Global Universities Capitalise on US Academic Policy Shift
The United States, long considered the premier destination for international scholars, is witnessing a sharp decline in its appeal. A survey by the Keystone Education Group indicates that 42% of prospective international students are now unlikely to consider the US for higher studies, citing visa restrictions, safety concerns, and an increasingly hostile political climate. European students are particularly affected, with 58% expressing diminished interest.
At the centre of the controversy is Harvard University, which has become a focal point of the administration's intensified scrutiny. In May 2025, the US government revoked Harvard's authority to enrol international students, citing alleged irregularities in its admissions processes. This move is part of a broader effort to penalise institutions perceived to violate federal policies. Harvard has responded with legal action, asserting that the government failed to follow proper administrative procedures. A federal judge has since extended a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration's attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Trump administration has also directed all US consular missions to intensify vetting procedures for non-immigrant visa applicants affiliated with Harvard. This policy affects prospective students, faculty, employees, contractors, guest speakers, and tourists intending to visit Harvard for any reason. The directive claims Harvard has failed to maintain a campus free from violence and antisemitism, justifying the need to screen for individuals with histories of antisemitic behaviour. Consular officers are also instructed to consider applicants' credibility if their social media accounts are private, requesting they be made public during the application process.
These measures have caused fear and confusion among international students, leading to visa delays and increased scrutiny at borders. Over 7,000 international students and scholars depend on Harvard for legal US residency. Harvard maintains that these moves threaten the foundational autonomy of American higher education. The Trump administration has pursued changes to Harvard's governance as part of broader political grievances, prompting claims from Harvard of retaliation for resisting political interference.
The administration's actions have had a ripple effect across the US academic landscape. The Department of Homeland Security has revoked Harvard's certification to host foreign students, and the administration has frozen $2.3 billion in federal research funding for the university. Additionally, the Internal Revenue Service has been asked to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. These punitive measures are part of a broader crackdown on immigration and higher education institutions accused of harbouring anti-American sentiment.
In response to these developments, universities worldwide are seizing the opportunity to attract international students and researchers. Asian countries, particularly Japan, have moved quickly to position themselves as alternative destinations. Leading institutions such as the University of Tokyo and Kyoto University are stepping up to accommodate displaced or discouraged students, signalling a shift in the global academic landscape.
European universities are also actively recruiting US researchers, offering themselves as a haven for those keen to escape the Trump administration's crackdown on research and academia. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, for instance, has opened 12 postdoctoral positions for international researchers, with a particular focus on Americans. The Pasteur Institute in Paris is working to recruit people from across the Atlantic for work in fields such as infectious diseases.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the UK, Sir Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society, believes the country could surpass the US in science leadership if it reforms its immigration system, particularly by reducing the high costs of obtaining visas for scientists. Smith described a deteriorating scientific climate under the Trump administration, marked by $40 billion in science funding cuts and restrictions on international student admissions. The Royal Society has established an international fellowship programme aimed at attracting top global talent, with a particular eye on disaffected US researchers.
Australia's leading research institutions have raised alarms over the Trump administration's abrupt restrictions on US funding, jeopardising critical scientific collaborations. The Group of Eight, representing the nation's most research-intensive universities, has disclosed that several Australian researchers have seen their US financial support curtailed, while others face onerous bureaucratic hurdles. Recipients of US federal funding were compelled to complete an exhaustive 36-point compliance questionnaire, ostensibly designed to assess the alignment of their work with President Trump's political priorities.
The Trump administration's aggressive rollback of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programmes has ignited a legal and ideological battle over the future of academic freedom in the United States. A lawsuit filed by leading academic organisations challenges what it calls an unconstitutional overreach of executive power. The plaintiffs argue that the orders violate fundamental rights, disrupt institutional policies, and imperil decades of progress in fostering inclusive learning environments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
31 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: Powerful Libyan official in talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from Gaza
A senior official in Libya's internationally recognised government has held talks with Israeli officials over a proposal to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled from Gaza, multiple sources have told Middle East Eye. Speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue, Libyan, Arab and European officials told MEE that National Security Adviser Ibrahim Dbeibah, a relative of Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, was spearheading the talks despite Palestinians in Gaza flatly rejecting US President Donald Trump's postwar plan for the enclave. One Libyan source said that "practical talks" had already taken place but the specifics were vague. "The mechanisms and implementation have not yet been spoken about," the source said. Another Libyan source said that discussions were still ongoing and that members of the Tripoli-based parliament were deliberately being kept in the dark as pro-Palestine sentiment runs deep in the country. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The source said that in an attempt to placate some Libyan leaders, the US was prepared to confer economic support or other benefits in exchange for the country taking in Palestinians. The source said that Ibrahim Dbeibah had already received guarantees that the US Department of Treasury would release some $30bn in frozen state assets. In May, separate sources had told MEE that Massad Boulos, an adviser to Trump and father-in-law to his daughter Tiffany, had held discussions with Ibrahim Dbeibah about unlocking billions of dollars in sanctioned frozen wealth funds. The assets were frozen in early 2011 by former US President Barack Obama, several months before the Nato-backed ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. Boulos flatly denied that he was involved in talks over the resettlement of Palestinians, telling MEE that the reports were "inflammatory and totally false". However, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said that Trump had "long advocated for creative solutions to improve the lives of Palestinians, including allowing them to resettle in a new, beautiful location while Gaza rebuilds". Seeking legitimacy from the US The idea of Libya serving as a possible new home for expelled Palestinians comes amid reports that Khalifa Haftar, a powerful military leader who also oversees a rival rubber-stamp parliament in the country's east, was offered greater control over the country's oil resources if he agreed to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Haftar, who has played a seminal role in the widespread destruction and instability in Libya, as well as the ensuing civil war in neighbouring Sudan, has denied the reports. Meanwhile on Monday, hours after receiving a request for comment from MEE on the issue of resettling Palestinians, Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah said that his government would not engage in the "crime" of resettling Palestinians. The Gaza playbook: Israel's five-step ethnic cleansing strategy Read More » He reiterated a line from a statement by the US embassy in Tripoli in May which dismissed reports that Washington was pursuing a relocation plan for Palestinians in Libya. Israel has publicly mulled expelling Palestinians from Gaza and last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli officials were in contact with "several countries" about absorbing displaced civilians from the war-torn territory. "I think this is the most natural thing," Netanyahu said. "All those who are concerned for the Palestinians and say they want to help the Palestinians should open their doors to them. What are you preaching to us for? We're not pushing them out - we're enabling them to leave… first of all, [leaving] combat zones, and also the Strip itself, if they want to." Recently, Israel's Agriculture Minister, Avi Dichter, singled out Libya as "the ideal destination" for Palestinians saying they would "happily leave" Gaza if the necessary international support was provided. "Libya is a huge country, with vast areas and a coastline similar to Gaza's," he said. "If the world invests billions to rehabilitate Gazans there, the host country will also benefit economically." Israeli officials have long advocated expelling Palestinians from Gaza and within a week of the 7 October attacks, Israel's intelligence minister at the time, Gila Gamliel, presented the cabinet with her "voluntary migration plan" where she hoped 1.7 million Palestinians would leave the enclave. Forced displacement, as observed in Gaza, violates international humanitarian law, notably Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the forcible transfer of protected persons by an occupying power. The European source told MEE that Dbeibeh and Haftar were "simultaneously negotiating with the Israelis" in the hope of getting "more legitimacy from the Americans". The source said that if the resettlement plan was forcibly imposed on Libya, Palestinians would find themselves moving out of the frying pan and into the fire. "It will be catastrophic at multiple levels," the source said. "Firstly, for the Palestinians themselves, who would have just about made it out of the Strip alive and escaped an obliterated life in Gaza, facing forced expulsion to a country like Libya which is in deeply complicated political turmoil with divided governments, where systems and society is broken by its civil war." "The Palestinians will not be getting any care from those governments, which will push them to the following catastrophe, [which] will lead to a new wave of migration towards the shores of Europe. And this is also a scary thought, firstly because the past decades have proven to us that many of them will only make it halfway through the Mediterranean, like many of those boats that capsized. And those that would eventually get to Europe, I do not think that Europe would be welcoming of another one million Arabs arriving at its shores, as the Syrians who just made similar journeys just few years ago." The Arab official, who was intimately aware of the latest talks, warned that complicity in Israel's ethnic cleansing plan could provoke widespread anger across all of Libya. "This will be a shock to the Libyan people," he said. Mohamed Mahfouz, a Libyan political analyst, echoed his remarks, telling MEE that the US was acutely aware that discussions around Libya resettling Palestinians could cause great distress for Libyan authorities. "Accepting Palestinians could come at a high price for any of the parties that will engage with the United States on this matter. This in itself may explain why neither [Libyan] government is yet to normalise relations." Outreach to Africa In recent weeks Israeli officials have publicly said, then later denied, reaching out to leaders from across Africa and Asia to use their territories as potential destinations for expelling Palestinians. Plans have been mooted for Palestinians to be resettled in Sudan, South Sudan and the breakaway region of Somalia known as Somaliland, despite all of the territories being plagued by violence. Sudan has been gripped by intense violence since its civil war broke out in 2023, with an estimated 150,000 people killed in the past two years. South Sudan has struggled to recover from a civil war that broke out after independence, with more than seven million people facing food insecurity and at least 2.3 million children at risk of malnutrition. Meanwhile, Somaliland continues to face threats from the armed group al-Shabab over the region's memorandum of understanding with Ethiopia - one of the greatest enemies of the group. A Libyan political analyst, who requested anonymity due to fear of reprisal attacks by government-aligned militias, said that it was "unsurprising" that Ibrahim Dbeibah was leading the outreach efforts with Israel. "[Ibrahim] Dbeibah, like the Libyan government, is marked by self-interest. He is well aware of the benefits of ingratiating himself with the US and Trump." While Libya does not officially recognise Israel, the Tripoli-based government, known officially as the Government of National Unity (GNU), is known to have held several secret meetings with Israeli officials in recent years. In 2023, Najla al-Mangoush, then foreign minister under Dbeibah, secretly met Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen in Italy. The revelation sparked outrage in Libya, resulting in angry protests and her suspension. In a later interview with Al Jazeera Arabic, Mangoush claimed she had attended the meeting on direct orders from Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, and that it was coordinated between his government and Israel. Arabic Post later reported that Ibrahim Dbeibah had orchestrated the meeting, citing unnamed sources. Middle East Eye reached out to the prime minister's office and the GNU for comment but did not receive a response by time of publication.
Khaleej Times
2 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
S&P affirms 'AA+' credit rating for US, cites impact of tariff revenue
S&P Global on Monday affirmed its "AA+" credit rating on the US, saying the revenue from President Donald Trump's tariffs will offset the fiscal hit from his massive tax-cut and spending bill. Trump signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" into law in July after it was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The bill, which delivered new tax breaks, also made Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. "Amid the rise in effective tariff rates, we expect meaningful tariff revenue to generally offset weaker fiscal outcomes that might otherwise be associated with the recent fiscal legislation, which contains both cuts and increases in tax and spending," S&P said in a statement. "At this time, it appears that meaningful tariff revenue has the potential to offset the deficit-raising aspects of the recent budget legislation." The U.S. reported a $21 billion jump in customs duty collections from Trump's tariffs in July, but the government budget deficit still grew nearly 20% in the same month to $291 billion. Interest on the public debt also continued to grow, hitting $1.013 trillion in the first 10 months of the fiscal year, an increase of 6%, or $57 billion, over the prior-year period due to slightly higher interest rates and increased debt levels. Since returning to power in January this year, Trump has launched a global trade war with a range of tariffs that have targeted individual products and countries. The Republican president has set a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports to the U.S., as well as additional duties on some items and trading partners. IMPACT OF TARIFFS S&P, which became the first ratings agency to cut the pristine U.S. government rating in 2011, said the outlook on the U.S. rating remains stable. The ratings agency said it expects the Federal Reserve, which Trump has criticized this year for not cutting interest rates, "to navigate the challenges of lowering domestic inflation and addressing financial market vulnerabilities." It projected the country's general government deficit to average 6.0% of GDP during the 2025-2028 period, down from 7.5% in 2024 and from an average 9.8% of GDP in 2020-2023. S&P said it could lower the rating over the next two to three years if already high deficits increase. "The ratings could also come under pressure if political developments weigh on the strength of American institutions and the effectiveness of long-term policymaking or independence of the Federal Reserve," it said. SP, however, said it could raise the U.S. rating in the event of sustained economic growth and adjustments to the U.S. fiscal profile that would diminish recent increases in the country's debt burden. There was no reaction in markets on Tuesday to SP's credit rating affirmation, which follows a U.S. sovereign credit downgrade by Moody's in May, when that ratings agency cut the triple-A U.S. rating by one notch, citing rising debt levels. The U.S. national debt load surged above a record $37 trillion last week. James Ragan, co-chief investment officer and director of investment management research at D.A. Davidson, said the SP rating affirmation was an acknowledgment of the meaningful tariff revenue generated so far. "That's all good revenue (coming) in, but that's also a drag on the economy, so I think we don't know the impact of that going forward," he said.
Dubai Eye
2 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Overnight Russian attack shows Putin does not want peace, Ukraine says
Russia attacked the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk with drones overnight, the city mayor said on Tuesday, calling it a sign that Russian President Vladimir Putin does not want peace. The reported assault came a day after US President Donald Trump met European leaders and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, saying the US would help guarantee Ukraine's security in any deal to end Russia's war there. After the meeting on Monday, Trump said he telephoned Putin and begun arranging a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, to be followed by a trilateral summit among the three presidents, with the aim of reaching a peace deal. "At the very same time when Putin was assuring Trump over the phone that he seeks peace, and when President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was holding talks at the White House with European leaders about a just peace, Putin's army launched yet another massive attack on Kremenchuk," Vitalii Maletskyi, mayor of the city that lies in the Poltava region, said on the Telegram. "Once again, the world has seen that Putin does not want peace — he wants to destroy Ukraine," he said. The overnight attack on Ukraine was the largest so far in August with Russia launching 270 drones and 10 missiles, according to the Ukrainian air force. Maletskyi said scores of blasts shook the city, targeting energy and transport infrastructure, leaving hundreds of people in the Poltava region without power. The Ukrainian air force said it downed 230 drones and six missiles but recorded strikes at 16 locations. Poltava Governor Volodymyr Kohut said that the attack damaged administrative buildings of a local energy infrastructure operation. "Fortunately, there were no casualties," Kohut said on Telegram. He said that in the Lubny district nearly 1,500 residential and 119 commercial customers were left without power. A Tuesday morning drone attack by Russia on Ukraine's Chernihiv region also damaged infrastructure with power cuts reported in parts of the northern region, according to Governor Viacheslav Chaus. There was no immediate comment from Russia. Both sides have been targeting infrastructure key to the military in their strikes during the war on each other's territory, including energy infrastructure.
