Harvard holds commencement amid Trump funding cuts, threats to international students
Harvard University is holding its commencement Thursday (May 29, 2025) at a pivotal moment, when its place as one of the world's leading higher education institutions is under what increasingly seems like existential threats from the Trump administration.
Other schools face the loss of federal funding and their ability to enrol international students if they don't agree to the Trump administration's shifting demands.
But Harvard, which was founded in 1636, a century and a half before the nation itself, is taking the lead on defying the White House in federal court — and paying a significant price.
The Trump administration's latest salvos include asking federal agencies to cancel about $100 million in contracts with the Ivy League school. The government already cancelled more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants, moved to cut off Harvard's enrolment of international students and threatened its tax-exempt status.
Blow on foreign students' enrollment
Visa interviews for international students admitted to schools nationwide were halted on Tuesday, and Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that Harvard should reduce its international enrolment from 25% to about 15%.
Sustained by a $53 billion endowment, the nation's oldest and wealthiest university is testing whether it can be a bulwark against Trump's efforts to limit what it calls antisemitic activism on campus, which Harvard sees as an affront to the freedom to teach and learn nationwide.
Attack on academic freedom
The Trump administration has demanded Harvard enact broad government and leadership reforms and changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded the university audit views of diversity on campus and stop recognising some student clubs.
Dr. Abraham Verghese, the bestselling author and Stanford expert on infectious diseases, will be the principal speaker at the university's 374th commencement. On Wednesday, NBA Hall of Famer and activist Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was the 'Class Day' speaker, and journalist Christiane Amanpour addressed graduates of Harvard's Kennedy School.
Both praised Harvard for standing up to the Trump administration, with Abdul-Jabbar specifically calling out the actions of Harvard President Alan Garber.
'When a tyrannical administration tried to bully and threaten Harvard, to revoke their academic freedom and to destroy free speech, Dr. Alan Garber rejected the illegal and immoral pressures,' Abdul-Jabbar said to wide applause as he compared Garber's response to Rosa Parks' stand against racist segregation.
'After seeing so many cowering billionaires, media moguls, law firms, politicians and other universities bend their knee to an administration that is systematically strip-mining the US Constitution, it is inspiring to me to see Harvard University take a stand for freedom," he continued.
In response to the administration's threats, Harvard has sued to block the funding freeze and persuaded a federal judge to temporarily halt the enrolment ban. It is going to court in Boston on Thursday just as the commencement is wrapping up, hoping for a ruling that allows it to continue enrolling international students.
'We believe that the government overreach and devastating attacks on scientific and medical research are unwarranted and unlawful, and so we have taken legal action to defend the institution,' Garber said in an interview with a university publication.
'We should all be concerned that colleges and universities have increasingly come under attack. But we should not dismiss the criticisms even when they are based on distortions or inaccuracies — we need to look for the underlying concerns that can be embedded in them,' said Garber, who commissioned internal reports last year on antisemitism and anti-Arab prejudice at the Ivy League campus.
The Trump administration has said it wants "to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.' It cites campus protests against Israel. Like many college students around the country, Harvard students set up tents called on the university to divest from companies supporting Israel's military, which has levelled Gaza in response to attacks by Hamas.
Last year, hundreds of graduating students walked out of commencement chanting 'Free, free Palestine' after weeks of campus protests. Harvard also said some protesters would not receive diplomas alongside their classmates, although it eventually allowed most to get them.
This year, the anti-war demonstrations have largely faded from view, but protesters plan a silent vigil before Thursday's ceremony.
'As a graduate of Harvard, I am horrified by Israel's mass murder of Palestinians (including by deliberate starvation), its total levelling of Gaza, its targeting of hospitals, its assaults on Palestinian educational and cultural institutions, and its relentless killings of journalists," Harvard graduate Victor Wallis explained in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
History of US role in India-Pakistan issues: Four wars, the hyphen, and Trump
US President Donald Trump has yet again claimed that he 'got India and Pakistan to stop fighting' by using trade talks as a bargaining chip. 'We talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons… They understood and they agreed, and that all stopped,' Trump said on May 31. New Delhi has repeatedly emphasised that the recent ceasefire in Operation Sindoor came after bilateral talks with Pakistan, and that trade with US did not figure in the calculations. While Trump is known for making extraordinary statements, his claims of 'stopping a potential nuclear war' between India and Pakistan touch a raw nerve for New Delhi. Trump's rhetoric — deliberately or unwittingly — is 'hyphenating' India and Pakistan again, something India has long fought against. Secondly, it goes against India's established position that its problems with Pakistan have to be resolved bilaterally, without the need for third party intervention. And as far as third parties go, the US on many occasions has acted more in Pakistan's interests than India's. What is India's hyphenation with Pakistan, and why does New Delhi oppose it? Why is New Delhi against third party intervention? And what has the USA's role been in India-Pakistan hostilities in the past? We explain. The history of the hyphenation and of India's distrust of third parties are intertwined. Barely two months after independence in August 1947, infiltrators from Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir. Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten advised India to go to the UN, which it did on January 1, 1948. India had expected that its rights over a territory which legitimately acceded to it would be respected at the UN. However, the British did not support India, which many Indians perceived as a betrayal. Historian Ramachandra Guha writes (in the book India after Gandhi) of the January-February 1948 UN sessions, 'India suffered a significant symbolic defeat when the Security Council altered the agenda item from the 'Jammu and Kashmir question' to the 'India-Pakistan question'.' This is how the formal hyphenation on international fora began. India's objection to this treatment broadly are — such a framing puts India and Pakistan on the same level when the two parties are not comparable actors, India is the victim of Pakistan's territorial aggression; and that India's identity, as a democratic country and significant economy, can't be tied to Pakistan's. New Delhi believes that the world should engage with India in its own right and not as one half of a conflict zone. This is a goal it has been able to achieve to a large degree. The UN episode also put India off bringing in bigger powers, while Pakistan preferred internationalising the Kashmir issue. During the Cold War years, the West, led by the US, saw Pakistan as a critical ally in the tussle with the Soviet Union, while the non-aligned India was considered less dependable. Later, the war in Afghanistan and the US 'war on terror' ensured Pakistan's importance for the US and the West, often to India's disadvantage. Also, India with its potential to emerge as a leader of the Global South, does not believe it depends on bigger powers to help solve its problems. The role of the US To understand this in brief, the USA's actions during four wars fought by India can be considered. Alongside this, India and US have had a storied bilateral relationship quite independent of the Pakistan issue. The 1947 India-Pakistan war: Quite contrary to what Trump is doing now, in 1947, the US wanted India and Pakistan to resolve their issues bilaterally. A position paper sent by the US Secretary of State to the embassy in India says, 'We would much prefer that the Kashmir question be settled by direct negotiation between India and Pakistan. However, in the event that a resolution requesting the intervention of the United Nations, and in particular requesting the United Nations to supervise a referendum in Kashmir, is introduced by India or Pakistan and supported by the United Kingdom, the United States Delegation should also support the resolution.' The 1962 India-China war: In this war, the US helped India, airlifting military supplies. However, it used the goodwill thus generated to get together with the UK and pressure India to talk to Pakistan. Six rounds of talks were held, with no progress. Then US Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles wrote about that period, 'We had also—rather ineptly—seized upon India's acute need for US assistance as a lever to force India to make concessions to the Pakistanis in regard to Kashmir, which no democratic Indian Government could make and survive.' While the fighting was on, then US President John F Kennedy is believed to have stopped Pakistan from opening another front against India. Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow of the American think tank Brookings, wrote in 2015, 'Then Pakistan President Ayub Khan told Kennedy that he wanted 'compensation' from India in Kashmir for Pakistan's neutrality during the war. Kennedy made clear to Ayub that no such compensation would be tolerated, and that Pakistani intervention in the war in the Himalayas would be seen by Washington as a hostile act.' The 1971 India-Pakistan war: This was the time the US backed Pakistan most forcefully and publicly, even dispatching warships towards the Bay of Bengal. The US Department of State has a website called Office of the Historian. Its article on the 1971 war says that as Pakistan had recently helped the US and China start diplomatic ties, Washington decided to back Pakistan against India, but the 'action against the mass protests in East Pakistan was well-publicized and widely condemned, which limited the extent to which the US Government was willing to help the Pakistani Government…' Eventually, America's actions during this war damaged its prestige 'in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime's actions…' The Kargil war of 1999: If the previous war had seen the US veer very close to Pakistan, the Kargil war redefined its relationship with India. Riedel wrote in 2019, 'When the US determined that Pakistan had deliberately violated the Line of Control near Kargil, [then President Bill] Clinton did not hesitate to blame Pakistan for risking a broader war. For the first time, an American administration was siding publicly with India against Pakistani aggression.' Clinton played a major role in getting Pakistan to retreat behind the LOC. After this, Clinton visited the subcontinent in 2000. He was the first US President to come to India in over 20 years. He spent five days in India, in contrast with just a few hours in Pakistan. Apart from these wars, the US has also worked to defuse tensions after the Parliament attack in 2001 and the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008. However, preventing tensions from escalating is different from meditating on Kashmir or other bilateral issues, which Trump has been making claims and offers about. Yashee is an Assistant Editor with the where she is a member of the Explained team. She is a journalist with over 10 years of experience, starting her career with the Mumbai edition of Hindustan Times. She has also worked with India Today, where she wrote opinion and analysis pieces for DailyO. Her articles break down complex issues for readers with context and insight. Yashee has a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from Presidency College, Kolkata, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, one of the premier media institutes in the countr ... Read More
Economic Times
32 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Will Zelensky pay for it? Trump kept in the dark as Ukrainian drone attack destroys over 40 Russian bombers
Synopsis Ukraine secretly planned and launched a big drone attack inside Russia, destroying many warplanes. Reports say President Zelensky led the plan. Trump, now U.S. President again, was not told about it. Ukraine launched a massive drone attack deep inside Russia on Sunday, destroying over 40 Russian military planes, including strategic bombers. The drones also targeted five Russian air bases. The whole operation took more than 1.5 years to plan and was personally supervised by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a report by CBS News. ADVERTISEMENT The attack was carried out by Ukraine's security service using drones launched from trucks parked secretly near the Russian air bases. Some of those trucks were even parked in Siberia, which is thousands of miles from Ukraine. Ukraine did not tell the Trump administration about the plan before the attack, as per Axios report. Even though Trump is the U.S. President again, he was kept in the dark about this major strike. After the attack, Zelensky said he would send a Ukrainian team led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to Istanbul for ceasefire talks with Russia. During his second term, Trump has been trying to end the Russia-Ukraine war, which has now gone on for three years. Trump used to be friendly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but recently called him 'absolutely CRAZY' and said he's 'needlessly killing a lot of people' in Ukraine. The drone attack happened around the same time as two bridge collapses in different parts of Russia, which killed 7 people and injured 69, according to news reports. Russia's Railways first blamed the bridge collapse in Bryansk on 'illegal interference', likely pointing at Ukrainian saboteurs. But they later deleted that message from Telegram, as per reports. Q1. Why didn't Ukraine tell Trump about the attack? Reports say Ukraine chose not to inform the Trump team in advance. ADVERTISEMENT Q2. What was hit in the Ukraine drone strike? Over 40 Russian military bombers and five air bases were hit. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the US News, UK News, Canada News, International Breaking News Events, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily International News Updates. NEXT STORY
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
US F-35 stealth fighter has a 'kill switch', but it's controlled by China and not America
If the United States of America goes to a war, the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter will play a pivotal role as it is considered to be the pinnacle of combat aircraft currently in active service worldwide by its makers. The fifth-generation fighter, in service with the defence forces of 10 countries while the same number of countries await their first F-35 jet, was rumoured to have a "kill switch" which was vehemently denied by the US military and the aircraft makers Lockheed Martin . Now, there is a new revelation which shows that the F-35 fighter has a "kill switch", but it is not in the control of the USA, Instead its arch-rival China is the one which can activate the "kill switch" to render the entire F-35 program ineffective. Not only the F-35, but China can also derail several other US military platforms and programs if its decides to go for the kill and America has absolutely no defence against such a move. The programs and platforms which can be a non-starter or be rendered useless by the Chinese "kill switch" are the Boeing F-47 sixth-generation fighter aircraft announced by US President Donald Trump in May 2025, US Navy's Virginia-class submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, armed Predator drones, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) smart bombs apart from advanced radar systems deployed to track enemy aerial targets. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like If You Eat Ginger Everyday for 1 Month This is What Happens Tips and Tricks Undo So what is this kill switch? China enjoys an unparallel domination in rare earths and critical elements, which are a critical component of almost all advanced weapon platforms. The country is not only the largest producer and consumer of rare earths, but also its biggest exporter. The US is so dependant on these rare earths and critical elements for maintaining its defense technological edge that over 80 per cent of its weapons system use them. If China decides to play hardball and refuses to supply rare earths and critical elements to the US, the latter's defense industry will come to grinding halt. The Pentagon will be blinded in case there is a disruption in the supply of such critical components. Live Events China has more that 90 per cent of the world's processing and refining units of rare earths and it is responsible for the producing 98.8 percent of refined gallium in the world. Gallium plays an important role GPS systems and radars. American combat aircraft airframes and missiles use magnesium while graphite and fluorspar can make or break the systems used for rocket propulsion, lasers, and nuclear fuel processing. In all the three mentioned minerals, China is the fulcrum with is massive refining capacity During the recent talks on the tariff wars unleased by President Trump, the big ace up Beijing's sleeve was its near monopoly in the production and refining of critical elements and rare earths. China had in 2023 cracked down on the export of eight gallium-related and six germanium-related products. It had a year later in 2024 also curbed export of antimony, another critical element. In the last few months, starting December 2024, China has completely stopped the export of gallium, germanium and antimony to the US. Critical defence related elements like tungsten and tellurium, too, have been placed on the restricted list by China. When President Trump announced his steep 'reciprocal tariffs' taking effect against China on April 2, two days later Beijing responded by imposing curbs on the export of medium and heavy rare earth elements including samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. The restricted items also includes magnets and other rare earths products. If this situation continues, most of America's most advanced weapons will turn into duds if China raises its great wall to completely ban the export of such critical components. All of these are used in combat aircraft, missiles, naval warships, submarines and advanced radar systems. Which US weapons depend on China A F-35 engine, avionics, munitions and radar use over 400kg rare earth elements. Similarly Virginia-class submarines and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers of the US Navy have 4,200kg and 2,360kg of rare earths in their systems. Cruise missiles, armed drones, smart bombs, and radars depend on rare earth magnets for propulsion, targeting and guidance. With the F-47 fighter on the drawing board, the demand for rare earths and critical elements will only increase. Almost 81 percent of Antimony used in the F-16 Fighting Falcon as well as Minuteman III nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles is refined in China, although it is mined mostly in Australia. Even the US sends several critical minerals to China for refining and then re-imports them. None of the current technologies can replace the use of rare earths and critical elements in the advanced weapons and China's near monopoly, especially in refining, is a clear and present danger to the US forces, which have no counter to this "kill switch".
