Judge halts Trump's foreign student ban as Harvard accuses White House of political retaliation
A federal judge in Boston has extended a block on President Donald Trump's executive order barring foreign students from entering the United States to study at Harvard University, calling into question the administration's motives and its authority to interfere with academic institutions.
At the center of the legal clash is a larger battle over autonomy, academic freedom, and the rights of international students caught in the crossfire of political agendas.
Harvard accuses Trump of weaponizing immigration policy
During a hearing on Monday, Harvard's legal counsel delivered a scathing indictment of the Trump administration's conduct, accusing the president of using Harvard's international students as 'pawns' in a political game aimed at punishing the university for its ideological independence.
'I think there is no finding that Harvard is dangerous,' said Ian Gershengorn, attorney for Harvard. 'The administration has overstepped its legal bounds and is retaliating against Harvard for not yielding to its political demands.'
The lawsuit follows Trump's controversial proclamation earlier this month, citing 'national security concerns' as justification for blocking foreign students from entering the US to attend Harvard.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Get Matched with a Licensed Therapist Today
Affordable Online Counseling | Search Ads
Learn More
Undo
The executive action came on the heels of repeated federal attempts to revoke the university's authority to host international students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
Judge extends restraining order, raises questions over motives
US District Judge Allison Burroughs extended a temporary restraining order on the proclamation until June 23, buying more time to consider Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction. The order, first issued on June 5, temporarily halts enforcement of Trump's directive and his administration's move to strip Harvard of its SEVP certification.
Judge Burroughs, who presided over Monday's hearing, expressed concern over the government's approach and appeared skeptical of its justification. The disparity in legal representation, Harvard's six attorneys versus a single Justice Department lawyer, Tiberius Davis, was noted by the judge herself.
'Not only do you have this case, but you have it alone,' Burroughs remarked to Davis, hinting at the uneven legal weight being applied.
Harvard's standing is threatened on the Global stage
The stakes are high for Harvard. The school's legal filing argues that without its international students, its identity as a premier global institution is fundamentally compromised.
'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit states, noting the reputational damage and competitive disadvantage the school now faces.
Graduate programmes that rely heavily on international talent would be upended by the ban.
In response to the uncertainty, foreign universities, including some in Hong Kong, have already extended invitations to affected students, threatening a potential exodus of global academic talent.
Federal ultimatums and accusations of bias
The clash follows months of escalating tension between Harvard and the Trump administration. After the university resisted federal directives targeting alleged liberal bias and antisemitism on campus, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded extensive records related to international students.
Although Harvard complied, Noem found the response inadequate and revoked the university's SEVP certification on May 22.
Trump's broader campaign against the university has included cutting over $2.6 billion in research grants, revoking federal contracts, and threatening to end its tax-exempt status. Harvard President Alan Garber responded by affirming the university's commitment to its legal and institutional values.
'Harvard will not stray from its core, legally-protected principles,' Garber said.
Government's defense: 'Other universities might be better'
While Harvard argues it is being unfairly targeted, the Trump administration insists it has scrutinised multiple universities and that Harvard alone is not being singled out. DOJ attorney Tiberius Davis said the federal government views 'other universities might be better' suited to host foreign students under the new policy framework.
'The power is within Harvard to fix this,' Davis claimed, implying that Harvard's institutional culture and perceived resistance to federal oversight contributed to its treatment.
But legal observers and academic leaders have questioned the transparency and fairness of that assessment, suggesting that the administration's actions represent an attempt to silence dissent and impose ideological conformity.
Looking ahead: A precedent-setting case
As Judge Burroughs prepares to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, the case may set an important precedent for how much influence a presidential administration can exert over private academic institutions. The decision could also have sweeping implications for the rights of foreign students in the United States and the future of American higher education's global reputation.
For now, the legal shield remains in place, but the battle over borders, academic freedom, and federal overreach is far from over.
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
Hindustan Times
35 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
When America joins Israel's war with Iran
The US bombing of key Iranian nuclear facilities Sunday will have significant geopolitical implications for regional stability, global geopolitics, and India's immediate and medium-term interests. However, for now, it doesn't appear that the US-Israeli attack on Iran is likely to go all the way, making it improbable that Iran will be completely denuclearised or that the Islamic regime in Tehran will fall. A severely weakened Iranian regime is likely to respond with military and grey-zone tactics, increasing political and economic instability in the region. Moreover, neither Israel nor the US appear to have an endgame in mind in this war. The US-Israel attack will deepen divisions and sharpen existing global geopolitical fault lines (REUTERS) There are at least six key implications of this ongoing war. First, West Asia is likely to revert to a period of chaos, conflict, and uncertainty, at least for some time. Despite Iran's strained relations with many of its neighbours, the US decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and join Israel's military campaign will make it difficult for other regional powers to resume efforts to normalise relations with Tel Aviv. Iran and its regime may not be popular in the Sunni strongholds of West Asia, but neither is Israel, especially given its actions in Gaza and the ongoing humanitarian tragedy there. Russia and China are likely to increase their geopolitical influence in the region, and neither will miss opportunities to challenge Israel and the US, making the regional balance even more complex and unpredictable. Second, the attack will deepen divisions and sharpen existing global geopolitical fault lines. While the US and Israel may achieve immediate military gains, many others will be dissatisfied: With their geopolitical standing threatened, they might seek to undermine the dominance established by the US-Israel alliance in the region. Many in the Global South are likely to condemn the unilateral actions and violations of international law by the US and Israel. Meanwhile, China will look to exploit the emerging regional fractures, while Moscow will seek to recover the influence it lost in West Asia — due to the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and now, through the attack on Iran — and spot an opportunity in the post-war scene. Interestingly, Europe has maintained a curious silence. However, it will inevitably ask why the US, which wanted its Nato partners to pay for their defence and abandoned Ukraine thus increasing Europe's insecurity, would resort to force in a distant country. Clearly, Trump has prioritised Israel over Nato allies; that rude reality won't be lost on Europe. Third, the American and Israeli attacks on Iran lack legitimacy under international law, and as a result, these will further undermine the credibility of the United Nations and weaken the influence of international law worldwide. For America's western partners, this presents several dilemmas. It will test their commitment to international legal frameworks as condemning the attack risks alienating Trump further, and not condemning it risks being seen as tacit support for an illegal action. Moreover, if they do not condemn the US action, the moral ground to criticise Russia will be considerably weakened. It also undermines the geopolitical standing of key western States, which were actively engaged in negotiations with the Iranian foreign minister in Geneva to end the conflict. They face the risk of losing credibility considering how Trump went ahead and bombed Iran ignoring the talks. Fourth, American engagement in the West Asian conflict could divert attention from Ukraine's ongoing war with Russia. The Iran war would be disastrous for Ukraine, especially as the US has been unable to bring Russia to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, Russia's gains on the battlefield are growing and Moscow shows no enthusiasm to negotiate a ceasefire with Kyiv. Fifth, the attempted denuclearisation of Iran will likely have the opposite effect internationally, prompting several other countries to consider developing their own nuclear weapons for after all those who possess nuclear weapons have little to fear. Rather than strengthening the global nuclear order, the US and Israel's military action to denuclearise Iran will end up weakening it, encouraging more States to pursue nuclear arms as insurance against potential threats. Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, while Iran failed to reach the finish line; both faced significant consequences. Israel developed its nuclear programme secretly, North Korea built its nuclear weapons at great domestic cost, and India and Pakistan developed theirs despite sanctions and US pressure. The lessons are many, and will not be lost on nuclear aspirants around the world. Finally, for India, the war in West Asia will likely unsettle the country's grand plans for broader engagement with the region. Energy prices are likely to spike, while heightened geopolitical divides will challenge India's ability to manage regional fault lines. If the war spreads or persists, it could also impact Indian nationals in the region and the remittances they send home. Moreover, the Iran conflict will, at least for the moment, stall India's regional plans for the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and the Chabahar port in Iran, projected as India's gateway to central Asia. Happymon Jacob teaches India's foreign policy at Jawaharlal Nehru University and is the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
J&K leaders lash out at US over strike in Iran
By Ashiq Hussain , Srinagar Jun 22, 2025 08:20 PM IST J&K political leaders Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti on Sunday lashed out at the US for its strikes on Iran calling it a dangerous escalation which can trigger Third World War. Former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah (File) National Conference (NC) president Farooq Abdullah said that the US and Israel have always been against the nuclear ambitions of Iran. 'This is not the first time. America and Israel always have this view to not allow Iran to make nuclear weapons. Today it proved that it is their only motive,' Abdullah said. US bombers made strikes on Iran's three nuclear facilities during the previous night amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. Abdullah also castigated US president Trump for not sticking to his word. 'He had talked about waiting two weeks to see if negotiations would work. They want a regime change. Will there be anything good after regime change,' he said. 'The person or country whom we had expected to intervene, themselves, joined the war. This is their second war -one they are already fighting-- Russia in Ukraine. This means this is moving towards Third World War,' he cautioned. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti castigated Indian government's response to the strikes on Iran by US and Israel, while also lashing out at the neighbouring country for its advocacy of Nobel Peace Prize for Trump. 'The OIC, as expected, has once again limited its response to mere lip service in the wake of the attack on Iran. Meanwhile the country that rushed to recommend Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize now finds itself with egg on its face after he attacked Iran. By launching this attack on Iran, Trump has dangerously escalated tensions plunging the region into a new wave of violence and edging the world closer to the brink of a global conflict,' Mufti said on X. 'Regrettably India long seen as a nation with a historic and principled role in international affairs is not only remaining silent but appears to be aligning itself with the aggressor,' she said.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Obama will start a war with Iran to win re-election': Amid US strikes on Tehran, Donald Trump's old tweet resurfaces
A decade-old tweet from Donald Trump has come back to haunt him, at a time when he's leading a real war effort. As tensions between Israel and Iran exploded into open conflict, and the United States confirmed bombing three Iranian nuclear sites, Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, an old Trump tweet from 2013 has gone viral for its eerie irony. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly, not skilled!' Trump wrote on X (formerly Twitter), accusing Obama of planning a war to mask diplomatic failure. Similar posts from 2011 and 2012 echo the same idea: that Obama would start a war with Iran to boost poll numbers and win re-election. But now it's Trump who's ordering strikes on Iran, an action drawing both political backlash and international concern. 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran,' Trump warned Saturday night on social media, before announcing that US strikes had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear infrastructure. He blamed Tehran for rejecting his nuclear deal and reiterated, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.' The irony wasn't lost on critics, who shared clips of Trump once saying Obama had 'no ability to negotiate' and would 'start a war with Iran' just to stay in power. Meanwhile, the fallout from the US strikes is spreading, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the US action as a violation of the UN Charter and warned of "everlasting consequences." UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the attacks 'a dangerous escalation' and urged diplomacy over war. Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu praised Trump's move, saying history would remember his 'bold decision' to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Hamas declared full solidarity with Iran, calling the US action 'brazen aggression.' As the region teeters on the brink of broader war, Trump's resurfaced words from a decade ago are being replayed in a starkly new, and deeply ironic, context.
