Trump administration revokes at least 8 student visas at Oklahoma universities
At least eight students at Oklahoma universities have recently had their visas revoked by the federal government as the Trump administration scrutinizes scores of international students across the U.S.
Eight students at Oklahoma State University lost their visas, a spokesperson for the Stillwater school confirmed. A spokesperson for the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond said they "believe there may be as many as four" students on its campus whose visas have been revoked.
Officials at the University of Oklahoma in Norman declined to discuss whether any of its students have been affected, citing student confidentiality.
It's unclear why exactly some international students in Oklahoma are being targeted, but the revocations link them with hundreds of other students across the country who are now forced to leave the United States.
More: Trump cancels hundreds of student visas, forcing rapid departures
Universities have reported some students being forced to leave immediately, in many cases after discovering their visas were canceled in the federal Student Exchange and Visitor Information System, or through an unexpected text or email, according to reporting from USA TODAY.
Elisabeth Walker, OSU's director of the Office of International Students and Scholars, told the university's Faculty Council Tuesday that one student's visa was revoked two weeks ago, five were rescinded last week and two were revoked Tuesday, according to reporting from the O'Colly, OSU's student newspaper.
She said the federal government is canceling the students' electronic immigration record, citing political activity for one of them, and criminal activity for the other seven. From talking to students, Walker said she's learned that the criminal records have ranged from previous arrests to speeding tickets, the student news outlet reported.
The revocations follow comments made in March by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that he's revoked at least 300 visas of students he described as "lunatics," citing pro-Palestinian support or activism, activities that are typically considered protected under the First Amendment.
"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said at a news conference.
Contributing: Trevor Hughes of USA TODAY
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Trump administration revokes visas for Oklahoma students at OSU, OCU
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge grants preliminary injunction to protect collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to stop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from killing a collective bargaining agreement for Transportation Safety Administration workers. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle said in her order that an injunction is needed to preserve the rights and benefits that TSA workers have enjoyed for years while being represented by the American Federation of Government Employees. In their lawsuit, Pechman said, the union has shown that Noem's directive to end the agreement 'constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration's assault on federal workers.' It also likely violated due process and AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Noem's decision was 'arbitrary and capricious," she added. 'Today's court decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a release. 'The preliminary injunction underscores the unconstitutional nature of DHS's attack on TSA officers' First Amendment rights. We remain committed to ensuring our members' rights and dignity are protected, and we will not back down from defending our members' rights against unlawful union busting.' Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis declined to comment on the judge's ruling, according to Emily Langlie, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office. AFGE had entered into a new, seven-year collective bargaining agreement with agency last May, but Noem issued a memo Feb. 27 rescinding that agreement. One week later, TSA informed the union about Noem's directive, saying the contract was terminated and all pending grievances would be deleted. AFGE filed a lawsuit against Noem, claiming the move was retaliation against the union for pushing back against the Trump administration's attacks on federal workers. AFGE had filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 19 against the Office of Personnel Management to stop the firing of probationary workers. A judge issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 27 stopping the firings — the same day Noem issued her memo. Abigail Carter, representing AFGE during oral arguments before Pechman on May 27, said Noem's move was retaliation and a violation of the union's First Amendment right to protected speech and its Fifth Amendment right to due process. 'The administration has made it clear that if you don't disagree with it politically, you and your members can keep your rights, but if you do disagree, you lose them,' Carter said. She also argued that the collective bargaining agreement was necessary because TSA workers are not covered under the federal labor-management code. The agreement protects them from dangerous working conditions and unreasonable hours. Kipnis denied the retaliation claim and said it was simply a difference in management styles. Pechman questioned that contention. Not all unions are banned by the administration, Pechman said, only the ones oppose the administration. 'Isn't this a pattern that you see?' Pechman asked Kipnis. 'Attorneys who take opposition stances get banned. Those who don't, don't have those restrictions. Isn't this the pattern that the White House has set up?" Kipnis said tension between unions and management are common and this conflict doesn't signal a violation of the workers' First Amendment rights, but instead reflects a confrontational relationship. But Pechman wasn't convinced. Previous TSA managers have found unions to be beneficial and renewed their contracts for years, she said. They found they made a happier workforce, and 'they wanted their employees to feel that they were well-treated,' she said. What has changed is this administration's attitude, she said. To that, Kipnis replied: 'Or you could characterize it as a different management style. The former administration apparently saw that as a better way to do business. ... But this administration sees a different way of doing business. And the same statute affords them the same amount of discretion.' Pechman said she understood that the administration has the right to exercise that discretion, 'but to abruptly cancel doesn't seem well reasoned, so I'm having trouble with that." She also noted, "But why the United States gets to back out of contracts that it's made is harder to accept.' In Monday's order, Pechman said TSA workers would suffer 'irreparable harm' without the injunction, noting that if they lose their collective bargaining agreement, they will lose the benefits it provides. 'While the loss of money alone does not show irreparable harm, the total harms here are more than monetary,' Pechman said. 'They include the loss of substantive employment protections, avenues of grievance and arbitration, and the right to have a workforce that can unite to demand benefits that might not be obtainable through individual negotiation.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Budget Axes Program That Keeps Poor People From Freezing To Death At Home
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump wants to make some pretty devastating cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services in his new 2026 budget request. But one of the cruelest is a line buried in HHS' Budget in Brief: 'The budget eliminates funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.' The federal block grant program, often referred to as LIHEAP, has been around for decades and helps millions of people in low-income households pay their energy bills. Critically, it helps seniors, families with children, and people with disabilities keep their heat on in the dead of winter and cool air blowing in the sweltering days of summer. More than 6 million households currently rely on LIHEAP for help with energy bills. The Trump administration appears to justify gutting LIHEAP by tying it to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in government, all of which Trump wants to eradicate. 'Savings come from eliminating radical diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory programs, which weaponized large swaths of the Federal Government against the American people and moving programs that are better suited for States and localities to provide,' reads the HHS budget brief, just before it calls for zeroing out LIHEAP funding. To be sure, the president's budget request isn't going to become law. It has to make its way through Congress, where lawmakers will make all kinds of changes to it. But it's going to fall on Republicans to fight to preserve LIHEAP. The Trump administration has already crippled the low-income energy program. On April 1, HHS announced it was putting 10,000 federal employees on administrative leave through June 2, at which they would be terminated. This included the entire staff running LIHEAP. Twenty state attorneys general intervened in May and sued HHS, claiming the mass firings were illegal and calling for everyone's jobs to be restored. The lawsuit is still underway. State administrators that provide LIHEAP assistance still have federal money to keep operating this year, but without federal staff, the program's future looks grim. Trump zeroing out its entire budget certainly feels like its death knell. While Republicans in Congress are overwhelmingly beholden to Trump, they don't have strong margins in either chamber. If even a handful of GOPers push back on a provision in a bill, their opposition could tank the whole thing. LIHEAP could draw such pushback. House and Senate Republicans have called on HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore the program's staff and vouched for its need. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the most politically vulnerable in his party, told Kennedy in April the program is 'vital' to his community. 'The program supports our most vulnerable populations, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and households with young children under the age of six,' Lawler wrote to Kennedy. 'In FY 2023, 24% of New Yorkers reported being unable to pay their energy bill at least once in a 12-month period. During FY 2023, LIHEAP also helped prevent over 100,000 utility disconnections in New York alone, highlighting this program's critical need.' Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) led a bipartisan letter to Kennedy in April urging him to reverse course on LIHEAP staff cuts. 'We write regarding reports that you have terminated staff responsible for administering the LowIncome Home Energy Program,' reads their letter, signed by 13 senators. 'If true, these terminations threaten to devastate a critical program dedicated to helping Americans afford their home energy bills. 'It is an indispensable lifeline, helping to ensure that recipients do not have to choose between paying their energy bills and affording other necessities like food and medicine,' said the senators. Separately, Murkowski directly told the HHS secretary in May how crucial LIHEAP assistance is for people in her state. 'For us it's not a budget line item,' she told Kennedy as he testified before a Senate committee. 'You've been to Alaska. You know that the temperatures there can get really, really tough. [LIHEAP] keeps people from freezing to death in their homes.' The fate of LIHEAP will almost certainly come up this week on Capitol Hill, with both the House and Senate back in session and Trump's budget request now awaiting their action. Aides to Murkowski, Collins and Lawler did not immediately respond to requests for comment relating to Trump's budget request zeroing out LIHEAP funding.
