Judge blocks Trump’s effort to remove Harvard’s foreign exchange students


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Judge intervenes

A federal judge blocked a Trump administration order aimed at halting Harvard University's enrollment of international students.

Harvard sues

The ruling came the same day Harvard filed a lawsuit, calling the directive an attack on a quarter of its student body.

DHS notice

In the Department of Homeland Security's notice, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem says the university failed to give a proper response to a prior inquiry over foreign exchange students' conduct at Harvard.


Full story

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s order barring Harvard University from enrolling international students. The ruling came just hours after Harvard announced it was suing the administration over the directive. The federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump’s directive, allowing it to remain blocked as the case proceeds in court. 

DHS sends notice to Harvard

On Thursday, May 22, the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter to Harvard explaining its reasoning.

“In April, I requested records pertaining to non-immigrant students enrolled at Harvard University, including information regarding misconduct and other offenses that would render foreign students inadmissible or removable,” the letter stated.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said the university failed to provide a sufficient response, and therefore, “consequences must follow,” as “the Trump administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.”

The DHS order prohibits the school from admitting any more international students and requires currently enrolled foreign exchange students to transfer.

Order would impact nearly 7,000 students

The administration’s order would have wide-reaching impacts. According to Harvard’s lawsuit, the school has more than 7,000 visa holders, who make up 27% of the student body.

Harvard-Visa-ComplaintDownload

The university also reported generating $1.4 billion in revenue from all students in fiscal year 2024, including foreign exchange students’ tuition and costs paid to the university that would disappear if Trump’s order took effect. That figure comes as Harvard has seen billions in federal funding frozen by the Trump administration.

“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body—international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” Harvard’s lawsuit stated.

U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs wrote in her ruling that Harvard argued Trump’s order would “sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties. Thus, a TRO is justified to preserve the status quo pending a hearing, and the Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.”

China reacts to Trump’s order

Harvard wasn’t alone in criticizing the DHS order. In response to the announced ban on international students, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson warned that such actions would harm America’s global reputation. Chinese students make up nearly one-fifth of Harvard’s international population.

During a briefing in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning emphasized that the U.S. and China both benefit from educational ties and should avoid politicizing them.

“The relevant actions by the U.S. side will only damage its own image and international credibility,” Ning said, adding that China would firmly protect the rights and interests of Chinese students and scholars abroad.

Burroughs blocked the Trump administration’s directive through a temporary restraining order, resulting from Harvard’s lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for next week.

Cole Lauterbach (Managing Editor), Zachary Hill (Video Editor), and Devin Pavlou (Digital Producer) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , , ,

Why this story matters

This story matters because it involves a major legal decision affecting international student policy at one of the nation's most prestigious schools, and highlights escalating tensions between universities and the federal government amid allegations of antisemitism on college campuses.

Legal challenge

The court injunction underscores the role of the judiciary in reviewing and potentially limiting executive actions, especially when constitutional rights or established legal processes are at issue, as argued in Harvard's lawsuit alleging violations of the First Amendment and due process.

Academic independence

The dispute centers on Harvard's resistance to federal demands regarding campus policies, governance, and information sharing tied to allegations of antisemitism, raising broader questions about universities' autonomy from government intervention.

International students and immigration

The directive and resulting legal battle have left the futures of thousands of international students uncertain. Although a judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s order, a final ruling in its favor could force affected students to transfer to other institutions or leave the country.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 186 media outlets

Context corner

Historically, U.S. universities have relied on international students for cultural diversity, research collaboration, and financial stability. Recent tensions between academic institutions and federal authorities echo similar disputes over campus free speech, foreign influence, and government oversight, especially heightened during politically charged moments such as immigration policy debates and anti-discrimination efforts.

History lesson

The U.S. government has previously acted to restrict student visas or limit university autonomy during times of national security concern or policy disagreement, such as post-9/11 visa restrictions. However, direct federal intervention targeting a specific institution’s student enrollment due to ideological disputes is rare and marks an escalation in university-government tensions.

Policy impact

Revoking Harvard’s certification to enroll international students would force thousands to transfer or leave the U.S., immediately disrupting academics and research. The move also raises a broader debate about the independence of universities and when federal intervention crosses the line from proper oversight into political overreach.

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame the judge’s temporary block as a defense of academic independence and constitutional rights, emphasizing “unconstitutional retaliation” and the vital economic and educational contributions of international students, portraying the Trump administration’s move as politically motivated punishment.
  • Not enough coverage from media outlets in the center to provide a bias comparison.
  • Media outlets on the right highlight national security and ideological concerns, stressing Harvard’s alleged noncompliance and unsafe campus claims with charged language like “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators” and “holding Harvard accountable,” framing the judge’s order as merely procedural delay.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

369 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • A U.S. judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration's effort to revoke Harvard University's ability to enroll international students, as it would cause harm to the university and its students.
  • The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by Harvard, which claimed that the government's actions were unconstitutional and retaliatory.
  • U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted the injunction after hearing arguments about the potential impact on nearly 7,000 international students.
  • Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing the administration's actions violate the First Amendment and will harm over 7,000 international students who are currently enrolled.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • A federal judge issued a temporary order preventing the Trump administration from revoking Harvard’s authorization to enroll international students under the federal visa program.
  • Harvard filed the lawsuit after the administration accused it of harboring anti-American agitators and demanded records on foreign students involved in protests or violence.
  • The lawsuit argues the government’s action violates the First Amendment, will affect more than 7,000 visa holders, and disrupt programs where international students play key roles.
  • Harvard contends the administration failed to justify retaliatory withdrawal properly, noting the impact would block admissions for at least two years and cause applicants to fear reprisal.
  • The restraining order temporarily preserves Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students, but the dispute highlights tensions over political retaliation and campus safety allegations.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • A U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University's ability to enroll foreign students, responding to Harvard's lawsuit claiming the action violated the Constitution and laws.
  • Harvard called the revocation a "blatant violation" with an 'immediate and devastating effect' on over 7,000 visa holders.
  • Judge Allison Burroughs, appointed by Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order, stating Harvard faced "immediate and irreparable injury" without prior hearings.
  • The Trump administration's actions are viewed by Harvard as retaliation for its refusal to yield academic independence and its constitutional rights.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™