Belgium's future queen Princess Elisabeth's fate at Harvard revealed after Trump's foreign student crackdown
The 23-year-old royal is enrolled at the Ivy League school to study public policy in a two-year master's program, which aims to prepare students for a 'successful career in public service.'
Elisabeth wrapped up her first year at the university in May — but faced the risk of being sent back to Belgium after the commander in chief cut billions in federal funding and moved to restrict the institution's ability to enroll foreigners.
5 Belgium's future queen, Princess Elisabeth, will be allowed to continue her studies at Harvard University this fall.
Max Bueno / Belgian Royal Palace
After a Massachusetts judge ordered the federal government not to make any changes to the prestigious college's student visa program, a Belgian journalist close to the situation has confirmed the royal's plan of action.
'There are no concrete reasons why she would not be able to return to Harvard in September,' Belgian royal journalist, Wim Dehandschutter, told Hello! magazine on Tuesday.
The reporter told the outlet that the Belgian palace had told him that the princess was optimistic about her future at the prestigious school, but would have equally continued her studies online if the ban was upheld.
According to Dehandschutter, palace officials faced a delicate diplomatic challenge in responding to Trump's directive.
5 The 23-year-old royal faced uncertainty over President Trump's crackdown on international student enrollment.
Max Bueno / Belgian Royal Palace
5 Elisabeth is enrolled at the Ivy League school to study public policy in a two-year master's program, which aims to prepare students for a 'successful career in public service.'
ZUMAPRESS.com
'I think the royal palace is keeping communication understated because they don't want to create a fuss or scandal,' he told the outlet.
'I suspect they don't want to create tensions with the US. The ban on foreign studies was a decision of President Trump, a head of state like King Philippe and therefore a 'colleague.''
Follow The Post's royal family live blog for the latest pics, news, exclusive details and more
Still, Dehandschutter said the palace is 'happy that a solution has been found.'
'They were in a difficult situation,' he went on. 'Even if Trump were to make an exception for Elisabeth, because she is the daughter of a reigning king and a future queen herself, that would send a strange message from the royal family and could lead to significant criticism that they condone discrimination against other students.'
5 The POTUS halted billions in federal grants and tried to throttle the Ivy League institution's ability to enroll foreigners.
AFP via Getty Images
Elisabeth, who also goes by the title of Duchess of Brabant in her home country, was just one of the thousands of international students at the university who eagerly awaited the results of the square-off.
At the time, the Belgian Royal Palace spoke out on the uncertainty, saying it was too soon to tell the outcome of the dispute.
'Princess Elisabeth has just completed her first year. The impact of [the Trump administration's] decision will only become clearer in the coming days/weeks,' Lore Vandoorne, a spokesperson for the Belgian Royal House said in a statement. We are currently investigating the situation.'
'We are analyzing this at the moment and will let things settle. A lot can still happen in the coming days and weeks,' the palace's communication director, Xavier Baert, added.
5 The princess is the heir to the Belgian throne, being the eldest of four children born to King Philippe and Queen Mathilde.
Belga/AFP via Getty Images
The princess is the heir to the Belgian throne, being the eldest of four children born to King Philippe and Queen Mathilde.
Before enrolling at Harvard, Elisabeth earned a history and politics degree from the University of Oxford in England.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Trump's GOP on verge of big Texas win, but battle for power is only starting: 5 takeaways
Trump's Texas fight is aimed at giving the GOP an advantage in 2026 and a lame-duck president more power while in office. Democrats have other plans. A partisan battle in Texas over who holds power in Washington during the final two years of President Donald Trump's second term has unfurled into a nationwide debate drawing in top political figures as voters brace for another divisive election in 2026. The Lone Star State's GOP lawmakers are poised to send new congressional maps to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Aug. 21 that Trump and his allies hope will give them a strategic advantage in holding onto their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. But the fight in Austin has spread beyond the state's borders and created significant uncertainty about who will be in position to govern during the second half of the Trump administration and after the next race for the White House. 'Game on,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote Aug. 20 in a social media post. She is one of several Democratic leaders considering their own steps like the Texas Republicans to re-draw congressional district borders inside their state. Here are five takeaways on the fast-spreading redistricting wars: Republicans have the upper hand if the redistricting war expands. States typically redo their congressional boundaries for voters every decade, specifically in the two years that follow a new census. But Trump has encouraged redistricting to happen ahead of the 2026 U.S. House elections. His motivation? The tendency of the party in the White House to lose seats in the U.S. House during the congressional elections that happen between presidential elections. Recent examples include the 1994, 2010, 2018 and 2022 political cycles. Trump and the GOP are hoping to break that trend or increase their 219-212 U.S. House majority through states with Republican legislatures that can draw congressional maps. By contrast, many Democratic states have passed laws and constitutional amendments creating independent commissions to draw their congressional district maps instead of politicians. That's part of why states such as Missouri and Indiana have discussed redistricting for Republican advantage, but the Democratic stronghold of Washington has ruled it out completely. Additionally, Ohio needs to re-draw its own congressional maps under a constitutionally-mandated process that would happen regardless of today's political climate, and Florida has created a special committee to re-draw congressional maps. Taken together, that means that there are three high-population states actively pursuing Republican seats, and so far California is the only major state likely to redistrict for Democrats ahead of 2026. A legal fight over the new Texas maps is brewing What's happening this week in Texas won't be the final say on whether the maps are permanent. That's for the courts to decide, though fights like this can take years to work their way through the system. Both Democrats and Republicans previewed their legal arguments during the Texas legislature's Aug. 20 House floor debate that ended in the House's approval of the Republican-favored new maps. Democratic lawmakers accused their GOP colleagues of 'packing' Hispanic voters into some districts and 'cracking' or 'diluting' their representation. Those are all key terms referring to practices that opponents have used when challenging maps in the past. They also asked Republicans whether they drew maps based on voters' Hispanic ethnicity since race-based gerrymandering is still illegal. Texas state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Republican author of the bill that changes the maps, explained that an outside law firm drew the maps, not members of the legislature or their in-house staff. He said he asked the firm to re-draw the maps to improve his party's 'political performance' in the state, using a term that he said was backed up by a recently decided federal court case. Hunter used the term repeatedly during hours of questioning by Democrats. Americans still don't like gerrymandering Americans haven't historically liked it when politicians draw maps in their favor, but they may support the practice when it benefits the party they agree with. A nationwide Reuters/Ipsos poll that ran from Aug. 13 to 18 found that a small majority of respondents thought the ongoing redistricting plans were 'bad for democracy,' and Democrats were more likely to think this than Republicans. A poll by the market research firm YouGov that ran Aug. 1 to 4 found that three-quarters of adults saw it as a 'major problem' when states draw maps to intentionally favor one party, and another one-fifth saw it as a 'minor problem.' These proportions, too, higher among Democrats and lower among Republicans. But in California, where Democratic lawmakers wants voters to decide in a Nov. 4 special election whether to redraw their own maps in favor of Democrats, a majority of voters support the initiative. The proposal has support from 57% of California voters, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom's own polling, as reported by Axios, including overwhelming support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition from Republicans. A Politico-UC Berkeley Citrin Center poll of nationwide voters that ran through Aug. 20 found about one-third of respondents said Democrats in California should 'fight back' with their own maps. That broke down to almost two-thirds of Democrats, one-third of independents, and about one-tenth of Republicans. New Democrats are getting their time in the spotlight Americans are seeing new faces emerge from the Democratic Party as they make national headlines fighting back against often better-known Texas Republicans. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, widely seen as a frontrunner for his party's presidential nomination in 2028, is one of them. His decision to go toe-to-toe with Texas and leverage his position in the only state with more congressional seats than the Lone Star State has meant an introduction to Americans all over the country and a national spotlight on his ideas. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, one of the names floated for vice president in 2024, got his name out there when he hosted Texas Democrats who fled their state for nearly two weeks. But the ongoing fight has also highlighted what anti-gerrymandering advocates have called an unfair map tilted toward Democrats in Illinois. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who says she wants to retaliate against Texas, is also gaining some attention. Another new face is Texas Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth, who slept on the floor of the legislature. Texas Republican leaders have been requiring the Democratic lawmakers who broke quorum earlier this month to sign permission slips to leave the chamber and have a state police escort follow them around 24 hours a day to make sure they don't attempt to leave the state again. 'Today is not the end,' Collier said after the House passed the bill Aug. 20. 'It is the beginning, the start of a new Democratic party where we won't back down. … And we will push and push and push until we take over this country.' Barack Obama, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are all involved Trump kicked off the firestorm when he called on Texas lawmakers to redraw the maps and provide five more Republican-leaning congressional districts. Now he's going toe-to-toe with Democratic Party standard bearers who have come into the fight. Former President Barack Obama posted on X that the attempt to re-draw districts in Texas was an 'assault on democracy,' and praised Texas Democrats. Now he's endorsed Newsom's plan to redistrict California's congressional maps in retaliation. Former Vice President Kamala Harris also called Collier while she stayed in the legislature: 'You really are inspiring so many people, and I just want you to know that you are among those who history will reveal to have been heroes of this moment. So you just stay strong and do what you are doing.' Harris ruled out a run for governor of her home state of California in 2026, leaving Americans to wonder whether she'll run for president in 2028. Contributing: Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Rainbow crosswalk removed at Pulse nightclub memorial amid Trump's street art crackdown
A rainbow-colored crosswalk near where 49 people were killed in a mass shooting at the gay nightclub Pulse has been painted over, said officials in Orlando, Florida, amid a push from the Trump administration to remove street art with 'political messages.' In a post on X, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis responded to criticism of the move by saying, "We will not allow our state roads to be commandeered for political purposes." The Florida Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY. Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer said in a statement Aug. 21 that he was "devastated" to learn the crosswalk had been removed in the middle of the night. He said the crosswalk was part of the larger memorial and had been created with the permission from the state's transportation department. "This callous action of hastily removing part of a memorial to what was at the time our nation's largest mass shooting, without any supporting safety data or discussion, is a cruel political act," he said. The news comes as Republican-led states have taken up the Trump administration's directive to crack down on what it has described as politically-charged street art. On July 1, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a letter giving states 50 days to evaluate intersections and crosswalks as part of a "nationwide roadway safety initiative." The letter said that intersections and crosswalks need to be "kept free from distractions," including "political messages of any nature" and "artwork." This summer, the Florida Department of Transportation released a memo saying local governments could jeopardize state funding if they did not immediately remove street signs with 'social, political, or ideological messages.' The memo applied to crosswalks, bicycle symbols and other road surfaces. Since the directives went into place, cities across Florida and the nation have prepared to remove street art being targeted by the federal government. Crosswalks and street murals gained popularity during the pandemic and especially in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, which fueled the installation of large murals reading "Black Lives Matter" on city streets across the country. The rainbow colors were added to the crosswalk outside the Pulse nightclub in 2017, according to the Orlando Sentinel, a year after a gunman walked into the gay nightclub and fatally shot 49 people and wounded 53 others. It was the nation's deadliest mass shooting until a year later when a gunman killed 60 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas. Pulse survivor, state Democrats decry rainbow crosswalk removal A survivor of the deadly shooting as well as state Democrats were quick to condemn the action. "The cowards who feel threatened by our lives should feel lucky they didn't have to bury the ones they love — then watch the state come & desecrate their memory," said Brandon Wolf, a Pulse survivor and activist, in a statement on X. Florida Sen. Carolos Guiermos Smith, a Democrat, called the removal of Pride colors from the memorial of a mass shooting that killed many members of the local LGBTQ+ community "ridiculously short sighted" and "bigoted." "I cannot believe that the DeSantis administration has engaged in this hostile act against the city of Orlando," he said. "They have insulted the families and survivors of this horrific tragedy." He said he hopes the city of Orlando paints the colors back onto the street and sues the state for "vandalizing their poperty without their consent." Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, said the rainbow colors are not a political statement and instead "sparked joy and showed our love for all people."
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Trump's child care win is no victory for American families
Corrine Hendrickson opened Corrine's Little Explorers in New Glarus, Wisconsin nearly 18 years ago. She has served 70 children since then in her family child care business. But in August, she will be closing her doors, because operating the program is simply no longer sustainable. Similarly, Seedlings to Sunflowers, a child care program in Maine, is struggling. Forced to raise rates to meet rising expenses, it instead created a funding gap as parents left the program because they no longer could afford it. Seedlings recently crowdfunded $25,000 from community members and families to stay open, but this is not a sustainable strategy. Meanwhile, a mom in Bedford, Ohio was paid too little to afford child care — which cost her nearly twice family's rent — but too much to qualify for assistance. Ultimately, her husband quit his job to care for their child. These are some of the many reasons I am not doing a victory lap for the relatively meager child care provisions in the Trump mega-bill signed into law in July. The provisions in the bill would do nothing to help people like Hendrickson keep serving children. It would not allow Seedlings to Sunflowers keep its rates affordable or support families like the Ohio mother's family to find and afford child care. In this bill, Republicans haven't given families any new child care options or opportunities. The child care sector will not get new resources to expand or essential support for more stable operations, which means families will still struggle to find child care options that work for them. And the families that do find options still will have trouble paying the high prices. Some families may receive a bit more money through the bill's tax credit increase to help pay for child care. But the average credit for those who receive it will be about $890 — a small dent in the average annual child care cost of $13,128. Even those few families who might receive the new maximum credit of $3,000 will still be on the hook for a significant payment, which their low incomes will not likely accommodate. Meanwhile, many families will see their health care and food bills rise as a result of the bill, which may offset the increased child care credit. And if their child care provider is losing health insurance at the same time or leaving a job because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, their child care arrangement may become more unstable. The bill's support for child care relies on tax credits and deferrals, disproportionately benefiting wealthier families and corporations — an overall theme of the bill itself. Specifically, the bill expands three tax programs. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit is a credit that comes to you after you have spent the money up front. The credit won't be of any use if you can't afford to pay for child care up front, can't find care that meets your needs or don't earn enough to pay taxes. The Dependent Care Assistance Program allows parents whose employers participate to opt into accounts that set aside pre-tax dollars to pay for child care expenses. Parents who use these flexible spending accounts cannot also use the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for the same expenses. The Employer-Provided Child Care Credit provides employers a tax credit for spending resources on child care-related expenses. What families need is reliable, stable child care options that meet their needs — affordable, convenient, with no wait list. They want to know their children are safe, happy, healthy and learning, and the early educators who care for them are being paid well to stay in the profession they love. The big Republican bill provides none of that. We're holding our elected officials to too low a standard if we are calling this bill a child care win for families when millions will still be left struggling to find and afford child care. When taken in its entirety, the bill is a major net loss for children and families. It is hard to squint at this and see 'incremental progress' and 'bipartisan support' when Republicans control Washington and insist on throwing child care policy into chaos. They have been freezing, unfreezing, delaying and then moving forward child care and Head Start funding to states and programs, and proposing cuts to major child care and early learning programs in their federal budget proposal. Not to mention the DOGE cuts that pushed out about half of federal Office of Child Care staff and shut down important regional Child Care and Head Start offices. Political leadership should strive toward a future where Hendrickson, the mother in Ohio and families around the country would have something to celebrate. We already see candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia centering their plans for affordable child care in their campaigns. Same goes for Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York City where he ran on free child care made possible by richer New Yorkers paying their fair share. We should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard to address the concerns of families, not jump up and down when they mention those concerns while backing up the Brinks truck for the wealthy. Julie Kashen is the director of Women's Economic Justice and senior fellow at the Century Foundation.
