Foreign students seek to quit Harvard amid Trump crackdown
Harvard University has been flooded with requests from foreign students to transfer to other institutions as US President Donald Trump's administration seeks to ban it from hosting international scholars, a staff member said Wednesday.
'Too many international students to count have inquired about the possibility of transferring to another institution,' Maureen Martin, director of immigration services, wrote in a court filing.
Trump has upended the United States' reputation among foreign students, who number around one million, as he presses a campaign against US universities he sees as obstructing his 'Make America Great Again' populist agenda.
He has blocked Harvard from hosting international scholars in a maneuver being challenged legally, targeted non-citizen campus activists for deportation, and most recently suspended student visa processing across the board.
The president's crackdown has prompted 'profound fear, concern, and confusion' among students and staff at the elite university, which has been 'inundated with questions from current international students and scholars about their status and options,' Martin wrote.
More than 27 percent of Harvard's enrollment was made up of foreign students in the 2024-25 academic year, according to university data.
'Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies,' Martin wrote in the filing.
Some were afraid to attend their graduation ceremonies this week or had canceled travel plans for fear of being refused re-entry into the United States, she added.
She said that a handful of domestic students at Harvard had also 'expressed serious interest' in transferring elsewhere because they did not want to attend a university with no international students.
A judge last week suspended the government's move to block Harvard from enrolling and hosting foreign students after the Ivy League school sued, calling the action unconstitutional.
A hearing into the case was scheduled for Thursday.
At least 10 foreign students or scholars at Harvard had their visa applications refused immediately after the block on foreign students was announced, including students whose visa applications had already been approved, Martin wrote.
'My current understanding is that the visa applications that were refused or revoked following the Revocation Notice have not yet been approved or reinstated,' despite a judge suspending the move, she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Health insurers promise to improve coverage reviews that prompt delays and complaints
The nation's major health insurers are promising to scale back and improve a widely despised practice that leads to care delays and complications. UnitedHealthcare, CVS Health's Aetna, and dozens of other insurers said Monday that they plan to reduce the scope of health care claims subject to prior authorization, standardize the process, and expand the number of responses done in real time. Prior authorization means insurers require approval before they'll cover medical care, a prescription, or a service like an imaging exam. Insurers say they do this to guard against care overuse and to make sure patients get the right treatment. But doctors say the practice has grown in scope and complication, leading to frequent care delays. The fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December prompted many people to vent their frustrations with coverage issues like prior authorization. Dr. Mehmet Oz called the practice 'a pox on the system' that hikes administrative costs during his Senate confirmation hearing in March to lead the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Insurers said Monday that they will standardize electronic prior authorization by the end of next year to help speed up the process. They will reduce the scope of claims subject to it. They also plan to expand the number of real-time responses and ensure medical reviews are done for denied requests. Researchers say prior authorization has grown more common as care costs have climbed, especially for prescription drugs, lab testing, physical therapy, and imaging exams. 'We're sort of trapped between care being unaffordable and then these non-financial barriers and administrative burdens growing worse,' said Michael Anne Kyle, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies how patients access care. Nearly all customers of Medicare Advantage plans–the privately run version of the federal government's Medicare program–need prior authorization for some services, particularly expensive care like hospital stays, the health policy research organization KFF found in a study of 2023 claims. The study also found that insurers denied about six percent of all requests. Dr. Ashley Sumrall of Charlotte, North Carolina, says she has seen an increase in prior authorizations required for routine exams like MRIs. An oncologist who treats brain tumors, Sumrall said these images are critical for doctors to determine whether a treatment is working and to plan next steps. Doctors say delays from requests that are eventually approved or coverage rejections can harm patients by giving a disease time to progress untreated. They also can spike anxiety in patients who want to know whether their tumor has stopped growing and if insurance will cover the scan. 'There's a term that we use called 'scanxiety,' and it's very real,' said Sumrall, a member of the Association for Clinical Oncology's volunteer leadership. Different forms and varied prior authorization policies also complicate the process. Sumrall noted that every insurer has their own way of doing business. 'For years the companies have been unwilling to compromise, so I think any step in the direction of standardization is encouraging,' she said.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
IMF warns US strikes on Iran could disrupt global economy
JEDDAH: The International Monetary Fund has warned that US airstrikes on Iran could amplify global economic uncertainty, with potential spillovers far beyond energy markets, its head told Bloomberg on Monday. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said that the fund is closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East, particularly the impact of the conflict on oil and gas prices and supply routes. Georgieva's remarks come after the US military conducted targeted strikes on nuclear facility sites in Iran, effectively involving itself in Israel's campaign to dismantle the country's nuclear program, despite Tehran's threats of retaliation that could spark a wider regional conflict. US President Donald Trump stated that Iran's key nuclear sites were 'completely and fully obliterated' and warned the country against retaliatory attacks, asserting that the US could strike additional targets 'with precision, speed and skill.' Georgieva told Bloomberg that the IMF are looking at this 'as another source of uncertainty in what has been a highly uncertain environment' adding that the institution is watching for two things: 'One, how would that impact risk premia for oil and gas. There has been some movement upward— how far would it go? And two: would there be any disruption in energy supplies?' She went on: 'For now, no. But let's see how events would develop— whether either delivery routes or spillovers to other countries may occur. I pray, no.' The development saw Brent crude briefly rising by as much as 5.7 percent to $81.40 per barrel during early Asian trading on June 23 before retreating, according to Bloomberg. When asked whether the transmission mechanism, specifically the channels where she sees the greatest impact of the Middle East shock, is currently reflected in energy prices, the managing director confirmed that it is. 'There could be secondary and tertiary impacts. Let's say there is more turbulence that goes into hitting growth prospects of large economies, and then you have a trigger impact in a downward revision in prospects for global growth,' she told Bloomberg. 'As you know, we have already revised downward growth projections for this year, and we will be coming up with our next projections in July.' Georgieva continued: 'What we see in the first two quarters of the year broadly confirms the picture we painted in April, and it is somewhat slower global growth, but no recession.' The IMF's April report sounded a warning over the weakening global economy, sharply downgrading growth forecasts from January projections. The fund identified surging trade tensions, record-high tariff levels, and rising policy unpredictability as key threats to both short- and long-term economic stability.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
How Covering Your Face Became a Constitutional Matter: Mask Debate Tests Free Speech Rights
Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings–drawing scorn from him. 'Masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic 'yes.' Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing. At least 18 states and Washington, D.C. have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons–a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza, where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question. People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech, but to restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks. Conversely, he said First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an unresolved First Amendment question that has yet to be addressed by the US Supreme Court, but the court has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment. 'Few of these laws have been challenged in court,' Stone said. 'And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression.' Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies. Federal agents wearing masks. The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government, Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. US Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain-clothed officers, and masks in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.
