No, Barron Trump was not rejected by Harvard, Melania says amid university battle
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Harvard suing Trump administration over international enrollment ban
Harvard is suing the Trump administration in response to its international student enrollment ban.
Barron Trump did not apply to or get rejected from Harvard, according to the first lady's office.
Trump is in an ongoing fued with Harvard after it refused to comply with federal directives.
Trump's administration has targeted several elite universities, alleging they are not doing enough to protect Jewish students.
President Donald Trump is escalating his battle with Harvard University.
Harvard is one of several universities targeted by the Trump administration, which alleges schools aren't doing enough to protect Jewish students. Harvard has defied executive orders seeking to influence the school's curriculum and filed multiple lawsuits. On May 27, the New York Times and CNN reported Trump is poised to cancel the remaining federal contracts with Harvard, worth an estimated $100 million in total.
The fierce fight has led to questions about Trump's personal history with the university. Some have wondered if Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump's son Barron Trump, 19, was rejected from the university.
"Can't help but wonder how many Trumps got rejected by Harvard," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., mused on a social media post that received more than 40,000 views.
Here is what we know:
Trump - the next generation: 'That calling is there': Donald Trump Jr says he could run for president
Was Barron Trump rejected by Harvard?
No. According to the first lady's office, he didn't even apply.
"Barron did not apply to Harvard, and any assertion that he, or that anyone on his behalf, applied is completely false," Nick Clemens, spokesperson for the Office of the First Lady, said in an emailed statement.
More: Trump tells West Point grads to avoid 'trophy wives' in commencement speech
Harvard University did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election, the president's youngest son attended a Florida rally, and then-candidate Donald Trump confirmed Barron Trump's plan to go to college.
"He's now going to college, got into every college he wanted to," Donald Trump said at the July 9, 2024, rally in Doral, Florida. "He made his choice and he is a very good guy."
Why is Trump fighting with Harvard?
Trump has threatened to withhold funding from several universities if they do not follow federal directives, all under the banner of fighting antisemitism. He has alleged the institutions did not do enough to combat antisemitism during the protests against the war in Gaza, which brought allegations of both antisemitism and Islamaphobia.
Harvard rejected the administration's orders, which included ending all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, hiring an external auditor to ensure the university hosts diverse ideological viewpoints, and update admissions processes to bar students "hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence."
Defying the orders has put billions of dollars in federal funding and Harvard's tax-exempt status at risk.
The Trump administration also recently attempted to prohibit the school from enrolling international students, which was blocked by a federal judge.
Where is Barron Trump going to college?
Barron Trump recently finished his freshman year at New York University's Stern School of Business. He's projected to graduate in the class of 2028.
More: Barron Trump is 'future of conservative movement' say College Republicans
Where did President Donald Trump go to college?
President Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at the University of Pennsylvania in May 1968 with a degree in economics.
Contributing: Jennifer Sangalang, Antonio Fins, Zachary Schermele, Savannah Kuchar, USA TODAY Network
Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@gannett.com. Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @kinseycrowley.bsky.social.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump threatens federal takeover of Washington, D.C.: Live updates from morning presser
WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump is set to hold a news conference at 10 a.m. Monday from the White House on efforts to crack down on crime in Washington D.C. as he threatens a federal takeover of the nation's capital and deploys federal law enforcement officers on the city's streets. It was not entirely clear what Trump will be announcing. But Reuters, citing two unnamed U.S. officials, reported that the U.S. military is preparing for the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington. "Washington, D.C. will be LIBERATED today! Crime, Savagery, Filth, and Scum will DISAPPEAR," Trump wrote in an Aug. 11 post on Truth Social, his social media platform. "I will, MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN! The days of ruthlessly killing, or hurting, innocent people, are OVER! I quickly fixed the Border (ZERO ILLEGALS in last 3 months!), D.C. is next!!!" More: Trump says homeless people in DC 'have to move out IMMEDIATELY' Trump in an earlier social media post on Aug. 10 said that the homeless in D.C. "have to move out, IMMEDIATELY," but he did not elaborate on how that will be accomplished. Trump's actions follow a high-profile assault of staffer of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), 19-year-old Edward Coristine, that occured in the early morning hours of Aug. 3. during an attempted carjacking. 450 federal officers deployed on DC streets Trump's announcement comes as 450 officers from multiple federal agencies were deployed in high-traffic D.C. areas and other hotspots over the weekend on Aug. 9 and 10. The officers are from 18 agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Secret Service. Trump ordered an increased law enforcement presence in D.C. on Aug. 8 after complaining about crime in the city, even as violent crime trended down. More: President Trump orders federal law enforcement officers to patrol Washington, D.C. streets Violent crime is down 26% in DC in 2025 The White House pointed to several examples of violent crime in Washington this year including the May 21 fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy staffers outside a downtown museum (The suspect is from Chicago.) as well as the recent assault on Coristine. Yet Washington's crime rate is down this year compared to 2024. Violent crimes are 26% lower than last year. Homicides are down 12%, according to statistics compiled by the Metropolitian Police Department. Violent crime declined by 35% in Washington from 2023 ro 2024, including homicides from 274 to 187. Trump threatens to take over DC Trump has long denigrated Washington, D.C, which leans heavily Democratic. Last week, Trump threatened to take over governance of the district if the crime situation isn't improved ‒ something he floated previously in February. "If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore," Trump said in an Aug. 5 post on Truth Social. Such action would require approval by Congress. The District of Columbia is a federal enclave under jurisdiction of the U.S. government. The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 gave the city local governance, including an elected mayor and city council. Two congressional Republicans, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, this month introduced legislation to repeal the Home Rule Act. Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Live updates: Trump threatens federal takeover of Washington, D.C.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Should They Stay or Go? Veteran Journalists Face Tough Choices in the Trump Age
The exodus at the Washington Post, L.A. Times and anticipated reckoning at CBS News raise questions of what to do when your news organization loses its way For top journalists at elite news organizations, a song by The Clash perhaps best describes their ethical dilemma: Should I stay or should I go? Faced with buyouts, layoffs and policy shifts in the age of a vengeful and litigious President Trump, journalists at the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and CBS News have grappled with whether to stick around and fight the good fight — or leave. At the Post there's already been a mass defection that has included taking buyouts before moving to more stalwart outfits, leaping into the entrepreneurial reaches of Substack — or handing in principled resignations. More from TheWrap Should They Stay or Go? Veteran Journalists Face Tough Choices in the Trump Age Can ESPN Cover the NFL Fairly Now That It's Part of the Team? | Analysis 'The Hunting Wives' Uses Red-State Politics to Feel Smarter Than It Is | Analysis Rupert Murdoch Built Donald Trump. Now He's Standing Up to Him Those exiting the Post in the last few weeks include reporter Carol Leonnig, a 25-year veteran who headed to MSNBC; media critic Erik Wemple, who will join the New York Times in the fall; and sports columnist Sally Jenkins, joining a veritable parade to The Atlantic. Politico published an exhaustive list of the journalists that have left the publication since 2024, which have ranged from retirement to taking the buyout and moving to competitors to cartoonist Ann Telnaes, who resigned after her bosses spiked a cartoon that lampooned Post owner Jeff Bezos, among others (Telnaes would later win the Pulitizer Prize). If resignations once delivered a reputational blow to their corporate bosses, it's complicated now by the sense that some of these organizations appear eager to clean house, or at least remake their staffs with employees who are more pliant toward their Trump-friendly editorial postures. This new status quo comes as CBS News faces an anticipated shift in editorial direction under New Paramount, having already seen the departures of president Wendy McMahon and '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens over perceived interference by former management. The Washington Post, meanwhile, has witnessed a staggering exodus of talent after CEO Will Lewis issued an 'our way or the highway' ultimatum amid the paper's pivot under Bezos, encouraging staffers who don't 'feel aligned' with the newspaper's 'reinvention' to hit the road. In May, the paper offered a Voluntary Separation Program to news employees with 10 or more years experience, resulting in a series of farewell letters from some of its most prestigious names. The opinion section has been especially hard hit, including opinion columnists Catherine Rampell, Jonathan Capehart, Philip Bump and Ruth Marcus. Writing in the Daily Beast, former Post media reporter Paul Farhi accused Lewis of 'enfeebling of one of the world's great news organizations' — 'a small tragedy,' raising questions about whether Bezos cares about 'the slow-motion implosion of an institution whose value transcends its bottom line.' While it might sound self-serving for journalists to lament the decimation of their ranks — creating 'news deserts' in some areas, and prompting some to vacate the profession entirely — there is a societal toll involved. That includes questions of who will hold those in power to account, as even outlets that survive suffer the loss of institutional knowledge as they shed more expensive veterans, whether their work comes in the form of deeply sourced reporting or detailed analysis. Another billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, also implemented a shift in editorial policy at the Los Angeles Times, leading several editorial page staffers to resign. Again, though, the impact has been blunted by overall reductions as the paper pursues the dubious strategy of cost-cutting its way to health. The ethical dilemma: Stay and fight or leave? Those schooled in journalistic ethics say there's no one-size-fits-all response in terms of what to do when your employer has lost its way or taken actions that threaten its integrity. John Watson, a journalism professor at American University's School of Communication who teaches ethics, cited a 'personal and individually determined process,' while making a distinction between those who really need a job and top earners who don't have to live paycheck to paycheck. For the latter, 'It becomes more of a moral and ethical issue,' Watson told TheWrap, 'Bailing out at that level, to me, is the right thing to do.' Several L.A. Times editors resigned last year, including editorials editors Mariel Garza, Robert Greene and Karin Klein, after management spiked a story endorsing Kamala Harris. Across the country, the amount of institutional knowledge exiting the Washington Post has created the impression of a hollowed-out newsroom, even if those who remain dismiss the notion. Stephen J. Adler, the director of the Ethics and Journalism Initiative at the NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, also sees an obligation to leave under such circumstances, although not without exhausting options that include lobbying for more enlightened policy and practices. 'I'd never stay at any organization that compromised my work, whether by editing out information that might be offensive to the administration or by barring sensitive story topics,' Adler, who also chairs the steering committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told TheWrap. 'Before deciding to leave, though, I'd try to persuade my immediate editors that I'm being fair and accurate and that they shouldn't engage in self-censorship,' he said. 'I might also appeal to higher-ups. But, even in a tough job market, my duty to the highest aspirations of my profession — to truth-telling – would force me to quit if I didn't prevail.' Watson drew a distinction between influencers and others who use media platforms, without adhering to the ethical considerations that should guide journalists. 'To me, that is what separates journalists from other people who function in a mass media capacity,' he said. 'Ethics tells you what your mission is, what your role is, and what your professional values have to be, and whether you can compromise them, or how much you can bend them to achieve your fundamental mission.' He added that journalists have to be wary of whether the actions of their employers will stick with them when they leave and seek jobs elsewhere, citing what he sees as some of the unethical behavior at Fox News, which, in the highest-profile example of that, was forced to pay $787 million in 2023 to settle Dominion's defamation lawsuit over false claims regarding the 2020 election. 'I've had that discussion with a number of good students who are good journalists, who said, 'Will my time at Fox hurt me when I apply to these other news organizations?' And the simple fact is, yes, it will,' Watson said. Washington Post veterans lament its drift Many Post veterans and alumni have expressed sadness over the paper's direction and the diminution of its staff, especially after Bezos initially invested in the paper and appeared to champion its journalism. Since then, Bezos conspicuously joined other tech leaders in attending Donald Trump's inauguration and seemingly cozied up to the president, in ways that have rendered his decisions regarding the Post suspect. In a lengthy Substack post, former Post fact checker Glenn Kessler detailed his decision to take the buyout, revealing a conversation with Lewis in which he expressed a desire to try to reach Fox News viewers, a futile endeavor that has bedeviled mainstream news outlets seeking to expand their reach. For starters, such efforts are hindered by the fact Fox's top hosts spend much of its time telling its audience not to trust those outside sources, a posture the late radio titan Rush Limbaugh effectively pioneered. Kessler described the Post as 'like being on the Titanic after it struck an iceberg — drifting aimlessly as it sank, with not enough lifeboats for everyone.' Asked to address the impact of the buyouts, a Post spokesperson issued a statement to TheWrap that suggested they were not affecting coverage: 'The Washington Post is continuing its transformation to meet the needs of the rapidly changing industry, build a more sustainable future and reach audiences where they are … As we undergo this significant reinvention, The Post continues to excel in producing high quality and impactful journalism.' If the Post is in the midst of what looks like an identity crisis, rough waters for CBS News could also lie ahead. Among other things, the New Paramount leadership team has agreed to appoint an ombudsman to examine 'any complaints of bias or other concerns' involving the news division, a concession to accusations of harboring a liberal agenda from Trump and other Republicans. Paramount CEO David Ellison has also reportedly held discussions to acquire the right-of-center digital site The Free Press, potentially giving its co-founder, Bari Weiss, a role at CBS News. In a letter to employees upon closing the merger, Ellison addressed the news division, saying, 'We take immense pride in CBS News' legacy of impactful journalism and look forward to continuing to foster a newsroom culture where journalists are empowered, trusted and equipped to do their best work.' During a meeting with reporters Thursday, Ellison also said he had 'no interest' in politicizing the news, but based on Trump's role in the approval process, the test of that commitment will come in the days and months ahead. In a dismal business climate for journalists, adopting a principled stand becomes especially challenging. Yet as these hallowed news organizations take on water, to use Kessler's analogy, more journalists will face tough choices regarding when it's time to start paddling or, barring that, jump overboard. The post Should They Stay or Go? Veteran Journalists Face Tough Choices in the Trump Age appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK backs Trump on Ukraine, but ‘won't trust Putin as far as you can throw him'
Downing Street has backed Donald Trump's interventions over the Ukraine war but warned Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted 'as far as you can throw him' as the US President prepares to meet his Russian counterpart. Kyiv has expressed concerns about the prospect of being excluded from peace talks as the two leaders look set to hold talks in Alaska this week to discuss the future of the Kremlin's invasion. Mr Trump has signalled he thinks Ukraine might need to cede territory in order to end the conflict. Asked whether Sir Keir Starmer believes the Russian President could be trusted in negotiations, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said the UK supported both Kyiv and the US President's push for peace, but not Moscow. 'Never trust President Putin as far as you could throw him, but we obviously will support Ukraine,' he said on Monday. 'We will obviously support President Trump and European nations as we enter these negotiations. 'But it is exactly why we've been leading this work on the coalition of the willing, because any ceasefire, as I say, cannot just be an opportunity for President Putin to go away, re-arm, restrengthen, and then go again. 'So we're not going to leave it to trust. We're going to ensure that we're prepared such that we achieve a ceasefire.' Planning for the so-called coalition of the willing, which would involve a European-led peacekeeping force sent to Ukraine to monitor any future truce, began in March. Downing Street said 'operational planning continues at a military level' despite no talks between leaders planned for this week, but indicated that there was little left to finalise. Asked whether work relating to the coalition had been put on hold to keep the road clear for Washington-led mediation this week, the Prime Minister's spokesman said: 'No… if anything, the next step really is reaching that ceasefire, such that we're then able to to implement the security guarantees.' It comes after European leaders including Sir Keir said the path to peace for Kyiv 'cannot be decided without Ukraine' and the current line of contact between Russia and Ukraine could only be a 'starting point of negotiations'. In a joint statement, the leaders of Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland and the European Commission said: 'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.' The statement comes a day after Mr Trump announced that he would meet Mr Putin in Alaska on Friday, as he seeks an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. The US President had earlier suggested that any peace deal was likely to involve 'some swapping of territories', with reports suggesting this could involve Ukraine giving up its Donetsk region. But President Volodymyr Zelensky has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by Ukraine's constitution. He said Mr Putin wanted to 'exchange a pause in the war, in the killing, for the legalisation of the occupation of our land – he wants to get territorial spoils for the second time'. Mr Zelensky added: 'We will not allow this second attempt to partition Ukraine. Knowing Russia, where there is a second, there will be a third.'
