State Department announces investigation into Harvard international visas
The State Department has opened an investigation into Harvard University's use of international visas, according to an announcement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Rubio said all sponsors of the government's Exchange Visitor Program must 'fully comply' with the '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.'
The program is intended for foreign citizens who wish to enter the United States. It can used by anyone from a student to a professor to an au pair, according to its website.
In doing so, the sponsoring institution must not conduct their programs 'in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States.'
'The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law, and provide safe environments for all students,' Rubio said. 'The investigation will ensure that State Department programs do not run contrary to our nation's interests.'
A Harvard spokesperson said the investigation is 'yet another retaliatory step' taken by the administration, which violates their First Amendment rights.
'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,' the spokesperson said.
Read more: 'That Harvard education is paying off for you': Judge jabs at Trump lawyer in Harvard case
The announcement comes amid talks of a deal between Harvard and the Trump administration, and as two lawsuits take shape in federal court.
One of the lawsuits focuses on the Trump administration's attacks on international students, including its revocation of a key certification that allows Harvard's international students to study there.
What has happened between the Trump admin and Harvard?
The Trump administration has gone after Harvard since April, cutting billions of dollars.
Demanding an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring, the federal government warned the school could risk losing $9 billion in funding.
Harvard rejected those demands, stating the government seeks to 'invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.'
Then the fight over funding began.
It started with a $2.2 billion funding freeze on April 14 after the school refused to comply with the federal administration's demands.
In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit on April 21, arguing that its constitutional rights had been violated by the government's threats to pull billions of dollars in funding.
Harvard President Alan Garber also signed onto a letter with hundreds of other university presidents pushing back against 'government overreach and political interference' by the Trump administration.
At the beginning of May, the Trump administration said it would bar Harvard University from acquiring new federal grants while the school continues to refuse to comply with the administration's demands for change on its campus.
A few days later, eight federal agencies cut $450 million in grants and then the United States Department of Health and Human Services cut $60 million in grants from the university.
Harvard went on to amend its lawsuit against the Trump administration.
On May 16, a wave of nearly one thousand federal research grant terminations began, amounting to more than $2.4 billion, according to an analysis by Nature.
In response, Harvard established a new Presidential Priorities Fund, asking for donations in the midst of federal cuts.
Some of Harvard's schools, including its School of Public Health, took to social media to ask for donations after nearly every single federal grant had been terminated.
Other investigations and threats have been made against the institution, some of which have also focused on threatening the university's ability to enroll international students.
That is the university's second lawsuit.
More Higher Ed
Brandeis gets tax-free $135 million bond for new residence hall
Columbia expels, suspends students who participated in pro-Palestine protests
'That Harvard education is paying off for you': Judge jabs at Trump lawyer in Harvard case
As Harvard faces federal funding cuts, its medical school secures new donations
Federal judge questions cuts to Harvard's federal funding, its links to antisemitism
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
Chicago Tribune
14 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Stanford paper sues Trump administration over deportation fears
Stanford University's independent student newspaper sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, citing fears of deportation for noncitizen reporters at the Stanford Daily. Two of the Stanford Daily's writers, who are international students, say that they have refrained from reporting on campus protests, vigils and other events related to Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza out of fears that their visas would be revoked. The students, who are not identified, say that creates a chilling effect on their free speech rights. 'Writers present on student visas are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their lawful immigration status,' according to the lawsuit, filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in federal court in San Jose, California. The Departments of State and Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to requests to comment. The lawsuit challenges a section of immigration law that the government has said allows it to deport noncitizens if the Secretary of State determines them to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy. That's the same law that the government is using as it attempts to deport several students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the complaint argues. The case is Stanford Daily v. Rubio, Case No. 25-cv-06618, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). More stories like this are available on
Boston Globe
44 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stanford newspaper challenges legal basis for student deportations
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit says that the newspaper, which is open to all students and has more than 150 members, according to the complaint, has weathered resignations and withdrawn stories by noncitizens who were concerned that publishing content about Israel or the conditions in the Gaza Strip could leave them vulnerable to deportation. Advertisement The climate of fear the lawsuit cites at Stanford follows a spate of arrests earlier this year, when the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists in March, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, over their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza. Advertisement 'They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for bedrock speech, like authoring an op-ed and going to protest,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation. 'And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they think they can throw you out of the country for it.' In those and other cases, immigration agents arrested the students after Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the provision, deeming the students a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In each case, Rubio personally signed off on the decision to revoke a student visa or render a lawful permanent resident deportable after determining that those interests were at stake. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the lawsuit says. The new lawsuit mirrored many elements of a case brought by another group, the American Association of University Professors, which is seeking to block the Trump administration from pursuing what it describes as a policy of 'ideological deportations' -- using the law to target activists based on their shared criticism of Israel and its conduct in the war. That case was argued before a federal judge during a two-week trial in Boston in July, and he is expected to decide this month whether to block the deportations on First Amendment grounds. The case raised similar concerns about chilled speech on college campuses, with testimony from faculty at several universities about how dramatically noncitizen academics had withdrawn from public life. Advertisement But lawyers in that case explicitly stopped short of arguing that using the foreign policy provision to target student demonstrators was unconstitutional, sidestepping a risky gambit in court over whether Rubio had abused the authority. That caution came as William G. Young, the judge in the case, expressed skepticism throughout the trial about whether he could rule against Rubio or others in the Trump administration given that they were exercising powers given to them by Congress. 'It seems to me we have a new administration who has, you know, absolutely the primary authority over the foreign policy of the United States,' Young said during closing arguments last month. But other judges have already contemplated the same questions the new lawsuit raises, concluding that using the foreign policy provision in the student activist cases was vague and probably violated the First Amendment. In the case involving Khalil, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey wrote that using the foreign policy provision to detain him was probably unconstitutional, even though that did not factor into his decisions to order Khalil's release in June. Since the Supreme Court limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in June, any ruling in the case would likely apply only to the plaintiffs at Stanford. But the lawsuit aims to set a legal precedent that the organization hopes could be used more broadly. (STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.) Fitzpatrick, the foundation lawyer, said there were narrow but conceivable situations in which the use of the foreign policy law would be appropriate, such as if pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians who fled the country after Russia's invasion sought refuge in the United States and continued to work to undermine Kyiv from abroad. Advertisement 'That has an arguable constitutional basis,' he said. 'What does not have an arguable constitutional basis is someone going up to a podium, whether it's at a city council meeting or a local park, at a protest, voicing an opinion that would be completely protected if you or I said it, and the secretary of state saying, 'We don't like the ideas you're spreading -- get out.' 'That's un-American,' he said. This article originally appeared in
