Trump bid to ban foreign Harvard students temporarily blocked by judge
Mr Trump's proclamation, issued on Wednesday, was the latest attempt by his administration to prevent the nation's oldest and wealthiest college from enrolling a quarter of its students, who account for much of Harvard's research and scholarship.
Harvard filed a legal challenge the next day, asking for a judge to block Mr Trump's order and calling it illegal retaliation for Harvard's rejection of White House demands. Harvard said the president was attempting an end-run around a previous court order.
A few hours later, US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued a temporary restraining order against Mr Trump's Wednesday proclamation.
Harvard, she said, had demonstrated it would sustain 'immediate and irreparable injury' before she would have an opportunity to hear from the parties in the lawsuit.
Ms Burroughs also extended the temporary hold she placed on the administration's previous attempt to end Harvard's enrolment of international students.
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork to them for their visas, only to have Ms Burroughs block the action temporarily. Mr Trump's order this week invoked a different legal authority.
If Mr Trump's measure were to survive this court challenge, it would block thousands of students who are scheduled to come to Harvard's campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for the summer and autumn terms.
'Harvard's more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation,' Harvard wrote in a court filing on Thursday.
While the court case proceeds, Harvard is making contingency plans so students and visiting scholars can continue their work at the university, president Alan Garber said in a message to the campus and alumni.
'Each of us is part of a truly global university community,' Mr Garber said on Thursday. 'We know that the benefits of bringing talented people together from around the world are unique and irreplaceable.'
Harvard has attracted a growing number of the brightest minds from around the world, with international enrolment growing from 11% of the student body three decades ago to 26% today.
Rising international enrolment has made Harvard and other elite colleges uniquely vulnerable to Mr Trump's crackdown on foreign students.
Republicans have been seeking to force overhauls of the nation's top colleges, which they see as hotbeds of 'woke' and antisemitic viewpoints.
Mr Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles', even after receiving federal ultimatums.
Mr Trump's administration has also taken steps to withhold federal funding from Harvard and other elite colleges that have rejected White House demands related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more.
Harvard's 53 billion dollar (£39 billion) endowment allows it to weather the loss of funding for a time, although Mr Garber has warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' to come.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
39 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump is free to bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces' and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The White House and a lawyer for the Associated Press did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with 'any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy.' The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. 'The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
13 House Republicans urge Senate to scale back clean energy cuts in bill they voted for
WASHINGTON — Thirteen House Republicans who voted for President Donald Trump's " big, beautiful bill" sent a letter Friday urging Senate GOP leaders to scale back some of its clean energy cuts, sparking pushback from conservative hardliners. The unusual criticism of their own bill indicates a modicum of regret by the GOP lawmakers, whose votes were critical to the bill passing the House by a narrow margin last month. 'While we were proud to have worked to ensure that the bill did not include a full repeal of the clean energy tax credits, we remain deeply concerned by several provisions,' said the Republicans in the letter, led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va. They cited provisions that 'abruptly terminate several credits just 60 days after enactment for projects that have not yet begun construction,' and 'restrictions to transferability.' 'This approach jeopardizes ongoing development, discourages long-term investment, and could significantly delay or cancel energy infrastructure projects across the country,' the group of House Republicans said in criticizing the legislation they voted for, while suggesting some changes to 'mitigate' the harm it could cause. Kiggans, like most of the signatories, represents a competitive district that Democrats are targeting in the 2026 election. Other politically vulnerable members include: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Don Bacon, R-Neb.; Gabe Evans, R-Colo.; Young Kim, R-Calif.; David Valadao, R-Calif.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; and Tom Kean, R-N.J. The remaining three, who sit comparably safer seats, are Reps. Mark Amodei, R-Nev.; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; and Nick LaLota, R-N.Y. The 13 Republicans warned that 'the House-passed bill includes a phase out schedule for credits that would cause significant disruption to projects under development and stop investments needed to win the global energy race.' The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mocked the letter and said the lawmakers will own their votes for the bill. 'These 13 Republicans promised not to support cuts to clean energy tax credits, then cast the deciding votes to raise energy costs on American families, kill tens of thousands of jobs, and undermine our nation's energy security. They are responsible for this Big, Ugly Bill and all the harm it will cause,' DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said. 'This toothless letter is the worst kind of political hypocrisy and voters will see it for what it is, a lie perpetrated by endangered House Republicans who caved to their D.C. party bosses at the expense of the American people.' Kiggans' office did not immediately return a request for comment on whether she was aware of the provisions when supporting the bill, or if she'd vote for one that falls short of her new demands. Senate Republicans are eying changes to the House bill to ease some of the negative impacts of the funding cuts. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told NBC News her version of the bill will probably relax some of the deadlines to cut off funding. But she said Thursday that there probably won't be massive changes to the House-passed bill. 'I imagine it's going to track fairly similarly, but I think some of the deadlines are pretty tight in terms of when you have to have construction and those things,' Capito said. 'We've been approached by several employers who need some of those tax.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he's willing to undo some of the clean energy funding, but he wants to make sure that existing business investments aren't harmed by the bill. 'What we're trying to focus on is to make sure that if businesses have invested and have projects in progress, that we do everything we can to hold them harmless,' he said. 'Whether or not we continue some of these programs out into the future — that's a separate question that I'm willing to entertain.' Meanwhile, the conservative group Club For Growth is running ads targeting Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., John Curtis, R-Utah, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, for backing more modest rollbacks of the clean energy funding, which carries benefits for their states. There's another reason changing the bill is easier said than done: The speedy cuts to clean energy funding under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act were part of an House agreement to win the votes of conservative hardliners who want to reduce the bill's red ink. House Republicans have a majority of 220 to 212, meaning they can only spare three 'no' votes in their ranks to pass the bill when the Senate sends back their revised version. 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said Friday on the House floor. 'So you do what you want to do in the Senate, House of Lords, have your fun. But if you mess up the Inflation Reduction Act, Green New Scam subsidies, I ain't voting for that bill.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
What comes next in the Trump-Musk feud: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Kristen Welker dives into what comes next in the breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Plus, our Capitol Hill team examines the senators who could make or break Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And Shannon Pettypiece answers this week's reader question on the U.S.-China trade war. Before we dive into all that, two bits of breaking news this Friday afternoon: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose erroneous deportation to El Salvador gave way to a protracted battle over due process, has been returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. The Supreme Court allowed members of the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. — Adam Wollner What's next in the feud between Trump and Musk? By Kristen Welker The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump erupted yesterday in an epic clash between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful man — and it's not clear yet where the confrontation will go next. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles told me this morning that there are 'no plans' for a phone call between Trump and Musk today, despite at least one report that it was a possibility. But just because there's nothing on the books doesn't mean the two men won't have an impromptu call. After all, Trump has a personal cellphone where he often talks to everyone from world leaders to reporters. And one administration official told me anything can happen, and they'd like to 'de-escalate a very unfortunate situation.' While the White House may be looking to turn down the temperature, some of the president's allies were quick to go after Musk. Steve Bannon, a former Trump White House adviser, told me the president should 'pull every contract associated with Elon Musk' and start major investigations 'immediately.' Bannon also said, 'Thus spake the ketamine,' in a sign that some of Trump's allies are zeroing in on Musk's alleged drug use. (Musk has said he took ketamine to treat depression.) At stake in all of this is the future of Trump's signature legislation, which includes tax cut extensions, an elimination of tax on tips and overtime, and cuts and changes to federal programs including Medicaid and food stamps. Musk has trashed the 'big, beautiful bill,' arguing that it would balloon the country's debt. Sources from the White House and on Capitol Hill have told me that while Musk's opposition might embolden Republican senators who are already opposed to the measure, Musk is not flipping any more votes to the 'no' column at this point. I'm also told that if these senators had to choose between Trump and Musk, they'd choose Trump every time. We'll talk more about the next steps for Trump's domestic policy bill on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday, with exclusive interviews with Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla. and Cory Booker, D-N.J. Behind the scenes: Trump's team is taking the feud seriously: White House aides scrambled into at least two closed-door meetings Thursday to strategize about whether and how to respond to Musk's social media barrage. Vice President JD Vance was with Trump on Thursday when the tweets began and they spoke multiple times in the afternoon, according to a person familiar with the day's events. Trump encouraged Vance to be diplomatic about Musk if asked about him, the person said. Meanwhile, Trump is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla that he purchased in March, according to a senior White House official. By Sahil Kapur, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V Amid the back-and-forth between Donald Trump and Elon Musk this week, Senate Republican leaders have been juggling a host of competing demands as they prepare to take up — and make changes to — the House-passed 'big, beautiful bill.' They can ultimately afford to lose just three GOP votes on the Senate floor, assuming all Democrats oppose the package as expected. Here are the senators who could make or break the bill: Rand Paul: He's the only Republican senator who has voted against this legislation every step of the way. He has blasted the spike in military spending, the huge increase in deficits and, in particular, the $5 trillion debt limit hike. Paul does support a key part of the package — an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts — but he wants to offset it with trillions of dollars in additional spending cuts, on which the GOP has no hope of finding consensus. Susan Collins: The Maine senator is the sole Republican to represent a state that Democrats consistently win at the presidential level. And she faces re-election this year. Her trajectory has been revealing, from supporting the initial budget resolution to voting against the revised version. A key reason for her opposition? Concerns that the Medicaid cuts would harm low-income and older constituents. Lisa Murkowski: When she voted for the budget blueprint in April that kick-started the process of writing the legislation, the Alaska Republican quickly followed it up with a broad set of grievances that will need to be addressed, or she'll be 'unable to support' the final product. That includes the changes to Medicaid, the cost of the tax cuts and the phaseout of clean energy tax credits that benefit her state. Ron Johnson: The Wisconsin Republican has railed against the bill and its estimated $2.4 trillion contribution to the deficit, insisting he can't vote for it as written. He has slammed the idea of a megabill, calling for breaking it up and limiting the debt ceiling hike. Trump asked him to be 'less negative' during a meeting at the White House this week, Johnson said. ✉️ Mailbag: Who loses in a U.S.-China trade war? Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China. 'Who is in worse shape if the two countries don't trade any longer?' To answer this, we turned to senior policy reporter Shannon Pettypiece, who has been covering the ins and outs of Trump's tariff agenda. Here's her response: Both the U.S. and China have a lot to lose by cutting off trade ties with each other, but in some ways, not as much as they did before the first wave of China tariffs Trump imposed in 2018. Chinese companies have been shifting production offshore, to neighboring countries like Vietnam and even Mexico, while Chinese officials have worked to boost trade with other trading partners, like the European Union. The share of total Chinese exports to the U.S. has dropped to an estimated 14% in 2024 from 19% in 2018. Across China's entire economy, U.S. exports account for 3% of China's gross domestic product, and a sustained U.S. tariff rate of 60% could reduce China's GDP by 2 percentage points, according to Goldman Sachs. In short, that would be bad for China's economy, but not entirely crippling. China's economy isn't on the strongest footing at the moment. Its growth has slowed since the Covid pandemic and the country is grappling with a collapse in its real estate market, which has wiped out the savings for many Chinese. The U.S. has also been working to lessen its dependence on China in recent years, and U.S. companies have increasingly been shifting their manufacturing out of China. China accounts for about 15% of total U.S. imports, down from about 22% in 2018. But the U.S. is still heavily dependent on China in a number of key areas, like rare earth metals crucial for U.S. manufacturing of cars and defense equipment. About a third of U.S. imports from China are in product categories where the vast majority of those items come from China, according to Goldman Sachs. That means, even a temporary halt to shipments from China could lead to supply chain shortages, like those seen during the Covid pandemic. But who blinks first or offers more concessions in a trade standoff could have just as much to do with politics as economics. China removed term limits on President Xi Jinping in 2018, essentially allowing him to remain in power for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. will have midterm elections next year and another presidential contest in 2028.
