
Federal judge blocks Trump administration's attempt to ban Harvard's international students: What it means for students
Federal judge blocks Trump administration's attempt to ban Harvard's international students
In a significant legal decision with national implications, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs has extended an order that blocks the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University's certification to host international students.
This ruling preserves the university's ability to enrol foreign nationals and provides temporary relief to thousands of students whose academic futures were under threat.
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security withdrew Harvard's authorisation under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), citing vague national security concerns and alleged procedural violations. This action effectively halted the university's ability to support the legal status of its international student population—affecting not only new applicants but also over 6,800 currently enrolled students.
Harvard responded with a legal challenge, asserting that the decision lacked factual justification and disproportionately harmed international students. The university also argued that the move undermined academic independence and was driven more by political motives than actual policy concerns.
The court's ruling offers a temporary relief
The federal court's ruling temporarily halts the implementation of the administration's order. Judge Burroughs determined that the potential damage to students and the institution outweighed the government's stated concerns.
She found that the administration failed to present a compelling justification for such a disruptive and sweeping policy action.
This judicial decision effectively restores Harvard's ability to issue the necessary documentation for student visas, ensuring that international students can continue their studies without the risk of legal status complications or forced departures.
Renewed uncertainty for students
The immediate impact of the ruling is the preservation of stability for thousands of students, many of whom had faced the prospect of losing their right to remain in the country.
Students from India, China, South Korea, and numerous other countries now have clarity regarding their enrolment, travel plans, and access to internships or research opportunities.
However, the injunction is temporary, and the case will continue to move through the courts. This leaves a lingering sense of uncertainty, particularly for students planning to apply for upcoming academic terms or those in the process of renewing their visa status.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the essential role that international students play in American academia—not only as contributors to campus diversity but also as researchers, innovators, and future leaders. Institutions like Harvard rely heavily on their global appeal and collaborative international networks, which are at risk when abrupt policy changes destabilise student participation.
The case also reinforces the legal principle that federal agencies must justify major policy shifts with evidence, especially when those decisions impact education, livelihoods, and long-term planning for students and families.
A moment of mobilisation
In response to the administration's initial action, student groups and faculty mobilised in protest and advocacy. While the court's decision provides a degree of reassurance, student organisations continue to offer legal assistance, counselling, and guidance to international students navigating complex immigration systems.
Universities across the country have also expressed solidarity, recognising that the outcome of this case could set a precedent affecting all U.S.
institutions that host foreign students.
While the court has provided a reprieve, the long-term legal resolution remains pending. The final outcome could redefine the extent of federal oversight in university operations, especially as it pertains to student visas and international academic exchange.
For now, students and universities alike are watching closely. The case represents not only a defense of legal rights and academic freedom but also a broader battle over the values of openness, diversity, and intellectual collaboration that have long defined American higher education.
Ready to empower your child for the AI era? Join our program now! Hurry, only a few seats left.
Hashtags

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


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Did everyone underestimate Trump? Top economist admits President may have outfoxed critics on the economy
Tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on the USA's trading countries have so far evoked sharp reactions. However, a top economist has claimed that the President and his administration may have 'outsmarted' the economists. Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Sløk has also detailed about a scenario which would benefit the world as well as churn out annual revenue worth $400 billion for taxpayers in the US. Sløk's note published ahead of Donald Trump's announcement on Sunday that the President was not planning to extend a 90-day pause on tariffs on most nations beyond July 9, when the negotiating period he set would expire, and his administration will notify countries that the trade penalties will take effect unless there are deals with the United States. In a detailed post titled "Has Trump Outsmarted Everyone on Tariffs?", Sløk noted that the Trump administration's strategy is maybe to maintain 30 per cent tariffs on China and 10 per cent tariffs on all other countries and then give all countries 12 months to lower non-tariff barriers and open up their economies to trade. Trump Tariffs - A Victory For USA? Sløk noted that extending the deadline one year would give countries and US domestic businesses time to adjust to the new world with permanently higher tariffs, and it would also result in an immediate decline in uncertainty. This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers. Trade partners will be happy with only 10 per cent tariffs and US tax revenue will go up. Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us, the Apollo Chief Economist noted. Live Events Tariff Deadline Nears Meanwhile, President Trump on Sunday said Letters will start going out 'pretty soon" before the approaching deadline. Those letters, he said, would state, "Congratulations, we're allowing you to shop in the United States of America, you're going to pay a 25% tariff, or a 35% or a 50% or 10%." Trump told these to Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures" during a wide-ranging interview taped Friday and broadcast Sunday. On July 8, "Liberation Day" tariffs to take effect following the 90-day suspension period, potentially affecting imports from multiple countries. July 9 is the deadline for United States and the European Union to negotiate a deal to avert 50 per cent tariff duty on all EU imports. So far, the twists and turns in the US President Donald Trump's tariff policies have not only rattled global financial markets but have also taken investors on a roller-coaster ride. Companies are counting the cost of the trade war that is now being estimated at more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher expenses, a Reuters analysis showed. Trump had played down the deadline at a White House news conference Friday by noting how difficult it would be to work out separate deals with each nation. The administration had set a goal of reaching 90 trade deals in 90 days. Negotiations continue, but 'there's 200 countries, you can't talk to all of them,' he said in the interview. FAQs Q1. Who is President of USA? A1. President of USA is Donald Trump. Q2. When is Tariff deadline? A2. On July 8, "Liberation Day" tariffs to take effect following the 90-day suspension period, potentially affecting imports from multiple countries. July 9 is the deadline for United States and the European Union to negotiate a deal to avert 50 per cent tariff duty on all EU imports. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )


India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Trump says wealthy US group is ready to buy TikTok, but needs China's approval
US President Donald Trump has announced that a group of wealthy individuals is ready to purchase TikTok's US operations. In an interview aired on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, Trump said he plans to disclose the identities of the buyers within the next two weeks.'We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way,' Trump stated. 'I think I'll probably need China's approval. I think President Xi will probably do it. It's a group of very wealthy people,' Trump reported by Reuters, Trump noted that the proposed sale may require the endorsement of Chinese authorities. ByteDance, TikTok's Beijing-based parent company, remains in control of the app's global operations. The US president said he believes Chinese President Xi Jinping will likely support the deal. A potential agreement to restructure TikTok's US business under American ownership was in development earlier this year. That plan involved converting TikTok into a US-based company controlled by domestic investors. However, the transaction was delayed when China signalled that it would not approve it, just days after Trump announced new tariffs on Chinese these hurdles, Trump extended the deadline for a sale multiple acknowledged TikTok's influence on young American voters, crediting the platform for increasing his appeal among youth during the 2024 presidential President has maintained a more positive stance towards the app, in contrast with his earlier efforts to ban or force its sale. More details on the potential buyers and the deal structure are expected to emerge in the coming weeks.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersTune InMust Watch


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Be Zohran Mamdani, not Vivek Ramaswamy': Internet divided on whether it should be the other way round
Vivek Ramaswamy or Zohran Mamdani? Politics aside, Internet is debating who is more American. Indian-Americans are divided over Zohran Mamdani, the NYC mayoral candidate of Indian-origin, and Vivek Ramaswamy , the Indian-origin GOP leader who is a Guv candidate of Ohio. While Ramaswamy fell out of MAGA favor after his rant against American culture, Republicans have no love for Mamdani -- but the Indian-American community feels there should be no comparison between Vivek Ramaswamy and Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani fans think Mamdani is what Vivek Ramaswamy could not become, while Ramaswamy fans think Mamdani has not achieved anything to be compared to Ramaswamy -- one of the youngest billionaires in the US. Their only point of comparison is their Indian origin, though none of them was born in India. Ramaswamy was born in Cincinnati, Ohio; Mamdani was born in Uganda. 'Nothing can be more wrong' — ProfVemsani (@ProfVemsani) Dr Lavanya Vemsani, author and professor, said some far left handles on social media are comparing Vivek Ramaswamy with Mamdani but nothing can be more wrong. "Vivek is a successful businessman and well liked Republican candidate running for the Governor of an important state, Ohio. Zohran is running as a mayor and doesn't really have any career accomplishments to show other than a mediocre music gig and working for his mom. He is just having fun running and creating fake larger-than-life-projection of himself. This is just a self-fulfilling story for Zohran than anything purposeful for New Yorkers," Dr Vemsani posted on X. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo "Zohran Mamdani ran a very clever campaign while Vivek Ramaswamy destroyed his career with a tweet," one wrote. "Zohran Mamdani is what everyone thought Vivek Ramaswamy would be last year," another wrote. 'Be Zohran Mamdani, not a Vivek Ramaswamy' One particular post fawning over Mamdani said: "Oh the Indian origin kids of America, when given a choice, be Zohran Mamdani. Not a Vivek Ramswamy." Some people put them in the same bracket and said both of them should be deported. "We shouldn't support either, but Mamdani is also a communist who explicitly identifies as anti-White. His religion and race are not the only factors to mention. Vivek is an anchor-baby – both he and Mamdani must be deported IMMEDIATELY," one wrote. Debate over who's more American Another simultaneous debate that took off on X was who is more American between Zohran Mamdani and Vivek Ramaswamy. People pointed out that though Vivek Ramaswamy has America First ideals, Mamdani seems more assimilated in American culture.