Rubio vowed to revoke Chinese student visas. Trump now says Chinese students are welcome
In a potential pullback after U.S. officials said two weeks ago that they would 'aggressively' revoke visas for Chinese students enrolled at U.S. universities and increase vetting of student visa applicants, President Trump said Wednesday that he had come to an agreement with China on students 'using our colleges and universities.'
The president offered no details on the students in the announcement posted to his Truth Social platform as part of a brief outline of a trade deal with China that he said was pending approval by each side.
But the decision appeared to relax a clampdown on America's second-largest international student group that has been under increased scrutiny since May 28, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested the U.S. would broadly revoke Chinese student visas and target individuals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party or who studied unnamed 'critical fields.'
On Wednesday, Trump said that having Chinese students at U.S schools 'has always been good with me!'
'Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me. Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55% tariffs, China is getting 10%. Relationship is excellent! Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Trump said in his all-caps post.
The State Department did not respond to a request for clarification on the visa matter, including the question of whether Rubio's comments still applied.
The May policy to aggressively cancel Chinese student visas has roiled higher education nationally and in California. Universities depend on the full tuition fees paid by international students and see Chinese and other foreign students as integral to their academic operations and missions to foster diverse campuses.
The May 28 Rubio announcement — and now the potential relaxing of it — has exacerbated growing uncertainty at universities, which have been dealt a barrage of actions under Trump, including grant cancellations, federal investigations into alleged antisemitism and investigations into admissions policies.
International students have especially been in the crosshairs. There have been thousands of student visa cancellations over the spring for violations as minor as speeding tickets and attempted deportations of pro-Palestinian college activists who are international students. There is a pause of new student visa application appointments while the State Department increases security vetting procedures, including probing social media profiles for pro-Palestinian language and imagery.
Trump's new travel ban, which went into place Monday, has also led some universities to advise incoming students from countries on the list to defer enrollment.
Of the 1.1 million foreign students enrolled at U.S. universities, roughly 277,000 are Chinese — second only to Indians. The 51,000 Chinese nationals in California make up more than a third of the state's nearly 141,000 foreign students. The University of California has 17,832 Chinese students across all of its campuses. Locally, USC has nearly 6,000 and UCLA has 2,208.
A UC spokesperson declined to comment on Trump's social media post and pointed The Times to the university's prior statement on Chinese student visa restrictions that said it was 'concerned about the U.S. State Department's announcement to revoke visas of Chinese students.'
'Chinese students, as well as all our international students, scholars, faculty and staff, are vital members of our university community and contribute greatly to our research, teaching, patient care and public service mission,' the statement said.
A USC spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
While there are no data pointing to widespread security concerns over Chinese students and scholars, there have been incidents in recent years. This week, the U.S. said it arrested a Chinese scientist who was arriving in Detroit to pursue research at the University of Michigan. The scientist, from University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, is accused of illegally smuggling biological material related to worms that require a government permit.
In an interview, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside), a member of the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce, called the potential Trump shift on Chinese student visas an example of 'TACO,' a phrase some Democrats are using to say 'Trump always chickens out,' reflecting the president's policy shifts. Republicans have argued that the president's shifts are a negotiation strength.
'In allowing Chinese students to come here, it's part of the importance of the United States being a draw for students from everywhere,' Takano said. 'But his overreach, his interference in the operations of universities ... endangers the higher education enterprise of America.'
There is also political value to the U.S. in having Chinese students here, experts said.
'For the United States, bringing Chinese students [here] isn't just about educating them in subjects like math and science — it is about educating them in American values, like democracy and freedom of speech,' said Emily Baum, an associate professor of modern Chinese history at UC Irvine. 'And the expectation is that either they will stay in the United States because they enjoy life here or take those values back to China and influence the political system.'
It could be that some Chinese students are turned off by the vacillations of the Trump administration and decide to stay in China for university, one expert added.
Gaurav Khanna, an associate professor of economics at UC San Diego, said that around the year 2000, China began a major campaign to build new universities. Within about half a decade, it had doubled the number of institutions in the country, he said.
'They invested heavily,' Khanna said. 'In some ways, they are well-suited to say, 'Hey, don't risk your future going to a second-tier American university. Why don't you stay back here in China and go to this really good university where ... there is funding for research?''
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
Democrats slam military parade as Trump's multimillion-dollar 'birthday party'
Congressional Democrats and at least one high-profile Republican are slamming the multimillion-dollar cost of the Army 's 250th anniversary parade on Saturday that President Donald Trump has long sought to celebrate the military. Trump has said the cost -- projected to be as much as $45 million for the Army alone, not counting security and other expenses -- will be "peanuts compared to the value of doing it." However, his critics argue the money could be better spent elsewhere. "If it was really about celebrating military families, we could put $30 million toward helping them offset the cost of their child care, food assistance and tuition," Sen. Tammy Duckworth said on X. "But it isn't. Trump is throwing himself a $30 million birthday parade just to stroke his own ego." The Army said it has accounted for spending between $25 million and $45 million on the parade, which will include 6,700 troops and dozens of tanks, military fighting vehicles and aircraft staged on or near the National Mall. "Money should be put in medical defense research instead of wasted on some pomp and circumstance for the president," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday. "This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve." Saturday's parade also falls on Trump's 79th birthday, and when it ends near the White House, the Army's Golden Knights parachute team will present him with an American flag, after which he'll administer the constitutional oath to Army enlistees. "We all like to enjoy a nice birthday party," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., posted on X. "But most of us don't celebrate with a $45 million taxpayer-funded military parade. "Save taxpayer money. Have a birthday cake and blow out a few candles," he said. "Don't shut down the capital and roll out 60-ton tanks through the streets." "I wouldn't have done it," Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said. "We were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that." Some Democrats echoed that criticism. "It's outrageous," Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., said. "This is something that would happen in North Korea, not the United States of America. Donald Trump thinks he's a king. He's not. He was elected as president of the United States, and he should act as such." Army spokesman Steve Warren defended the parade, saying, "It is a lot of money, but I think that amount of money is dwarfed by 250 years of service and sacrifice that American soldiers have given this country. "We're looking at this as an opportunity to really strengthen the connection between America and her Army," he added. "So, yeah, it's a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to what we're selling." The White House this week also requested a flyover by the Air Force Thunderbirds. When asked Thursday what he hopes the public will remember about the parade, Trump said, "How great our country is, very simple, and how strong our military is." "We have the strongest military in the world," he added. The White House has not responded to requests for a total cost estimate that would include money spent on security and other arrangements. Several Republicans say they're skipping the parade due to prior commitments, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would attend and defended the display. "Washington D.C. is the safest it's ever been!!" she wrote. "I wish our great military men and women could just stay here. I am so excited for the parade celebrating the 250th anniversary of our United States Army!!" Protests of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown are planned across the country to counterprogram the parade, with the flagship "No Kings" protest occurring in Philadelphia. Nine small protests are also expected in Washington, according to the Secret Service and local officials. Trump has warned protesters will be met with "heavy force." On Friday, he disputed the characterization of him as a king. "I don't feel like a king. I have to go through hell to get stuff approved," he said, adding, "No, no, we're not a king. We're not a king at all."
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jobless claims data, broadening stock gains: Market Takeaways
US stocks (^DJI, ^IXIC, ^GSPC) closed Thursday's session in positive territory after the latest inflation data and President Trump announcing plans for unilateral tariffs against trade partners. Yahoo Finance senior markets reporter Josh Schafer examines several of the prominent market themes in the trading day, including this week's initial jobless claims and the broadening of the market's outperformance across sectors. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here.
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority 'to provide for contingencies' or 'to achieve savings' through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. 'It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made,' the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book 'The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.' 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education 'accounts for a deferral package,' NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. 'I imagine you will all have questions, as do we,' she said. 'However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations.' An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their 'programs gutted.' The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
