Did Norway evacuate a student from Harvard ahead of commencement? What we know
'Meanwhile at Harvard…Norway has evacuated a student from Harvard,' one person wrote on X, platform formerly known as Twitter. The X post had amassed more than 800,000 views as of this writing.
Read More: Who is Francesca Gino? Harvard fires star professor with $1 million salary after data fraud allegations
"Norway just evacuated a student from Harvard—not a war zone, but an American university. As someone who now resides in Sweden, I find it hauntingly symbolic. The "land of the free" was never truly free—just expertly packaged. When Nordic countries start extracting their citizens from Ivy League campuses for safety, it's not just a red flag. It's a siren," the post on Threads read.
The rumor began with a May 23, 2025, report by Khrono, a Norwegian higher education news outlet, stating that the Aker Scholarship, a foundation sponsoring Norwegian students for advanced degrees abroad, had called one of its students from Harvard.
The unidentified student, as per the report, arrived in Oslo on May 23, 2025. Bjørn Blindheim, CEO of Aker Scholarship, cited concerns over the student's visa status after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced on May 22, 2025, that Harvard's SEVP certification was terminated.
Read More: Harvard to urge judge to extend block on Trump's effort to bar foreign students
The evacuation was a preemptive action by Aker Scholarship due to visa uncertainties, not safety threats. Blindheim told Khrono he called an emergency meeting on May 22, fearing the student could face detention or legal issues if Harvard's SEVP status wasn't restored.
The DHS directive, announced without prior notice, advised international students to transfer or face visa revocation. Aker opted to fly the student back immediately, landing in Oslo on May 23, 2025.
Blindheim expressed worry that the situation 'could get out of control,' referring to legal risks, not campus safety.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
14 minutes ago
- Economic Times
‘It's just unbelievable': Jimmy Kimmel to leave US? Comedian startling relocation hint shocks fans
Synopsis Jimmy Kimmel has obtained Italian citizenship and is considering relocating to Europe due to his concerns about Donald Trump's potential return to power. This comes after Trump publicly stated that Kimmel, along with Jimmy Fallon, would be the next late-night hosts to lose their jobs, following Stephen Colbert's show cancellation. Earlier this month, Trump doubled down on Jimmy Kimmel that would be 'next' to be canceled during a press conference Jimmy Kimmel has revealed he has got an Italian citizenship and has hinted at a possible re-location to Europe because he is scared of President Donald Trump. 'I did get Italian citizenship,' Kimmel shared on The Sarah Silverman Podcast Aug. 7. 'I do have that.' And his reasoning? 'What's going on is as bad as you thought it was gonna be.'The 57-year-old late night American television host and comedian revealed he is seriously thinking about leaving the United States. Sarah Silverman noted that several outspoken Trump critics have already left the country. 'What's going on is … as bad as you thought it was gonna be, it's so much worse. It's just unbelievable. I feel like it's probably even worse than [Trump] would like it to be,' Kimmel responded. ALSO READ: DOGE price forms golden cross for the first time since Nov 2024. Could a massive 300% surge be next? Jimmy Kimmel has revealed that he recently obtained Italian citizenship and is considering moving to Europe because he is scared of Trump. His remarks came days after Trump said he and his fellow late-night host Jimmy Fallon would be next to lose their jobs following the cancellation of Stephen Colbert's CBS added that he had no hard feelings toward former MAGA supporters who are now doing a 180 on their political stance. 'There are a lot of people … now you see these clips of Joe Rogan saying, 'Why's he doing this? He shouldn't be deporting people.' People go, 'F–k you, you supported him.' I don't buy into that. I don't believe 'F–k you, you supported him,' ' he said, referring to the podcaster speaking out against Trump's deportation policy after having supported the commander-in-chief in previous elections.'I think the door needs to stay open. If you want to change your mind, that's so hard to do. If you want to admit you were wrong, that's so hard and so rare to do. You are welcome.' ALSO READ: Seven simple brain exercises to lower your dementia risk Earlier this month, Trump doubled down on Jimmy Kimmel that would be 'next' to be canceled during a press conference. Trump cited CBS' recent cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' as an example and added that he believes Jimmy Fallon and Kimmel are next.'Well, it hasn't worked,' Trump said. 'And it hasn't worked, really, for a long time, and I would say pretty much from the beginning. Colbert has no talent. I mean, I could take anybody here. I could go outside in the beautiful streets and pick a couple of people that do just as well or better. They'd get higher ratings than he did. He's got no talent.'ALSO READ: Millions of US citizens to receive $1,390 stimulus soon? Check if you qualify and when to expect it He continued, 'Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They're next. They're going to be going. I hear they're going to be going. I don't know, but I would imagine because they'd get—you know, Colbert has better ratings than Kimmel or Fallon.'Trump made a similar declaration on Truth Social after Colbert's show was canceled last month.'The word is, and it's a strong word at that, Jimmy Kimmel is NEXT to go in the untalented Late Night Sweepstakes and, shortly thereafter, Fallon will be gone,' Trump continued, 'These are people with absolutely NO TALENT, who were paid Millions of Dollars for, in all cases, destroying what used to be GREAT Television. It's really good to see them go, and I hope I played a major part in it!'
The Wire
17 minutes ago
- The Wire
The Liberal International Order: From Wilsonian Internationalist Racism to Trump's Anti-Globalist Racism
Inderjeet Parmar By framing globalisation as detrimental to American workers, Trump cynically exploits domestic workers' discontent while preserving the core of U.S. elite power. US President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. Photo: AP/PTI There is a widespread feeling and even considered view that US President Donald Trump is an aberration, an outlier, possibly crazy. He is seen by many as outside the American tradition, an exception within an exceptional national. But appearances are deceptive. The roots of Trumpism lie in the very American system and international order – rooted in the presidency of the liberal Woodrow Wilson in World War I – he claims to abhor. That's why under Trump, America is only recalibrating its attitude to that order, not rejecting it, and preparing to coercively confront the tides of change wherever they arise. There's a particularly moving scene in the movie Gandhi (1982). In it, an American journalist who witnesses British colonial violence against peaceful protestors, breathlessly phoned in to his news desk that, 'Whatever moral ascendancy the West once held was lost here today. India is free, for she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give and she has neither cringed nor retreated.' That West has changed in many ways – its stewardship passed from Britain to the United States. It evolved from direct colonialism to imperialism by another name (a liberal international order). But it remains violent and hierarchical. However, the liberal international order (LIO) and Western moral authority are (once again) withering away before the world's eyes. Nowhere more is this evident than in backing Israel's illegal war of genocidal terror in Gaza. But it is hardly the first time that the most modern weapons known to humankind have been turned onto peoples of the Global South. History is littered with millions of black and brown bodies. Despite that, the LIO is often heralded as a rules-based system promoting democracy, free markets, and global cooperation. But in practice it is, and always was, a widely contested construct – at home and internationally – rooted in the interplay of ideology, power, hierarchy and exclusion. Wilsonianism and Trumpism are but two complementary faces of American power that still leads the international system. Roots of Trumpism at the creation Its origins lie in the early 20th century, particularly in the vision of US President Woodrow Wilson, whose internationalism was deeply imbued with class and racial hierarchies. Wilson was considered a progressive intellectual. He went on to become President of Princeton University, elected Governor of New Jersey, before entering the White House in 1913 and serving two consecutive terms. A progressive liberal, Wilson carried out a sustained policy of racial re-segregation of the federal government. His administration demoted or fired thousands of Black federal workers. It racially segregated offices, restrooms, entrances to buildings, setting back Black rights and reversing gains after the American civil war (1861-65). Wilson's tenure could hardly have been otherwise given the founding principles of the United States, and the reconstruction of de facto and de jure racial hierarchies after the civil war. By 1896, the US Supreme Court had sealed the deal with its 'separate but equal' ruling in Plessey vs Ferguson that cemented the constitutionality of racial segregation that lasted for over six decades. Today, this hierarchical order is sustained, albeit in a transformed guise, through the anti-globalist rhetoric and policies of Trumpism. The liberal international order, built on Wilsonian racist internationalism, has been reconfigured by Trumpist anti-globalism which reinforces American hegemony through white-superiority driven nationalism and selective global engagement. The conclusion from this is bleak: the United States has turned its back on racial and gender equality, civil and workers' rights as it dismantles federal programmes. And it is evident that the US and its Western allies are not ready to accept that the world is moving towards multipolarity, and are willing to fight to maintain their dominance in world politics. Hence, western militarisation is intensifying in an era the US has declared as one marked by the 'return of geopolitical competition'. Prior to that era, the West had the field pretty much to themselves. That's called order. This is not history repeating itself first as tragedy and later as farce; it remains tragic, dangerous and deadly. It may be withering but the liberal international order and its American guarantor are far from dead. Wilsonian internationalism and its racial underpinnings Woodrow Wilson's vision for a new world order, articulated during and after World War I, laid the ideological and institutional foundations for the liberal international order. His 'Fourteen Points' and advocacy for the League of Nations promised self-determination, collective security, and global governance. However, Wilson's internationalism was not a universalist project but one steeped in classist (anti-communist), racial and civilizational hierarchies. Wilson's belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority and domestic policies – such as the resegregation of federal offices – reflected a worldview that prioritized white, Western dominance. Wilson's internationalism was inherently exclusionary. His concept of self-determination was selectively applied, largely reserved for European nations while denying colonised peoples in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean the same rights. The League of Nations, while ostensibly a global institution, was dominated by Western powers, with non-white nations marginalised or excluded. Japan's attempts to insert a racial equality clause into the League's charter was rejected, Pan-Africanists and other anti-colonialists, ignored. Wilson's vision aligned with the broader imperialist framework of the time, where the United States, as an emerging power, sought to reshape the world in its image – white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, capitalist. This racialised internationalism was not an aberration but a foundational feature of the liberal international order, embedding hierarchies of race and power into its institutions and norms. It continues to this day. The liberal international order, as it evolved through the 20th century, reflected and institutionalised these hierarchies. The creation of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system (the IMF and World Bank), and NATO reflected American leadership but also perpetuated a system where Western dominance was normalised. These institutions, while promoting liberal values like free trade and 'democracy', served American strategic and economic interests, marginalising non-Western voices and reinforcing global inequalities. The Wilsonian legacy, therefore, was not merely the spread of liberal ideals but the construction of a global order that upheld American hegemony under the guise of universalism. Trumpism and the anti-globalist turn The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a seeming rupture in the liberal international order. Trump's 'America First' doctrine, with its rejection of multilateralism, disdain for international institutions, and emphasis on national sovereignty, appeared to challenge the very foundations of the order Wilson helped establish. His withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, and his criticism of NATO and the World Trade Organisation signalled a retreat from global leadership. Yet, a closer examination reveals that Trumpist anti-globalism does not dismantle the liberal international order but reconfigures it to serve American interests in a new geopolitical and geoeconomic context. Trump's anti-globalism is less a rejection of American hegemony than a reassertion of it through nationalist means. His policies have imposed tariffs on China, the EU, UK, Israel, among others, and weaponised all aspects of US power. They reflect a desire to maintain American economic dominance in an era of multiple rising and competing powers, not just China. By framing globalisation as detrimental to American workers, Trump cynically exploits domestic workers' discontent while preserving the core of U.S. elite power: its ability to shape and profit from global economic and security arrangements. His administration's focus on 'fair trade' and 'energy dominance' ensures that the United States remains a central player in global markets, even as it eschews multilateral frameworks. Moreover, Trump's foreign policy retains key elements of the liberal international order, particularly its militarised and hierarchical nature. His administrations increased defence spending, strengthened alliances with authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia, and maintained U.S. military presence in strategic regions. The 'Indo-Pacific strategy' aimed at countering China's rise is a continuation of (Obama-era) efforts to contain rival powers, a hallmark of the liberal international order since its inception. Thus, Trumpism's anti-globalist rhetoric masks a deeper continuity: the preservation of American primacy through selective weaponised engagement with the world. The paradox of continuity and change The transition from Wilsonian internationalism to Trumpist anti-globalism reveals a paradoxical dynamic, maybe even a secret, at the heart of the liberal international order: its adaptability to different ideological guises while maintaining American dominance. Wilson's vision, rooted in racial hierarchies, established a system where liberal ideals were selectively applied to serve U.S. interests. Trump's anti-globalism, while rhetorically opposed to Wilson's multilateralism, reinforces this system by prioritising American sovereignty and economic power. Recall that it was Wilson who first used 'America First' as his clarion call in World War I. Both Wilson's and Trump's approaches, though seemingly divergent, share a common thread: the use of ideology to legitimise American hegemony. America First, Forever. This continuity is evident in the role of elites in shaping both eras. Wilson's internationalism was driven by a cosmopolitan elite—academics, policymakers, and business leaders—who saw American leadership as essential to global stability. Trump's anti-globalism, while populist in tone, was similarly supported by a coalition of corporate elites, military-industrial interests, and nationalist ideologues who benefited from tax cuts and deregulation. My own research on American power emphasises the role of elite networks in sustaining hegemony, and Trump's era is no exception. The liberal international order, whether under Wilson's idealist garb or Trump's shrill nationalism, remains a project of elite power, adapting to domestic and global shifts while preserving U.S. dominance. Conclusion: A resilient but contested order The liberal international order, built on Wilson's (and the West's) racially-charged internationalism, has proven remarkably resilient, adapting to the challenges of Trumpist anti-globalism. While Wilson's vision embedded racial and civilisational hierarchies into the global system, Trump's policies have reoriented it toward overt nationalism without dismantling its core structures. Both approaches, in their own way, uphold American hegemony, revealing the order's flexibility in accommodating ideological shifts while maintaining power hierarchies. Yet, this resilience comes at a cost. The liberal international order faces growing challenges from rising powers, domestic discontent, and demands for greater inclusivity. The racial underpinnings of Wilson's vision continue to haunt the order, as marginalised nations and peoples question its legitimacy. Similarly, Trump's anti-globalism, while appealing to some domestic audiences, risks alienating allies and undermining the multilateral frameworks that have sustained American power. Understanding the liberal international order requires recognising its contradictions: a system that promotes universal values while perpetuating exclusion and domination. Its future depends not on ideological purity but on its ability to navigate the tensions between global ambition, nationalist retrenchment, domestic resistance, and increasing multipolarity in world politics and economy—challenges that Wilson's heirs and Trump's successors must confront. And they believe in and are preparing for massive and sustained coercive confrontation, everywhere. Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George's, University of London, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and powers of the US foreign policy establishment. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Advertisement
News18
26 minutes ago
- News18
UFC Fight At The White House? 'It's Absolutely Going To Happen'
Last Updated: USA President Donald Trump has already expressed his desire to stage a UFC match on the White House grounds Hours after Paramount and UFC announced a billion-dollar rights deal, Dana White mentioned he hadn't yet heard from his friend, President Donald Trump, regarding the fight company's new streaming home. White was unfazed by this. The UFC CEO planned to travel to Washington on August 28 to meet with Trump and his daughter, Ivanka, to catch up and discuss logistics for the proposed Fourth of July fight card next year at the White House. Last month, Trump expressed his desire to stage a UFC match on the White House grounds, attracting upwards of 20,000 spectators to celebrate 250 years of American independence. 'It's absolutely going to happen," White told The Associated Press. 'Think about that, the 250th birthday of the United States of America, the UFC will be on the White House south lawn live on CBS." The idea of cage fights at the White House seemed improbable when the Fertitta brothers bought UFC for $2 million in 2001 and appointed White to run the fledgling fight promotion. White guided the company to a $4 billion sale in 2016 and secured broadcast rights deals with Fox and ESPN before achieving TKO Group's richest deal yet — a seven-year agreement with Paramount starting in 2026, worth an average of $1.1 billion a year. All events will be on its streaming platform Paramount+, with select numbered events also simulcast on CBS. Although ESPN, Amazon, Netflix, and other traditional sports broadcasters were considered for UFC rights — with White hinting at fights across various platforms — Paramount was a serious contender from the start. The Paramount and UFC deal followed just days after Skydance and Paramount concluded their $8 billion merger, kicking off a new entertainment giant. White was impressed with Skydance CEO David Ellison's vision for the global MMA leader early in contract talks, anticipating growth with Ellison now as chairman and CEO of Paramount. 'When you talk about Paramount, you talk about David Ellison, they're brilliant businessmen, very aggressive, risk-takers," White said. 'They're right up my alley. These are the kind of guys that I like to be in business with." The $1.1 billion deal marks a significant increase from the approximately $550 million ESPN paid annually for UFC coverage. UFC's new home on Paramount will simplify offerings for fans, with all content available on Paramount+ (currently costing between $7.99 and $12.99 a month), eliminating various pay-per-view fees. Paramount also plans to explore UFC rights outside the U.S. 'as they become available in the future." UFC matchmakers were scheduled to meet this week to shape what White said would be a loaded debut Paramount card. The UFC boss noted it was still too early to discuss a potential main event for the White House fight night. 'This is a 1-of-1 event," White said. There are still some moving parts to UFC broadcasts and other television programming as the company transitions into the Paramount era. White mentioned that includes potentially finding new homes for 'The Ultimate Fighter," 'Road To UFC," and 'Dana White's Contender Series." The traditional 10 p.m. start time for previous pay-per-view events is not necessarily fixed, especially on nights when cards also air on CBS. 'We haven't figured that out yet but we will," White said. Regarding the issue of fighter pay, some established fighters have clauses in their contracts that increase their earnings with higher buyrates. Most of these issues remain to be determined as UFC and Paramount settle into the new deal, with $1.1 billion headed the fight company's way. 'It will affect fighter pay, big time," White said. 'From deal-to-deal, fighter pay has grown, too. Every time we win, everybody wins." Boxer Jake Paul wrote on social media that the declining PPV model should give fighters a better understanding of their worth. 'Every fighter in the UFC now has a clear picture of what the revenue is… no more PPV excuses," Paul wrote. 'Get your worth boys and girls." White dismissed the notion that the traditional PPV model is dead. There are still UFC cards on pay-per-view through the end of the ESPN contract, and White and Saudi Arabia have partnered to launch a new boxing venture next year, potentially using a PPV home. White is also part of the promotional team for the Canelo Álvarez and Terence Crawford fight in September in Las Vegas, airing on Netflix. 'It's definitely not run its course," White said. 'There were guys out there who were interested in pay-per-view, and there were guys out there that weren't. Wherever we ended up, that's what we're going to roll with." White mentioned that UFC archival footage 'kills it" in repeat views, and those classic bouts needed a new home once the ESPN deal expires. Just when it seems there's little left for UFC to conquer, White insists there's always more. Why stop at becoming the biggest fight game in the world? Why not aim to become the top sport globally in terms of popularity and revenue? 'You have the NFL, the NBA, the UFC, and soccer globally," White said. 'We're coming. We're coming for all of them." With AP Inputs About the Author Feroz Khan Feroz Khan has been covering sports for over 12 years now and is currently working with Network18 as Principal Correspondent. He embarked on his journey in 2011 and has since acquired vast experience in More Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. News18 Sports brings you the latest updates, live commentary, and highlights from cricket, football, tennis, badmintion, wwe and more. Catch breaking news, live scores, and in-depth coverage. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Dana White donald trump Paramount ufc Ultimate Fighting Championship White House view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 13, 2025, 17:16 IST News sports UFC Fight At The White House? 'It's Absolutely Going To Happen' Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
