U.S. judge extends order blocking Trump administration ban on foreign students at Harvard
Ryan Enos, a government professor at Harvard University, speaks at a protest against President Donald Trump's recent sanctions against Harvard in front of Science Center Plaza on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, in Cambridge, Mass. (AP Photo/Leah Willingham)
BOSTON — A U.S. federal judge on Thursday extended an order blocking the Trump administration's attempt to bar Harvard University from enrolling foreign students.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs extended the block she imposed last week with a temporary restraining order on the government action.
Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security on Friday after Secretary Kristi Noem revoked its ability to host foreign students at its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
On Thursday, the Trump administration announced a new effort to revoke Harvard's certification to enroll foreign students. In a letter sent by the acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, Todd Lyons, the government gave Harvard 30 days to respond to the alleged grounds for withdrawal, which include accusations that Harvard coordinated with foreign entities and failed to respond sufficiently to antisemitism on campus.
The dispute over international enrollment at Harvard is the latest escalation in a battle between the White House and the nation's oldest and wealthiest college. In April, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent a letter to the school, demanding a range of records related to foreign students, including discipline records and anything related to 'dangerous or violent activity.' Noem said it was in response to accusations of antisemitism on Harvard's campus.
Harvard says it complied. But on May 22, Noem sent a letter saying the school's response fell short. She said Harvard was being pulled from the federal program that allows colleges to sponsor international students to get U.S. visas. It took effect immediately and prevented Harvard from hosting foreign students in the upcoming school year.
In its lawsuit, Harvard argued that the government failed to follow administrative procedures and regulations that dictate how schools may be removed from eligibility to host international students, which including giving schools the opportunity to appeal and a 30-day window to respond. Wednesday's notice is in line with those regulations.
Already, despite the restraining order, the Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion,' the university's director of immigration services said in a court filing on Wednesday.
In a court filing, immigration services director Maureen Martin said that countless international students had asked about transferring, and that some domestic students had expressed interest in transferring or deferring because they believed their educational experience would not be the same without an international student body.
Martin said that international Harvard students arriving in Boston were sent to additional screening by Customs and Border Protection agents, and that international students seeking to obtain their visas were being denied or facing delays at consulates and embassies.
The sanction, if allowed to proceed, could upend some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Among those at risk was Belgium's Princess Elisabeth, who just finished her first year in a Harvard graduate program. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong.
Trump railed against Harvard on social media after Burroughs temporarily halted the action last week, saying 'the best thing Harvard has going for it is that they have shopped around and found the absolute best Judge (for them!) - But have no fear, the Government will, in the end, WIN!'
The Trump administration has levied a range of grievances against Harvard, accusing it of being a hotbed of liberalism and failing to protect Jewish students from harassment. The government is demanding changes to Harvard's governance and policies to bring it in line with the president's vision.
Harvard was the first university to reject the government's demands, saying it threatened the autonomy that has long made U.S. higher education a magnet for the world's top scholars. In a pair of lawsuits, Harvard accuses the government of retaliating against the university for rebuffing political demands.
___
This story has been corrected to reflect the judge did not grant a preliminary injunction, but extended a temporary restraining order.
___
Michael Casey And Annie Ma, The Associated Press
Ma reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Collin Binkley contributed to this report.
____
The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
3 hours ago
- CBC
Pentagon deploys U.S. Marines to Los Angeles as California sues Trump administration
The Pentagon has formally deployed about 700 Marines to Los Angeles to help National Guard members respond to immigration protests, U.S. Northern Command announced Monday. This came as California officials filed a lawsuit Monday against U.S. President Donald Trump in response to the administration's extraordinary deployment of the U.S. National Guard to confront people who took to the streets in Los Angeles to protest Trump's immigration crackdown in the region. Attorney General Rob Bonta said the deployment "trampled" the state's sovereignty. He planned to seek a court order declaring that Trump's use of the Guard was unlawful and ask for a restraining order to halt the deployment. "Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the governor of that state is illegal and immoral," California's Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom told MSNBC on Sunday. Newsom accused Trump of trying to manufacture a crisis and violating California's state sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. Several times on X Sunday, he urged protesters to remain peaceful and told them not to "take the bait." He later warned what he called "bad actors" fuelling the flames that they would be held accountable by the state. The streets of the sprawling city of four million people were quiet Monday morning, but the smell of smoke hung in the air downtown, one day after crowds blocked a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. The law enforcement presence was heavy, with police cars blocking the street in front of the federal detention facility that was a focus of the protests. While much of the city was spared from any violence during the demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places. Arrival of troops spurred anger and fear It could take days to clear debris from burned cars and to clean off or paint over graffiti sprayed on city hall and other buildings near the detention facility. Sunday was the third and most intense day of demonstrations, as the arrival of around 300 National Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed the Trump administration for inciting tension by sending in the National Guard, but also condemned protesters who became violent. "I don't want people to fall into the chaos that I believe is being created by the administration completely unnecessarily," Bass told a news conference on Sunday. Later that night, many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and arresting those who refuse to leave. Some of those who stayed threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier. Others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 Freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover at one point. U.S. officials said about 1,000 National Guard members were in the city under federal orders by midday Monday. The full 2,000 members authorized by the president were expected to be on the ground by the end of the day. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the details of military operations. Trump accuses California officials of lying Trump said Monday that the city would have been "completely obliterated" if he had not deployed the National Guard. Writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, the president accused Newsom and Bass of lying by saying Guard troops were not necessary. The National Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. However, Police Chief Jim McDonnell told a media briefing on Sunday night that the protests were getting out of control and that officers were "overwhelmed" by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who show up at demonstrations to cause trouble. Asked if the National Guard was needed, McDonnell said police would not "go to that right away," but added, "Looking at the violence tonight, I think we've got to make a reassessment."
CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
6 revelations about the Titan sub disaster and its ill-fated dive
The implosion of OceanGate's Titan submersible stunned the world. On June 18, 2023, five people were lost in the deep Atlantic, more than 3,000 metres below the surface: OceanGate CEO and founder Stockton Rush, Titanic expert Paul-Henri Nargeolet, British billionaire Hamish Harding, Pakistani businessman Shahzada Dawood and Dawood's 19-year-old son, Suleman. But while the incident captivated global attention and sparked a media frenzy, many key details remained obscured beneath speculation and sensational headlines. In the days that followed, questions multiplied: How could such a tragedy happen on a high-profile expedition? What safety protocols were in place? Was the design of Titan intrinsically unsafe? The real story of what happened was revealed months later in the United States Coast Guard's public hearing, part of an extensive investigation that included testimony from witnesses, former OceanGate employees and submersible experts. The hearing painted a sobering picture of the events leading up to the disaster, highlighting a series of decisions and oversights that made the tragedy seem not just possible, but predictable. Implosion: The Titanic Sub Disaster, a documentary from The Nature of Things, follows the investigation. Titan's carbon-fibre hull wasn't fully proven Titan flew in the face of industry convention, featuring a 6.7-metre-long carbon-fibre hull. The material isn't approved for certified deep-diving submersibles, but this didn't stop OceanGate from testing its unconventional design — and Rush from touting its strength. "Carbon fibre in subsea vehicles is really the right substance to use," he says in archival footage featured in Implosion. "It's three times better on a strength to buoyancy basis than titanium — the next best thing. So our hull is going to be positively buoyant, which is what you want in a submersible." Between 2021 and 2021, the sub reached nearly 4,000 metres below the surface multiple times. "Stockton Rush had 13 successful dives down to the Titanic depth. So, in theory, he did prove his concept," says U.S. Coast Guard investigator Kate Williams in the documentary. But while the sub's initial performance may have contributed to a sense of security both within the company and among those eager to be a part of this new frontier, not everyone was convinced. Contractor Tym Catterson, who served as a safety diver for OceanGate, is one industry expert who disagreed with Rush's choice of material over the usual titanium or steel. "Hardly anybody in the public is familiar with carbon fibre. It's stable — all the way up until this magic point that it is not," he says in the film. "When it finally pops, it will catastrophically fail." "Their sub was there. And then it was not." 3 days ago Duration 2:54 Early test dives were concerning In 2019, OceanGate chose Great Abaco island in the Bahamas as a site for early full-depth test dives. The Bahamian continental shelf plunges rapidly into deep ocean, making it one of the few places in the world where Titanic-depth waters are relatively close to shore. This strategy allowed the team to test the submersible in deep conditions without the cost and logistical burden of travelling far out to sea. However, these early dives revealed significant structural concerns. "When the first hull failed," Catterson says, "they went through and sanded it all out, and saw that there was a crack that went all the way. It went virtually the whole length of the hull." Reconstruction began in 2020, but despite the catastrophic failure, the hull was once again built out of carbon fibre. Hull warnings were ignored During a dive in July 2022, the sub's occupants heard a loud bang as Titan surfaced from the depths. The acoustic data suggested there had been a structural change happening deep inside the carbon-fibre cylinder. "I brought up the possibility of delamination," says Antonella Wilby, a remote operated vehicle–expert and former OceanGate contractor featured in Implosion. "I asked [Rush], 'Are you going to keep diving the sub?' And he said, 'Yeah, we'll do the next mission, and then we'll visually inspect it when we get back.'" "A delamination is essentially a parting of the carbon fibre," Williams explains. "When they heard this loud bang, there should have been, 'All stop, do not continue, investigate further.'" Instead, three more dives took place during the 2022 season. Titan was 'off the regulatory radar' Unlike most conventional submersibles, Titan was not registered or certified in any country to make sure it met safety standards. According to reporting from CBC News, OceanGate explained why it did not submit its vessels to a certification process in a 2019 blog post, which has since been removed. "Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation," the post read. But rapid innovation may not have been OceanGate's sole motivation. "One reason to not register is to make sure that no one, from a regulatory standpoint, is monitoring your operations," says U.S. Coast Guard chief investigator Jason Neubauer in the documentary. "How can somebody operate in a public manner yet still be off the regulatory radar? … that is definitely part of the investigation." 'Mission specialists' not passengers One of the more revealing details to emerge from the hearing was that OceanGate called its clients "mission specialists" rather than passengers. These individuals — paying $250,000 US per dive — were said to be playing a role in OceanGate's underwater exploration. But according to people involved in past operations, they were only given minor tasks to complete before and during dives. "I didn't do any of the, what I would say critical items," says past mission specialist and businessman Alfred Hagen in testimony shown in the film. "A 'mission specialist' was definitely something that was created by OceanGate to give the perception … that these were really crew members, when in fact they were paying passengers," says Neubauer. Submersible pilot and designer Karl Stanley, who went on one of Titan's first crewed deep-water dives, testified that framing customers as part of the operational team allowed OceanGate to avoid the more stringent safety requirements that would have applied if they were recognized as fare-paying passengers. Pushing boundaries became the norm The U.S. Coast Guard's public hearing not only provided insight into what happened on Titan's final dive, it also exposed a pattern of risk-taking at OceanGate that, over time, became normalized. In archival footage featured in Implosion, Rush positions himself as a fearless disruptor. "When you're trying something outside the box, people inside the box think you're nuts," he says in one clip. "Same thing when Elon Musk was doing SpaceX inside the box. Everything's scary." In some ways, OceanGate's model was a reflection of the broader tech world ethos: move fast and redefine boundaries. But in the unforgiving world of deep-sea exploration, nature doesn't compromise. Pressure at Titanic depths is absolute and the margin for error is zero. Innovation in this domain requires not just boldness, but rigorous checks, third-party accountability, and a culture of safety embedded at every level. The final report from the investigation is still pending, but the emerging picture is clear: when ambition outpaces oversight, even the most promising visions can descend into catastrophe.
CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
What happened the last time a U.S. president overrode a state to deploy the National Guard
On an unseasonably chilly but sunny day, March 20, 1965, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson stood on the porch of his Texas ranch and read a telegram he had just sent to Alabama Gov. George Wallace. "I am calling into federal service selected units of the Alabama National Guard… to help you meet your state responsibilities," Johnson said. For more than a week, Johnson and Wallace had been going back and forth about the president's concerns for the safety of Black Alabamians trying to exercise their right to vote and peacefully protest police brutality. Wallace, a segregationist, refused to call in his state's National Guard to protect the Black protesters — who had planned a march from Selma to Montgomery — so Johnson did it in his place. To do so, Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, an 18th century law that allows the president to deploy military forces inside the U.S. It's what many legal scholars and democracy watchers believed U.S. President Donald Trump might one day use to clamp down on dissent against his administration's policies. For the first time since Johnson, Trump on Saturday overrode a state's authority and called up its National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles over recent raids by federal immigration authorities. He sent 2,000 members of the California National Guard into the city on Saturday. But Trump used a more obscure law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize National Guard units in case of an invasion, rebellion, or when police are unable to enforce the country's laws. "It was a bit of a surprise attack," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at Princeton University who specializes in new autocracies. "I think it was something for which Trump's opposition was less well prepared legally." Another law, 1878's Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Title 10 does not override that prohibition, but allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. 'Unmistakable step toward authoritarianism' What has worried legal scholars in Scheppele's circles even more, though, is that Trump's proclamation deploying the National Guard made no mention of California or a specific time period. "There's nothing to prevent him from calling out the National Guard … anywhere else that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has been active or where public protests have arisen against it." Newsom sued the Trump administration on Monday, calling Trump's move "an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." The biggest difference "between now and 1965 is the degree to which this is basically a manufactured conflict," said Barry Eidlin, an assistant professor of sociology at McGill University, who researches social change in the U.S. and Canada. Sixty years ago, Johnson wanted National Guard troops to "quell a reactionary segregationist counterinsurgency against dissolving federal policy in favour of civil rights for all," he said, newly returned to Montreal from L.A., where his family lives and where he splits his time. "Whereas the current administration is basically trying to rollback civil rights for all." John Carey, a professor of government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and the co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group monitoring threats to American democracy, also says Trump is trying to provoke violence. "I think what's actually going on is the president and his administration are trying to bait California state officials and the protesters," he said, adding that immigration is one of the issues on which Trump has the broadest support. "I worry tremendously about the implications of this for American democracy." The idea, Carey and Eidlin say, is that National Guard troops' presence could escalate violence — which already appears to be the case — further justifying federal intervention. Eidlin said Trump wants to create "a rationale for further Draconian crackdowns." The day after Johnson deployed Alabama's National Guard, more than 3,000 marchers began their 87-kilometre walk from Selma to Montgomery along Route 80. They walked for four days without interference from white supremacists, law enforcement or vigilantes. By the time they arrived, the march had swelled to around 25,000 people. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "How long, not long" speech on the steps of the State Capitol, calling for racial justice. Later that year, the Voting Rights Act was passed, outlawing voter suppression practices, such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
