Court Halts Trump Push to Restrict Foreign Enrollments \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge issued a second preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s effort to ban international students from attending Harvard. The order protects approximately 7,000 foreign students from losing their legal status while the case proceeds. The administration’s actions, including visa restrictions and grant cuts, are viewed by Harvard as retaliation for resisting policy demands.
Quick Looks
- Judicial Block: U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs halted Trump’s visa restrictions on Harvard’s foreign students.
- Student Impact: About 25% of Harvard’s enrollment—some 7,000 international students—retain their U.S. student visa eligibility.
- Policy Context: Trump’s administration has also cut $2.6 billion in research funding, severed contracts, and threatened Harvard’s tax status.
- Legal Challenge: Harvard sued DHS after it revoked the school’s SEVP certification in May.
- First Injunction Retained: Burroughs had already issued an initial restraining order when Harvard filed suit.
- New Proclamation: Trump issued another order on June 4 claiming legal justification for banning foreign student entries.
- Ongoing Negotiations: Trump hinted at a possible agreement on Truth Social, praising Harvard’s cooperation.
- Federal Pressure: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem demanded documents on student misconduct—Harvard complied, but certification was still revoked.
Deep Look
In a significant legal development, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs on Monday issued a second preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s escalating efforts to prevent international students from attending Harvard University. The court order blocks a June 4 presidential proclamation that sought to bar foreign students from entering the United States to attend the Ivy League institution, reinforcing an earlier ruling that halted similar federal actions in May.
The case, now central to the debate over academic freedom and immigration policy, has seen Harvard square off directly with the U.S. government. At the heart of the dispute is the Trump administration’s campaign to pressure Harvard into adopting policies more in line with conservative priorities—using the enrollment status of international students as leverage.
Harvard initially sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in May after DHS revoked the university’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), effectively stripping the school of its legal ability to issue visas to foreign students. The move would have forced nearly 7,000 international students to either leave the country or transfer to other institutions. Harvard called the revocation illegal and retaliatory, asserting that it stemmed from the university’s refusal to implement White House demands regarding admissions, hiring, campus protests, and policies related to antisemitism.
Judge Burroughs granted an initial injunction soon after the lawsuit was filed, halting the DHS action. The second injunction, issued Monday, addresses a subsequent maneuver by President Trump—his June 4 proclamation that used a different legal justification to achieve the same goal: excluding foreign students from Harvard. The court’s response was swift, indicating skepticism toward the administration’s rationale and reinforcing legal protections for students already enrolled or preparing to study at the university.
The Trump administration has also taken a broader punitive stance against Harvard. In addition to the visa restrictions, it has terminated over $2.6 billion in federal research grants, cancelled government contracts, and openly threatened the university’s tax-exempt status. The White House argues that these measures are part of a broader campaign to hold elite universities accountable for what it characterizes as a liberal ideological bias and tolerance for antisemitic rhetoric. Trump himself has repeatedly criticized Harvard, calling it a “liberal echo chamber.”
The university’s foreign students—comprising roughly a quarter of its total enrollment—were thrust into the center of this battle in April when DHS Secretary Kristi Noem demanded extensive documentation regarding any alleged misconduct by international enrollees. While Harvard responded to the request, Noem called the reply “incomplete” and subsequently revoked SEVP certification on May 22. The certification is a vital component of a university’s ability to host foreign students under U.S. immigration law.
In legal filings, Harvard argued that the revocation and other federal actions were “disproportionate, unlawful, and damaging,” and risked undermining the school’s reputation as a global academic and research leader. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the university said. It also warned of a chilling effect on academic collaboration, faculty recruitment, and cross-border research partnerships.
President Trump’s Truth Social post on Friday hinted at potential movement in negotiations, claiming that Harvard had “acted extremely appropriately” and that a deal might be announced “within the next week.” Nonetheless, the administration continues to pursue policy levers that target Harvard’s operational model. Trump’s critics argue that this strategy represents an abuse of federal power, designed to stifle dissent and enforce ideological conformity in American higher education.
Harvard President Alan Garber has reiterated the university’s commitment to “core, legally protected principles,” including academic freedom, nondiscrimination, and the right to peaceful protest. He acknowledged the need to address antisemitism but rejected calls to politicize the issue or overhaul university policies in response to external pressure. “We will not be coerced into compromising our values,” Garber said in a recent statement.
While the legal battle unfolds, the injunctions issued by Judge Burroughs ensure that Harvard can continue to welcome international students without interruption—for now. The ruling also reinforces judicial skepticism toward executive overreach, especially when academic institutions are targeted for political reasons.
The implications extend beyond Harvard. Universities across the country are watching closely, as many face similar tensions with the federal government over issues of immigration, academic governance, and political influence. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how much power the executive branch holds in regulating educational access and shaping the internal policies of American institutions.
As the court case moves forward, it will test the limits of presidential authority, redefine the relationship between academia and government, and shape the global perception of the United States as a destination for higher education.
Court Halts Trump Push Court Halts Trump Push
You must Register or Login to post a comment.