Harvard under investigation over participation in visa program for foreign students and researchers
Harvard has faced mounting sanctions and scrutiny from Washington since rejecting demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. Harvard has filed a lawsuit challenging $2.6 billion in federal cuts and has accused the Republican administration of waging a retaliation campaign.
The statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not say why his department was examining Harvard's eligibility to take part in the Exchange Visitor Program, which allows foreign nationals to study or work in the United States through cultural and education exchange programs.
It said all sponsors, such as Harvard, 'are required to fully comply with exchange visitor regulations, transparency in reporting, and a demonstrated commitment to fostering the principles of cultural exchange and mutual understanding upon which the program was founded.'
Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton said the investigation was "another retaliatory step" taken by the administration.
"Harvard continues to enroll and sponsor international scholars, researchers, and students, and will protect its international community and support them as they apply for U.S. visas and travel to campus this fall,' Newton said in a statement. He said the school is committed to complying with the program's rules.
Brett Bruen, a former director of global engagement under Democratic President Barack Obama, said there is no justification for the administration's action.
'It not only damages Harvard, but American higher education & industry that depend on the best & brightest wanting to come here,' Bruen said in a post on X.
The State Department said the investigation will seek to ensure that its programs "do not run contrary to our nation's interests.'
The administration also has tried several times to prevent the school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, from hosting foreign students, and President Donald Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Last month, his administration issued a finding that Harvard tolerated antisemitism, a step that could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration's demands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Kamala Harris is writing a memoir about the 107 days she ran for US President
Kamala Harris, the former US vice president who briefly led the Democratic Party after Joe Biden's withdrawal in 2024, is publishing a memoir. The book, 107 Days, arrives September 23, and promises an unvarnished, first-person account of what Harris calls 'the shortest presidential campaign in modern history.' 'This isn't a traditional political memoir,' said Jonathan Karp, the CEO of Simon & Schuster, which is publishing the book. 'It's closer in spirit to The West Wing or Rocky. It reads like a suspense novel.' Karp also described 107 Days as one of the most compelling pieces of political nonfiction the company has ever released. Harris announced the project in a video posted to social media, where she described journaling her thoughts after the 2024 election which she lost to Donald Trump. 'Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting on those days,' Harris said. 'I believe there's value in sharing what I saw, what I learned and what I know it will take to move forward.' What the world saw on the campaign trail was only part of the story. My new book is a behind-the-scenes look at my experience leading the shortest presidential campaign in modern history. 107 Days is out on September 23. I can't wait for you to read it: — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 31, 2025 'What the world saw on the campaign trail was only part of the story,' she wrote. The memoir focuses exclusively on the 2024 campaign, not on her tenure as vice president. Harris previously chronicled her early political career and personal background in her 2019 book The Truths We Hold. This time, she zeroes in on what it was like to step into a flailing campaign in the final stages of a fractured election cycle. The book arrives just after Harris confirmed that she will not run for governor of California next year, reviving speculation about her political future—and whether a return to the national stage is still in the cards. 'To read the book is to be a fly on the wall as critical decisions were made and key team members tapped, all in such a dramatic moment in our history,' said executive editor Dawn Davis. Simon & Schuster did not disclose how much Harris was paid for the memoir. Her announcement follows reports that Joe Biden has sold his own post-presidency memoir to Little, Brown for a reported $10 million. 'Kamala Harris is a singular American leader,' Karp said. '107 Days captures the drama of running for president better than just about anything I've read.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
10 minutes ago
- First Post
The US has taken in $125 billion in tariffs in 2025. Here's why experts are worried
US President Donald Trump shocked many when he announced 'reciprocal tariffs' on US trading partners in April. The declaration, which came on 'Liberation Day', sent tremors through the world markets. The US in 2025 has taken in $125.6 billion in tariffs thus far – a massive increase from 2024 when tariffs generated $79 billion over the entire year. So why are experts worried? read more The US is raking it in from tariffs. US President Donald Trump shocked many when he announced 'reciprocal tariffs' on US trading partners including China and India in April. The declaration, which came on 'Liberation Day', sent tremors through the world markets. Trump has been obsessed with tariffs since his first term. He has mused about tariffs paying down the federal debt and even potentially replacing income tax. But how much money is America taking in from tariffs? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let's take a closer look: What do we know? As of July 29, America has taken in $125.6 billion in tariffs. The data show tariffs have been steadily climbing the entire year. In January, tariff revenues were at around $8 billion. In April, the levies had generated $16.3 billion. By June, tariffs added another $26.6 billion to the kitty. In July, that figure increased by another $28 billion. That's a massive increase from 2024 when America took in $79 billion in tariffs over the entire year. In 2022, tariffs were at $98 billion. The Yale University Budget Lab has said that the average tariff rate on imported goods currently stands at 18.2 per cent. This is the highest rate since 1934. Before Trump returned to office, that figure was at 2.4 per cent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that tariffs could generate over $300 billion in revenue. While this seems like a good thing, it is American companies who are having to pay the costs to the government. Businesses will also likely pass on the escalating costs to the consumer, who could experience sticker shock. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that tariffs could generate over $300 billion in revenue. Reuters Experts say Trump's tariffs will inevitably cause prices to rise. According to the Federal Reserve, inflation ought to be at two per cent. Inflation was at 2.7 per cent in January, 2.4 per cent in May and 3 per cent in June. They say a number of firms stockpiling products has thus far resulted in consumers having to avoid shelling out extra. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But they say there are signs that the US customer will soon start paying the price for Trump's tariffs. From major appliances to sports equipment and toys, many products that Trump has levied tariffs on have witnessed price increases. While some in the administration have argued that tariffs could eventually replace income tax, this is still far short of the $2.4 trillion income tax the federal government took in last year. Trump tears up post WW-II playbook Since his return to the White House US President Donald Trump tore up the US post-WWII economic policy playbook of favouring free trade, slapping tariffs on trading partners and on certain products like steel. The US has subsequently reached deals with a number of countries that will see considerably higher tariffs apply than were in place, but for the most part also considerably lower than the highest rates that Trump threatened to impose. Trump said Thursday that sweeping tariffs he has imposed on nations around the world were making the country 'great & rich again' as governments raced to strike deals with Washington less than 24 hours before an August 1 deadline. 'ONE YEAR AGO, AMERICA WAS A DEAD COUNTRY, NOW IT IS THE 'HOTTEST' COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD,' he wrote on his Truth Social platform. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The deals that the US reached with trading partners will also go into effect on August one, as will a 50 percent levy on copper imports. For around 80 countries, including the 27 members of the European Union, rates of between 11 and 50 percent are set to come into force.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Judges grill Trump over use of emergency powers for 'reciprocal tariffs'
US appeals court judges sharply questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years." The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all US trading partners - mark the first test before a US appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other US laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
