9 WVU students see records restored after Trump Administration revokes visas
3 WVU students have visas restored by federal government
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (WBOY) — After three students at West Virginia University had their records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) restored last week, WVU has now confirmed that others have as well.
According to Shauna Johnson, WVU's Executive Director of Strategic Communications, West Virginia University has confirmed that SEVIS records have been restored for nine students and alumni in its system who had them terminated earlier this month by the Trump Administration on the basis that they appeared in a criminal database.
DOGE cuts AmeriCorps programs across West Virginia
All nine people also had their student visas revoked earlier this month, but some have since been restored. WVU was unable to verify if all nine had their visas restored as of Tuesday, but 12 News has reached out to the U.S. Department of State for clarification.
This announcement comes nearly a week after the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia (ACLU-WV) filed lawsuits against the Trump Administration on behalf of a WVU student and a Marshall University student who both claimed that their visas were wrongly revoked. Both students had their revocations reversed days later.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
China a Hedge Against Trump Says Ex Canada Fin Min
00:00 Bill, thank you for being here. Happy to be here. It's great to be with you again. I'm not sure everyone in this audience is aware of the fact that you're one of the few people in this world who have successfully negotiated a trade agreement with President Trump. There you go. Bill was Canada's finance minister from 2015 to 2020. And in that role, you played a key part in the free trade agreement excuse me, the free trade talks with the United States and Mexico that produced the deal, at least referred to in the United States as the USMCA. Yeah, we call it Koosman. There you go. Now, as we all know, dozens of countries are trying to cut deals with the United States and avoid the punishing tariffs that President Trump announced on Liberation Day. Your experience and your insights are extremely valuable in this moment. What should they be prepared for? What is the secret to facing off against the Trump administration? Well, I wish I knew that secret because there would be people coming to my door on a regular basis, obviously. You know, my sense is you want to turn down the drama first and foremost. And I think you see the current Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, trying to turn down the drama. You want to get to the facts as rapidly as you can. You know, we while I was there negotiating the steel aluminum tariffs, number one, you know, we got to the facts pretty quickly. And then you need to obviously get to the details. And the details are challenging in any trade agreement. And and that that will be what's challenging people right now, obviously getting through issue by issue in a way that can hopefully get you to a more predictable situation. The president leaves people with the impression that these deals can be cut over the weekend. You're making it clear there's a lot of hard work that has to follow whatever agreement in principle might be reached. How how tough is it? Well, I mean, I mean, the USMCA, I'll call it that was was announced in 2018. It didn't get signed until 2020. I think that's a good example. I mean, if you take a really narrow slice when we were trying to negotiate the steel and aluminum tariffs, it took a year, you know, it took we got to the conclusions relatively quickly of where this should land. But it takes a while to get through the details. And and every trade agreement obviously has give and take. And so so we hopefully should expect that people will get to some sort of the nature of an agreement rapidly. But I think we also need to expect that there'll be some continuing volatility for any two parties to negotiate effectively. Trust is pretty critical, isn't it? I have to believe that you're going to honor the commitments that you make at the bargaining table. And you have to believe that I'm going to honor mine. That, of course, is how deals get done. I'm going to ask a deliberately provocative question. What if the party on the other side is a country with a president who keeps changing his mind with a habit of not telling the truth and clearly with little, if not no regard for the rules by which other people have agreed to abide. How do you negotiate with that country? Look, it's difficult and all of us want to get to a rules based system. I mean, a rules based system allows for predictability, allows for investment. So that's the goal we're trying to achieve. And I'm hearing lots of people say that, you know, if a deal can be abrogated, why bother? I mean, my answer is that you want to get to as best you can with as many partners as you can, whether it's with China, whether it's with other parts of the world. You want to get to some sort of situation where you understand what's in, what's out. And yes, it's more challenging with the United States right now. It certainly is something that we're going to have to deal with. I continue to believe that there's many, many people of good faith who are going to help us to work through that. And that will get to a more predictable situation. I don't discount your your question, but I think for those of us who want to find a predictable situation, we have to have faith that we will get there and push forward and push forward as hard as you can with an understanding that there's going to be mutual benefit. With with the opportunity we see. I made reference earlier today to the so-called taco trade, in part because it has worked out for investors so far. What if you're negotiating a trade deal? Is that something you need to keep in mind? Do you take Trump's threats seriously and cave perhaps quickly to the demands that the United States is making? Or do you wait and see and hope that circumstances force the president to, as it were. Check it out. So my view would be you need to take the the reality of the discussion seriously. You have to accept, I think, that the world constantly goes through changes. So so renegotiations are not illegitimate. I mean, you want to find a way to create certainty for a long period of time. And I don't think it's reasonable to hope. You know, if you're if you're leading a government, you need to actually work towards getting to a better outcome, accepting that the challenge is is real. Since taking office in January, President Trump has and I'm going through this exhaustive list, in part because I'm assuming that not everybody is familiar with what has happened to Canada. The president has levied tariffs on a wide range of Canadian imports cars, trucks, steel, aluminum, even oil. He talks openly about turning Canada into the 51st state, and he has suggested that the United States can should it want to annex Canada by economic force. Bill, what exactly do you think Trump wants from Canada? More, more, more what, though? You know, I wish I could answer that question, but my sense is more that's what he wants. My my expectation is that much of this is obviously posturing that we're going to be in a situation where we're going to look towards, you know, a renegotiation that will include, you know, more access to Canadians, dairy, that we will ensure that we stand up and play our part with natto, which Canada is doing. So that is the frame that certainly I start with. I think that's the frame that the Canadian negotiators start with. But I think the Canadian response, clearly Canadians are very frustrated by this. There's a real sense that we need to look for who are the other reliable partners that we have in the world. The U.S. is our largest trading partner by a big margin. China is our second largest trading partner. It's not a surprise that Prime Minister Carney has started to look towards how can we have a more stable and expansive trading relationship with China and with other countries. I'm very interested in the point about China, and I'll come back to it in a couple of minutes because I just want to pursue this. Dialogue that we're having about Canada's relationship with the United States. Prime Minister Carney has stated publicly that he doesn't consider the United States a reliable partner any longer. And he meant what he said. Now. I've given this some thought. If you think for a moment, any of you think for a moment about the long and productive history that these two countries have had, they've shared actually quite culturally, commercially, even militarily. To say that the United States is no longer a reliable partner is is a profound thing. What will the new normal for Canada U.S. relations be? Well, we're working towards making sure that we do have a reliable interchange between the Canada in the United States. I mean, that is obviously the goal. The current situation is very volatile. So I think what Prime Minister Carney is reacting to is this constant set of changes that are going on. And he's also let's be realistic. He's also a politician. Canadians are frustrated. So that frustration, frustration needs to be voiced. But I think you're seeing two things at the same time. Appropriately, you're seeing him voicing the very legitimate concerns that Canada has with the changing situation. And you're seeing him quietly behind the scenes work towards getting to back to normalcy to the best extent possible. So let's get back for a moment to negotiating strategy. Canadians obviously have no interest in becoming the 51st state. They've said so in poll after poll after poll. And of course, the prime minister has said the same thing, but it is arguably in Canada's best interests to restore as much tariff free trade with the United States as possible and also to remain inside the U.S. security envelope. So going back to what you were saying about Trump wanting more from Canada, what should Canada be prepared to give up in exchange for that? You know, I think what from our perspective in Canada, what we see is that the advantages to both countries are significant from trade. Obviously, our automotive sector is completely interlinked and doesn't work without free trade. It doesn't. We Canada has enormous resources that are important not only for Canada but for the United States, for the world. So I think it's getting to the situation where that is accepted and understood. I think the Trump administration is dealing with a set of issues that really don't relate to Canada. If you think about the immigration challenge and the, you know, the hollowing out of the United States. So those are not really related to Canada, but Canada's getting caught in that dialogue in a way that is, I think, unfortunate. So the goal really is to get through this time, to get to a new normal, Hopefully to the extent that there are tariffs that endure that were not there before, which is, I think, deeply problematic. But maybe one of the outcomes Canada would seek to be inside that tent. The United States doesn't have Canada over a barrel quite the way it had. Zelensky in Ukraine. But should Canada be thinking similarly? It is worth in the interest of that longer term relationship signing agreements that that effectively give America some kind of call on Canadian resources or perhaps Canadian freshwater. And you know something that Americans have long coveted? You know, I would I would argue that that should not be the goal for Canada. I think we we need to continue to be at the table to talk about the advantages that we have together. And changing the situation that's been advantageous for both countries is not something that we will do easily. Certainly any discussion around fundamental changes to, you know, natural resources agreements, I think is almost certainly off the table. Let's go back to what you were saying about China at the moment. Canada at least up until 2025. Canada sent about 75% of its exports to the United States. And only, you know, something in the single digits to China. It varies, but let's call it 5% for argument's sake. How much more of Canada's exports could be going to China? Well, I think the place you start with is the fact that there's actually been a bit of a pivot that's been going on. So what? What you've seen between 2019 and 2023 is 8.2% increase annualized in agriculture. What you've seen with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in Canada is that there's been significantly more oil that's going to China, significant recipient of Canadian oil. So if you look at March 20, 25, 353,000 barrels per day going to China and March 25 was actually the lowest amount going the United States in the last two years, about 3.1 million barrels. So there there is a bit of a pivot. I think realistically, though, what Canada's objective will be will be to expand trade opportunities around the world. I mean, Mark Carney this weekend to the G7 has invited Prime Minister Modi of India. He's invited the crown prince ambassador from Saudi Arabia. He's invited the the president of Mexico, Brazil, China, down from Mexico. There's a there's an agenda to be opening up trade and to find a way to have strong economic relationships around the world. Sure. And. Or at least welcoming India to the table makes a ton of sense. 1.4 billion people. It's has tremendous economic promise, but most other places in the world do not. Right. China is the world's second largest economy. And there's a reason perhaps, that Canada has been hasn't been doing more business with China. And that's because over the past several years, some concerns have arisen as to what the terms of trade and what the terms of commerce with China should be. In your mind, how do we balance the concerns over market access, over theft of intellectual property, over fairness, over things like dumping, with a desire to at the very least, I say we focus on the Canadian, by the way, sell more agricultural commodities and oil to China. Well, you know, I think what we what we hope is that we will find important opportunities in particular sectors, that we will mutually understand that there are places that are very difficult to trade. There will be each country will have some places where they don't want to go. If we can get to an agreement, an understanding of what those places are, it allows for better advantage in other places. So. So that's certainly the hope. You hear people like, you know, the premier of Saskatchewan in Canada talking about the possibility for specific agreements against the agricultural sector. That's one potential path to actually increase the trading relationship. But I think the broader agenda is how do we make sure that we pivot, how do we make sure that we have economic relationships that are not impacted on a day to day basis by politics? You know, engagement doesn't equal endorsement. So working together is something that you should try to achieve. And that's that's the goal of countries that are trying to expand a rules based trading system for the the betterment of all of us. As we've heard several times today, what the Chinese would really like is more access to American made for the most part, or at least American designed and Taiwanese made GPUs. Hmm. The. We're operating. And when I say we, I'm referring specifically to the United States, Canada, Western allies under Jake Sullivan's small yard high fence paradigm. Does that still make sense to you, or in exchange for more access to the Chinese market, should at the very least, Canada, which isn't much of a semi-conductor maker, think differently about those kinds of security concerns? You know, I think we need to be realistic about geopolitical issues and there will be security concerns. I think the Jake Sullivan idea, the small yard with a high fence, I mean, what you really want is to make that yard as small as reasonably possible, given the inevitable challenges and the fence as impermeable as possible. So those two things go arm in arm. That I think is much more a US-China issue than a canada-china issue, frankly. But as a member of NATO, Canada is going to be part of that that realistic fence. So how do we make sure that we have a strong relationship that allows us to expand trade? I think by restricting the things that cause us consternation. Now, one of the things that Canada would need in order to do more trade, at the very least in oil and energy in general is more pipeline capacity. You referred to the Trans Mountain pipeline. And you were instrumental in a deal that actually brought ownership of the Trans Mountain pipeline to the federal government in Canada. There are a number of options that the Prime Minister, Canadian premiers, and for that matter Canadian oil companies are considering in the effort to try and expand that capacity. You could expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, you could build a branch line off of Trans Mountain or perhaps build a new pipeline through northern British Columbia to another port on the Pacific. What's the most realistic option in your mind? I think the Canadian challenge with pipelines is not so dissimilar from other countries. I mean, pipelines by definition go through multiple territories. So getting permits, it's always a challenge. In Canada, we've got different provinces, which was the problem with Trans Mountain. We have indigenous groups with stakes to a lot of the land. So as you think about that, the north, south, the east west pipelines are particularly challenging. They go through a lot of land. The to the West Coast or to the north are going to by definition be a little easier. I think that what really the current government needs to do is think about what are the big projects. And it's not just pipelines, what are the big projects that can give confidence to the business community, to investors in Canada and in other countries that we can start actually getting big things done. And so that that is the challenge. You pick the whether it's the pipeline or the electricity grid, you pick the one that has the highest probable success outcome and you start pushing for that. And that's what I think the government's going to be doing.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: American flags only: GOP's three new rules for protests | Opinion
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Live updates: L.A. curfew enters second night as U.S. protests spread
A curfew for part of downtown Los Angeles continued for a second night Wednesday, as protests against the Trump administration's immigration raids continue in the city, where the president has tested legal limits by mobilizing National Guard troops and Marines. Speaking at a news conference Wednesday, L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman pushed back on claims the city is facing widespread destruction, stressing that '99.99 percent' of people living in the area 'have not committed any illegal acts in connection with this protest whatsoever.' The protests have spread to several other cities, including Chicago, New York, San Antonio and Spokane, Washington, which also instituted a curfew Wednesday night.
