in Washington, D.C., and were unable to. We were even just trying to get them to put information on it, so when you go in to buy your fruit, it would have a sticker on it that said, 'This particular fruit or vegetable has been treated with this pesticide.' It's in the fruit when you eat it. Just recently, we had about four or five young people in their late 40s, early 50s, all have died of cancer, and they're from Delano, California. Are these farm workers? No, but when they spray this stuff, it also goes into the towns. So nobody's really safe from it. Is this pesticide issue something you could collaborate or find some common ground with the Trump administration? Yeah, we would love to. But you know what? It's not going to happen, because pesticides really come from the petroleum industry. Have you discussed this with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or would you be open to meeting with him? I know his father was a friend of yours and a great champion of your cause. I imagine, maybe, when we talk about this issue. I wouldn't agree with Robert Jr. on the issue of vaccinations, or fluoride in our drinking water, et cetera, and some of the issues that he espouses. I know him. I've known him for many, many years. I haven't spoken to him. He did try to contact me when he was running, and I didn't respond. I knew that the family, that Kerry and Ethel and the rest of them, were not happy about his supporting Trump. But you haven't spoken to him since he became HHS secretary? No. I know people that have spoken to him. The labor movement as a whole has an unusual relationship to Donald Trump, who claims to champion the working class. Do you think union leaders have more to gain by working with Trump, or by opposing him? What explains his appeal to many union members? Well, I can't speak for the Teamsters. I think there was a kind of a betrayal of the working people, because I know the majority of the labor unions went against Trump and endorsed Biden [in 2024]. I think that was very damaging. I think a good comparison is if you look at what they've done in Mexico with Claudia Sheinbaum and the president before her. They've done incredible work in Mexico right now because it has been very labor-focused, very working people-focused, in contrast with what's happening here in the United States, where we are very billionaire- and millionaire-focused. And so you can see in Mexico they've been able to increase pensions, increase the minimum wage, increase benefits for the working people. I'm a vegetarian, and I just stay busy. I think you just have to stay busy.
Time Business News
an hour ago
- Time Business News
India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination: MEA Bold Response to White House Peace Claims
Source – LegalPress New Delhi – The official India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination response emerged on Friday when the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) diplomatically sidestepped questions regarding the White House's aggressive campaign for President Donald Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This measured diplomatic response reflects India's careful approach to addressing American claims about conflict resolution. During a press briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal was directly questioned about the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue, specifically regarding White House assertions that Trump had ended several global conflicts, including the dispute between India and Pakistan. The spokesperson's response demonstrated India's preference for avoiding direct engagement with controversial American political narratives. Diplomatic Deflection Strategy The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination query received a characteristically diplomatic response from Jaiswal, who stated, 'It is better to take this question to the White House.' This carefully crafted deflection avoids both endorsement and criticism of American claims while maintaining India's traditional non-interference stance in foreign political processes. This approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects New Delhi's broader strategy of avoiding entanglement in American domestic political debates, particularly those involving disputed claims about international diplomatic achievements. The MEA's response maintains diplomatic neutrality while neither validating nor challenging White House assertions. White House Claims and International Conflict Resolution The context surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination stems from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's comprehensive advocacy for Trump's Nobel Peace Prize candidacy. Leavitt claimed that Trump had 'ended conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo and Egypt and Ethiopia.' The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign specifically highlights alleged American mediation in the India-Pakistan conflict as evidence of Trump's peace-making credentials. According to White House calculations, Trump brokered approximately one peace deal monthly during his six months in office, making him deserving of international recognition. Leavitt's statement that 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize' directly incorporates the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative as supporting evidence for this assertion. This claim positions the alleged India-Pakistan ceasefire as a significant diplomatic achievement worthy of Nobel recognition. India's Historical Position on Bilateral Negotiations The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue highlights a fundamental disagreement between New Delhi and Washington regarding the nature of India-Pakistan conflict resolution. India has consistently maintained that the cessation of hostilities between the two nations was achieved through bilateral negotiations rather than external mediation. New Delhi's rejection of Trump's mediation claims creates complications for the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative promoted by the White House. This disagreement represents a significant diplomatic challenge, as India's official position directly contradicts the foundation of American Nobel Prize advocacy. Despite repeated assertions from Trump linking trade deals to conflict resolution, India's stance on the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination remains unchanged. The government continues to emphasize bilateral diplomatic processes rather than acknowledging American intervention in regional peace initiatives. Pakistan's Contrasting Position While India maintains diplomatic distance from the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign, Pakistan has embraced and actively supported Trump's candidacy. Islamabad has publicly thanked Trump for allegedly brokering the India-Pakistan deal, creating a stark contrast with India's position. In June, Pakistan formally nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, specifically citing his 'diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' during the India-Pakistan crisis. This Pakistani endorsement adds complexity to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination debate by providing official support from one of the alleged beneficiaries. The Pakistani government's statement declared: 'Government of Pakistan Recommends President Donald J. Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. The Government of Pakistan has decided to formally recommend President Donald J. Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.' International Recognition and Norwegian Nobel Committee The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign faces the ultimate test of international legitimacy through the Norwegian Nobel Committee's evaluation process. Despite various endorsements and advocacy efforts, the Committee has maintained its traditional silence regarding Trump's candidacy. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects their standard practice of avoiding public commentary on potential candidates. This institutional discretion means that public advocacy campaigns, regardless of their intensity or political backing, do not necessarily influence final selection decisions. Geopolitical Implications and Diplomatic Complexities The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue illustrates broader challenges in contemporary international diplomacy, where domestic political narratives intersect with complex international relationships. India's careful response demonstrates the delicate balance required when addressing claims that involve multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives. The ongoing debate surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects deeper questions about conflict resolution attribution, the role of external mediation in bilateral disputes, and the intersection of international recognition with domestic political objectives. Future Diplomatic Considerations As the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign continues, India's diplomatic strategy will likely maintain its current trajectory of non-engagement with American political narratives while preserving bilateral relationship stability. This approach allows India to protect its sovereignty over conflict resolution narratives while avoiding unnecessary diplomatic friction with the United States. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump is Helping China in the AI Race. Why?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Nvidia has ordered 300,000 new top-line computer chips from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) following a huge boost in demand from China. The agreement over the H20 chipsets, which are some of the most advanced technology being produced in Taiwan's industry-leading factories, comes in the same month that Trump reversed a ban that stopped Nvidia from selling to China over security concerns. Newsweek contacted the Chinese Embassy and the White House for comment on this story via email. Why It Matters The January launch of DeepSeek, a Chinese-made AI model, , sparked what may have called a "cold war" over artificial intelligence development. Researchers developed DeepSeek with a fraction of the resources but managed to produce an AI capable of rivaling ChatGPT. In April, the Trump administration barred top U.S. suppliers, like Nvidia, from selling topline silicon to China over "national security concerns." The ban mirrored the 2022 CHIPS Act passed by former President Joe Biden, which increased semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. while also clamping down on chip companies investing in China and Russia, the biggest competitors in the industry. What To Know The White House reversed its ban after barely three months, giving Nvidia the all-clear in July to resume sales with China. Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang on July 14 said the U.S. government had assured him it would restore the licenses to sell H20s in China. "General-purpose, open-source research and foundation models are the backbone of AI innovation," Huang said. "We believe that every civil model should run best on the U.S. technology stack, encouraging nations worldwide to choose America." Half a month later, and Chinese demand for Nvidia chips has surged, with the U.S. company looking to replenish its stock with an order of 300,000 H20 chipsets from TSMC, one of the largest manufacturers in the world. US President Donald Trump shakes hand with China's President Xi Jinping at the end of a press conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on November 9, 2017. US President Donald Trump shakes hand with China's President Xi Jinping at the end of a press conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on November 9, 2017. Getty Images The return of Nvidia chips to the Chinese market will be a boon to the country's rapidly expanding AI industry, but there's concern that the U.S. could fall behind in an AI "race", as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman describes it, using U.S. chips to do so. In May, a report from the Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology shared with Newsweek found that two of China's leading AI institutes, headquartered in Beijing, have established branches in Wuhan to cooperate on sophisticated alternatives to the large generative AI models. The report described the new labs' aim to "springboard to artificial general intelligence", overtaking the U.S. by focusing on other forms of AI as opposed to the western focus on large statistical models. What People Are Saying Alexandra Mousavizadeh, CEO of Evident and creator of the Global AI Index, told Newsweek that there were two different approaches to China's AI development: "You can continue to try and contain access to chips and close the walls off. While you're doing that, you're doubling down on investment into data infrastructure, supporting the development of AI in the U.S. and being first in that race, "Or you open up completely and you say, 'Look, it's to the benefit of all that everyone has access to everything, because the collaboration between Europe, the U.S. and China in the past has been what has led to the ability to get to where we are today.' A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy told Newsweek: "China has consistently advocated that the development of artificial intelligence should adhere to principles that are human-centered and promote benevolence. "China believes that AI development should be fair and inclusive, ensuring that all countries equally enjoy the benefits brought by AI, and has no intention of seeking dominance in this field." What Happens Next China will continue to be able to purchase from Nvidia and other U.S. chip manufacturers unless the White House alters its policy.
