
Here's how dependent each UC campus is on international students
With tens of thousands of students from other countries studying at University of California campuses, UC officials say they are 'very concerned' about President Donald Trump's targeting of international enrollment, which could put a dent in colleges' budgets, slow research and harm the state economy.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the Trump administration will 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students.' Also this week, Trump paused new student visa interviews, and he dangled the idea of a 15% cap on international enrollment.
About 41,000 international students study at UC's 10 campuses, about 13% of systemwide enrollment. Nearly a third of UC graduate students, 31%, are from another country, while 9% of undergraduates are from outside the U.S. China accounts for the greatest share of international students at UC by far — 43%.
'Our international students and scholars are vital members of our university community and contribute greatly to our research, teaching, patient care and public service mission,' the university said in a statement.
Officials at major private universities in California expressed concern as well. At Stanford, where ratios of international students are similar to UC's, President Jonathan Levin said it was 'self-defeating to send away young people with so much potential to contribute to the country.'
A spokesperson for Caltech, where international students include 14% of undergraduates and 47% of graduate students, credited 'foreign talent' with helping American innovators develop 'extraordinary new advances,' from AI, to smartphones, personal computing and sequencing the human genome.
Trump's actions 'undermine the stability of our country's research, education and innovation enterprise, a system that has ensured U.S. leadership and global competitiveness in the advancement of science, the development of new technologies and the prosperity of our communities,' said Caltech spokesperson Shayna Chabner.
The Trump administration's efforts to reduce the presence of international students is part of an 'America first' policy, Rubio said, adding that the restrictions will focus especially on students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.'
He did not say how the administration would determine which students have connections with the Chinese government or what fields are considered critical.
But the crackdown is already causing deep concern among international students and those hoping to study in the U.S.
Roughly 1.1 million international students study at U.S. universities — 6.6% of college students, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's ' Study in the States ' webpage. International enrollment increased by a record 7% last year, according to the Open Doors report cited by the department.
International students don't qualify for federal student aid, so the vast majority pay full tuition. That's a lucrative source of revenue for many universities, especially UC campuses, where taxpayers and the university help subsidize the tuition of state residents. Nonresidents pay three times the in-state rate. But the research university system says it also depends upon foreign students for a robust exchange of ideas — academic and cultural.
'The University of California is very concerned about the U.S. State Department's action to pause new interview appointments for applicants for student and exchange visas and the direct impact it will have on our international students, scholars and faculty,' UC officials said through a spokesperson.
Sharply reducing the flow of international students is Trump's latest attempt to wrest control of American universities, which he and his allies see as centers of liberal bias. Last year's widespread campus protests against the war in Gaza helped to fuel a claim of systemic antisemitism on campuses. His administration is investigating numerous universities, including UC campuses, seeking evidence to bolster that idea.
Trump has also unsuccessfully tried to revoke existing student visas. A Bay Area federal judge blocked that effort last week.
Trump has aimed much of his ire at Harvard — including by trying to block new international students from enrolling there — after Harvard's President Alan Garber rebuffed his attempt to take over decision-making powers there last month. Harvard sued twice and won a temporary restraining order. On Thursday, a federal judge extended the order.
Now Trump has turned the effort to campuses everywhere. At the White House on Wednesday, he said that American students 'can't get in' to universities 'because we have foreign students there' that take their slots, Bloomberg reported. Trump then suggested that international students should be capped at 15%.
'How did he come up with that number?' asked Shaun Harper, a professor at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education.
As for international students crowding out U.S. students, 'if that were a problem, I certainly would know,' said Harper, a past president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. 'It's only suddenly a big problem because Donald Trump has declared it so, as part of his larger war on Harvard University.'
Citing college enrollment numbers at the U.S. Department of Education's data site, Harper noted that Harvard's enrollment of foreign students sits at 14% of undergraduates, while schools typically enroll a smaller ratio than that, including UC Berkeley's 12%. At Stanford, 16% of undergraduates are international students.
John Aubrey Douglass, senior research fellow at UC Berkeley's Center for Studies in Higher Education, called the halt on international students 'shortsighted and vindictive.'
'We are witnessing an unraveling of a century of a partnership between the federal government and universities and colleges that helped build the world's premier mass higher education system built in part on attracting talent internationally,' he said.
In 2017, UC imposed a cap on undergraduate non-state residents, including international students, as it faced a backlash by students and lawmakers who said the university was admitting increasing numbers of nonresidents — who pay full price — at the expense of many Californians.
Douglass said this is how the process is supposed to work.
'Let the states decide,' he said. 'And allow independent private schools to make their own enrollment decisions.'
On Wednesday, the nonprofit Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration said that international students contributed nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy last year, and supported over 378,000 jobs.
The new crackdown on international students is part of a 'growing climate of fear, volatility, and uncertainty' in the country, the group said in a statement, as it urged the Trump administration to reverse its decision.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A federal judge delivered a beatdown to the Trump administration, in support of WilmerHale. Here's how.
Welch would be pleased to see the beatdown that Judge Richard Leon delivered against the administration last week — and not just because Leon ruled in favor of Welch's old firm. Welch would also appreciate the emphatic tone of Leon's message, with more than 20 exclamation points across a 73-page order. Advertisement It's and its roughly 2,400 employees that hangs in the balance. The fundamentals of the country's entire legal system could be at risk. In recent months, President Trump issued several executive orders threatening prominent law firms because of their work on behalf of immigrants and elections reform, or for hiring a lawyer or two deemed an enemy by the president, among other supposed sins. In Trump's threats Advertisement Nine Big Law firms quickly caved, settling with Trump and agreeing to provide legal services to causes blessed by the president, worth around $1 billion in total. Dozens more have stayed quiet, on the sidelines. But four firms in Trump's crosshairs chose to fight. And it has not gone well for the president. With Leon's vigorous torpedoing of Trump's executive order against WilmerHale on the books, the administration's record is now 0-3 against Big Law in the courts — with the fate of Here are a few things to know about Judge Leon. He often wears a bow tie, a sartorial choice much less common now than in Welch's day. Leon is a Natick native, went to college appointed him to the bench. He has a bit of a reputation for He did not disappoint, on any of these counts, with his May 27 decision. Right at the outset, Leon explained why he was striking down the entirety of Trump's WilmerHale order as unconstitutional. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases,' Leon wrote. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' Advertisement On the administration's assertion that WilmerHale's financial injuries are speculative in nature, Leon said: 'Please — that dog won't hunt!" On whether Trump's order improperly infringes on WilmerHale's freedom of speech: 'The Order goes on to impose a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!' And on whether the order violates the rights of WilmerHale clients to pick their counsel: 'The intended and actual effect of the Order's sanctions is to drive away clients from WilmerHale!' Then there was the tasty footnote on page 14, in which Leon describes Trump's March 27 executive order against WilmerHale as akin to a gumbo, in which all the ingredients should be considered together as one dish. 'As explained in this Memorandum Opinion,' Leon concludes, 'this gumbo gives the court heartburn.' Tell us how you really feel, Judge Leon! Both sides were far more subdued when asked for comment. After all, Leon's decision could still be appealed. WilmerHale offered a brief statement, sans exclamation points, saying the decision 'strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.' Meanwhile, Trump is a fan of explanation points, judging by his social media posts. But White House spokesman Harrison Fields opted against using one. Instead, he focused on one aspect of the case involving Trump's attempt to revoke WilmerHale's security clearances: 'The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President. Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority.' Advertisement As president of the Mass. Bar Association, Victoria Santoro has been rallying the state's law groups to protest Trump's executive-order barrage. She notes that judges of all political backgrounds and jurisdictions have blocked a wide range of Trump's executive orders, not just those involving the legal profession. To Santoro, the trend speaks to Trump's excessive and unconstitutional use of EOs. But will law firms feel safe from future Trump attacks, free to take on clients and causes unpopular with the president, or a lawyer with ties to his enemies? Maybe not. Boston College law professor Cheryl Bratt calls Leon's decision necessary, but she's not sure if it's sufficient. Translation: It will probably take more than one judge's opinion, or even three, to give law firms the comfort to know they won't end up on Trump's hit list. The reluctance is understandable. The harm is real: Some clients were already starting to reconsider WilmerHale, for example, and two of its lawyers had their security clearances suspended. Bratt incorporated the Trump vs. Big Law saga into her classes this spring; one way to talk about the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution is to show how they can get threatened in real time. As a WilmerHale alum, Bratt paid particular attention. The legacy of Joseph Welch looms large there; she was told about Welch's stand against McCarthyism during her employee orientation, and the firm's website recounts that history with pride. WilmerHale's current fight, led by Advertisement As granddaughter Nancy Welch watches the WilmerHale-Trump fight play out from her Maryland home, she is reminded of a lesson that Welch passed along to her family: He saw the rule of law, delivered fairly and without favor, as the single most powerful antidote to fear. It was a fearful time in the 1950s for the country, she said in an email, like it is right now. It's a safe bet Joseph Welch would be proud to read Leon's decision — and so, one imagines, would the Founding Fathers! Jon Chesto can be reached at


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk says he doesn't ‘wanna take responsibility' for all Trump actions
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose time as a special government employee came to an end on Friday, said in a Sunday interview that he doesn't want to 'take responsibility' for all actions of the Trump administration. In an interview on CBS News 'Sunday Morning,' Musk said he disagrees with some moves President Trump has made, though he hesitated to discuss them in more detail, saying that might create 'a bone of contention.' 'It's not like I agree with everything the administration does,' Musk said in the interview. 'I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion. You know, there are things that I don't entirely agree with.' 'But it's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention,' Musk continued. 'So then, I'm a little stuck in a bind, where I'm like, 'Well, I don't wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don't wanna take responsibility for everything this administration's doing,'' he added. Musk made sweeping changes through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over the last few months. He has said he will continue to advise the president when asked, even though his official role as senior adviser to the president has come to an end. In the interview, Musk stood by the work of DOGE and his efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce and cut what he deemed wasteful or unnecessary government spending. But he said DOGE 'became the whipping boy for everything,' which Musk described as 'a bit unfair.' 'So if there was some cut, real or imagined, everyone would blame DOGE,' Musk said. 'I've had people think that, like, somehow DOGE is gonna stop them from getting their Social Security check, which is completely untrue.'


The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Main Street deserves access to private markets
On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to revive the American economy and deliver greater opportunity for working families: to create 'a middle class that is once again the envy of the entire world.' Making that pledge a reality starts with tax cuts and deregulation but doesn't end there. It will require policymakers to reconsider who has access to wealth-building opportunities. Unfortunately, far too many Americans lack the tools available to the wealthy. More Americans deserve the opportunity to invest in private markets, and that's something Trump's administration can provide. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a unique opportunity to help level the playing field. It has been more than 30 years since the agency reviewed the regulatory framework for retail funds created by the Investment Company Act of 1940. By modernizing these outdated rules and expanding access to private markets, the Securities and Exchange Commission can help put Main Street investors back on equal footing with Wall Street and big corporations. Over the last decade, private markets have exploded, growing to around $25 trillion since 2012. Big institutions like pension funds, endowments and hedge funds have long used these investments to earn higher returns than what's available in the stock market. But for everyday Americans? This opportunity to invest is largely off limits. Outdated regulations are primarily to blame. They assume retail investors can't handle the risks of private markets. In reality, institutional fund managers already invest responsibly in private markets on behalf of workers like teachers and police officers. Like any investment, private markets require proper safeguards. But with the right protections in place, there's no reason similar access couldn't be extended to individual investors. This is where the Securities and Exchange Commission can step in. Consider the current restriction that prevents closed-end funds from allocating more than 15 percent of their assets to private funds. This artificial cap locks Main Street investors out of opportunities their pension funds already enjoy. Removing or relaxing this limit — while maintaining proper oversight — would be a good first step toward giving Main Street access to wealth-building opportunities readily available to Wall Street. Closed-end funds are uniquely positioned for private investments, but because closed-end funds often trade a discount to their net asset value, short term arbitrageurs often seek to 'open' fund to capture the spread between traded value and asset value. Such activists seek to profit at the expense of long-term investors. It would help to design governance structures and legal frameworks that ensure the stability funds need to focus on long-term value. This is not to suggest we shouldn't have responsive governance and transparency for all investors, but we should encourage and enable long-term thinking and investing. These common-sense reforms are necessary to remove the barriers that have left the middle class locked out of a key financial tool. We should update old rules to reflect today's economy and empower more Americans to build wealth in the same way institutions and the wealthy already do. If the Trump administration wants not only to support but also to build up the middle class, the solution goes beyond creating good jobs and stimulating economic growth. It will also involve expanding access to the financial opportunities that create long-term wealth. It's time to finally level the playing field and make private markets available to everyone. Vikram Mansharamani, chairman and CEO of Goodwell Foods, is a former lecturer at Harvard and Yale and has served on the boards of closed-end funds, publicly-traded companies, and start-up technology firms.