How Trump's war on international students hurts the US more than it helps
Why targeting international students may backfire on the US economy and trade.
President Donald Trump's administration has launched a sweeping effort to curb the presence of international students in the United States, targeting institutions like Harvard University and pausing the issuance of key student visas.
While framed as a national security move, this aggressive stance could backfire by damaging the US economy, weakening higher education, and pushing future innovators away from American shores.
Recently, the Trump administration confirmed it would end all remaining federal grants to Harvard. More critically, it announced a 30-day window to block Harvard's access to new international students. Interviews for incoming foreign students and exchange visa holders are also on hold while the administration weighs enhanced social media vetting.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of this order on May 29, 2025, as reported by MSNBC News.
Universities and innovation at risk
There are more than 1.1 million international students enrolled in US colleges and universities, representing just under 6% of the total 19.1 million higher education population. According to the Open Doors 2024 Report on International Educational Exchange, over half of these students pursue STEM fields—25% study math and computer science, and nearly 20% are in engineering.
This talent pipeline is crucial. Many skilled immigrants begin their US journey as students. Elon Musk studied at the University of Pennsylvania before obtaining an H-1B visa. Similarly, South African-born Patrick Soon-Shiong completed surgical training at UCLA and went on to invent Abraxane, a major cancer drug. In a 2017 interview, Soon-Shiong told MSNBC News, 'We still have the best universities, and I think it's crazy that (foreigners) come here and we train them as masters and PhDs and then we kick them out.
That's ridiculous.'
A blow to economic growth and trade
Canceling student visas contradicts the administration's economic objectives. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, international students contribute $50.2 billion annually to the US economy—classified as an export. Removing them not only undermines innovation but worsens the trade deficit the administration claims to fight.
Pierre Azoulay, an economist cited by MSNBC News, found that immigrants are 80% more likely to start businesses.
Their companies generate 50% more jobs and pay about 1% higher wages than firms started by native-born Americans. Historically, a 1% increase in immigrant population has correlated with a 15% rise in patents per capita, fueling long-term economic growth.
National security or national self-sabotage?
The administration insists it is safeguarding national security by scrutinizing students' political affiliations and online activity.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated the US will increase visa vetting for Chinese students tied to the Communist Party, as reported by MSNBC News. However, experts warn that overreach could alienate talented students and bolster rival nations.
As MSNBC News noted, this policy threatens to 'lock their smartest students in a communist dictatorship' while weakening US innovation during an ongoing trade war. Trump's immigration crackdown may serve short-term political goals, but its long-term cost to the US could be far greater.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
NATO set to approve new military purchases as part of a major defense spending hike
NATO defense ministers are set Thursday to approve plans to buy more weapons and military equipment to better defend Europe, the Arctic and the North Atlantic, as part of a US push to ramp up security spending. The 'capability targets' lay out plans for each of the 32 nations to purchase priority equipment like air and missile defense systems, artillery, ammunition, drones and 'strategic enablers' such as air-to-air refueling, heavy air transport and logistics. 'Today we decide on the capability targets. From there, we will assess the gaps we have, not only to be able to defend ourselves today, but also three, five, seven years from now,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said. 'All these investments have to be financed,' he told reporters before chairing the meeting at NATO's Brussels headquarters. US President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts will meet on June 24-25 to agree to new military spending targets. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that 'to be an alliance, you've got to be more than flags. You got to be more than conferences. You need to keep combat ready capabilities.' The targets are assigned by NATO based on a blueprint agreed upon in 2023 — the military organization's biggest planning shakeup since the Cold War — to defend its territory from an attack by Russia or another major adversary. Under the plans, NATO would aim to have up to 300,000 troops ready to move to its eastern flank within 30 days, although experts suggest the allies would struggle to muster those kinds of numbers. The member countries are assigned roles in defending NATO territory across three major zones — the high north and Atlantic area, a zone north of the Alps, and another in southern Europe.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump travel ban: Why did he spare Pakistan?
US President Donald Trump has imposed a travel ban on nationals from 12 countries, citing national security risks, but Pakistan which openly hosts and celebrates US-designated terror groups is missing from the list. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X: "President Trump is fulfilling his promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors that want to come to our country and cause us harm." In March, the Trump administration was considering issuing sweeping travel restrictions for the citizens of dozens of countries including Pakistan, as per an internal memo seen by Reuters. During his first term, Trump had taken a very hard stance against Pakistan for its sponsorship of terror. What moved Trump's hand in a short period of time? Also Read: US imposes entry ban on 12 nations, adds restrictions on 7 others Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo From Trump 1.0 to Trump 2.0: The change of heart During his first term as the US president, Donald Trump's first tweet of 2018 was on Pakistan: "The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!" he posted on X, then called Twitter, on January 1, 2018. In August that year, the US military cancelled $300 million in aid to Pakistan, accusing it of not doing enough to root out militants from its border region with Afghanistan. Another $500 million were stripped by Congress from Pakistan earlier to bring the total withheld to $800 million. In November 2018, Trump accused Pakistan of helping to hide Osama bin Laden, stating, "But living in Pakistan right next to the military academy, everybody in Pakistan knew he was there" . Consequently, the US suspended a significant portion of its military aid to Pakistan. Live Events In April 2019, the Trump administration imposed visa sanctions on Pakistan under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This US law mandates that if a country refuses or unreasonably delays accepting the return of its nationals who have been ordered deported from the United States, the US government may impose sanctions, including visa restrictions on certain categories of that country's citizens. Also Read: Terror hub Pakistan not included: Brahma Chellaney hints at US' Deep State's anti-India stance The sanctions were targeted visa restrictions, initially applied to certain Pakistani officials and government representatives. The State Department, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), began denying or delaying visa issuance to these individuals. The move was designed to be escalatory, signaling that broader visa restrictions could follow if Pakistan did not take corrective action. This was a rare use of Section 243(d). Prior to Pakistan, only a handful of countries had faced such penalties (including Guinea, Cambodia, and Eritrea). However despite tensions, Trump also sought to reset relations with Pakistan. In July 2019, then Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan visited the US, where Trump called for strengthening trade ties and offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute, a proposal India rejected. What explains Trump's new love for Pakistan? In March this year, Pakistan was part of the sweeping travel restrictions planned by the Trump administration for the citizens of dozens of countries. However, a US official had told Reuters at that time that there could be changes on the list and that it was yet to be approved by the administration. One change that has happened is Pakistan has been dropped from the list. The action is not inconsistent with Trump's recent statements on Pakistan. In a recent interview with Fox News, Trump spoke glowingly about Pakistan: "They are brilliant people and make incredible products." Trump has offered unqualified praise for Pakistan several times after Operation Sindoor. He claimed he intervened during the India-Pakistan conflict and convinced both the countries to reach what Trump claimed to be ceasefire. India has contested this interpretation. It has said it just halted military action and didn't agree to any ceasefire with Pakistan. It has also said the halt in India's Operation Sindoor came at Pakistan's request and not due to Trump's intervention. Trump suggested he used trade as a negotiating tool to force India into a ceasefire. The ministry of external affairs said the issue of trade did not come up during any talks with the US and "it was the force of Indian arms that compelled Pakistan to seek ceasefire". Clearly, Trump chose to support Pakistan in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Former Pentagon official Michael Rubin, writing in the Washington Examiner, said that by bragging about how he could leverage trade to stop fighting, Trump drew moral equivalence between terror-sponsoring Pakistan and terror-victim India. Why is Trump ignoring Pakistan's terror project against India and stepping in to save it? Many would think Trump, who sees himself as the greatest deal maker, has been bought by Pakistan which is 'investing' in the Trump family to reap geopolitical dividends, as several recent reports suggest. Trump's change of heart on Pakistan after Operation Sindoor -- ignoring its terror activities, praising it, and offering to mediate on Kashmir -- could be connected to a recent deal between Pakistan's Crypto Council and World Liberty Financial (WLF), a cryptocurrency venture in which Trump's family has 60% stake. WLF sent its heavy guns, including Zachary Witkoff, son of Trump's golf buddy Steve, to Islamabad where they were feted by Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif, and more crucially, army chief General Asim Munir, who just days later 'cleared' the mass killing in Pahalgam of tourists who were segregated on the basis of their faith, TOI had reported. WLF's stakeholders include Trump's two sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, who, along with their brother-in law Jared Kushner, have been scouring different parts of the world for lucrative business deals and have attracted allegations of leveraging their links to the White House. There are other deals that would have mellowed Trump towards Pakistan. TOI reported that Gentry Beach, a hunting buddy and college friend of Donald Trump Jr, the US President's son, visited Pakistan in January and came back to brief Trump Sr and his close aides at Mar-a-Lago about the 'amazing place called Pakistan' and a potential to cut deals worth billions of dollars in explorations of rare earth minerals, oil & gas, and real estate. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif hosted him twice, first in Islamabad in January in the presence of his senior cabinet colleagues, including the ministers for finance and foreign affairs, and again in Dubai on February 11, on the sidelines of the summit of world govts. Beach was an exceptionally unknown face among hosts of foreign dignitaries and heads of state Sharif met. While in Pakistan, Beach noted the Islamic country had rare earth reserves of more than $50 trillion Pakistan has often tried to please the US by handing over terrorists that it had been using to achieve its own goals actually. Early in March, the US arrested in Afghanistan an ISIS-K operative involved in the 2021 Abbey Gate bombing that killed 13 Marines. Trump was quick to thank Pakistan for its help in nabbing the high-value fugitive from the Pak-Afghan border. "I want to thank the government of Pakistan for helping arrest this monster," he told the US Congress. TOI reported that what was brushed under the carpet was an open secret in intelligence circles -- the operative, Sharifullah, had been in Pakistan spy agency ISI's custody for over a year. ISI ran multiple operations using his network and ultimately handed him over to the CIA at the right time - when the regime changed in Washington. (With TOI inputs)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Trump pulls the wrong trigger to ban citizens of 12 countries from coming to US
Trump has announced a sweeping travel ban on citizens from twelve countries. Although he cited the recent Colorado attack as the reason, the attacker's home country, Egypt, is notably absent from the list. read more In another move that has drawn global attention, US President Donald Trump has unveiled a sweeping travel ban targeting citizens from twelve countries, by banning their entry to the United States. The ban, which completely bars entry for individuals from nations including Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, and Yemen, is part of what Trump claims is a broader effort to prevent terrorism and protect American lives. In addition to these full bans, partial visa restrictions have been imposed on citizens from seven more countries, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Turkmenistan, limiting their access to specific types of visas. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This comes as Trump justifies his move by referring to the recent attack in Colorado, allegedly carried out by a foreign national who, he claimed, bypassed proper vetting procedures. However, critics were quick to highlight a key flaw: the attacker's home country—Egypt—is not among the listed nations. These partial restrictions will limit the ability of citizens from affected countries to obtain certain types of visas, while allowing for limited exceptions in specific circumstances. Why: Trump justified the new ban by raising concerns over foreign nationals entering the US without being 'properly vetted.' In his statement, he cited the recent deadly attack in Colorado as an example of the danger posed by individuals who manage to circumvent the immigration system. The suspect in the Colorado attack, he argued, was a foreign national who had entered the US without undergoing adequate security checks. As a result, he claimed, stronger vetting protocols are necessary to safeguard American citizens and prevent future attacks. The wrong trigger: However, a glaring issue with the travel ban has come to light: the suspect in the Colorado attack, identified as an Egyptian national, is not included in the new restrictions. This omission has led many to question whether the Trump administration has targeted the wrong countries in its attempt to bolster national security. Egypt, despite being the attacker's country of origin, is notably absent from both the complete and partial bans—prompting criticism that the administration's rationale behind the travel ban is fundamentally flawed. The reason: So why has Egypt been spared from the ban? The answer lies in the longstanding defence alliance between the United States and Egypt. The US has consistently regarded Egypt as a key partner in the Middle East, referring to the relationship as a 'pillar of regional stability.' This military and diplomatic partnership has created a delicate balancing act between security concerns and geopolitical interests. Despite the Egyptian link to the attack, the Trump administration appears to have prioritised maintaining its strategic alliance with Egypt—even if that means compromising on the stated goal of enhancing national security. This partnership, which includes joint military operations and intelligence sharing, seems to have shielded Egypt from inclusion in the travel restrictions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Public backlash: The decision to exclude Egypt from the ban has sparked backlash from critics, who argue that the move is politically driven—placing international alliances above the safety of American citizens. Many have pointed out the inconsistency in the logic of the ban, which disproportionately targets countries with limited US diplomatic ties while sparing those of greater strategic importance. Conclusion: While the administration maintains that the travel ban is a necessary measure to prevent terrorist attacks, the omission of Egypt raises significant doubts about the true motivations behind the policy. With the Colorado attack cited as the justification, critics are questioning whether political and military considerations have been prioritised over a coherent and effective security strategy. As tensions rise, many argue that President Trump may have pulled the wrong trigger—targeting the wrong countries and potentially undermining the very goal the ban was meant to achieve.
