logo
Trump admin backs off immediate ban, but pressures Harvard over visas and funding

Trump admin backs off immediate ban, but pressures Harvard over visas and funding

Time of India3 days ago
What began as a policy memo has now metastasized into one of the most consequential legal face-offs in American higher education. At the center of the storm is Harvard University, an academic titan that now finds itself locked in a protracted battle with the Trump administration, not just over billions in frozen federal research funds, but over the very future of its international student body.
The dispute goes far beyond campus boundaries. It is testing the limits of executive power over academic freedom, weaponizing immigration infrastructure to target perceived ideological dissent, and redrawing the contours of America's engagement with global talent. For Harvard, the stakes are existential. For the United States, the implications are international.
The trigger: SEVP certification as a political weapon
In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attempted a dramatic revocation of Harvard's certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a federal designation required for enrolling international students.
The justification? A tenuous blend of accusations: Unchecked campus antisemitism, concerns over influence from the Chinese Communist Party, and noncompliance with reporting requirements.
A federal judge swiftly blocked the ban, calling into question both its timing and legal foundation. But the damage was already done. More than 7,000 international students at Harvard faced an abrupt threat to their immigration status, and institutions across the country watched as the government targeted one of their own in a stunning show of power, as reported by US media sources.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Mr. Bala's Powerful Intraday Strategy Revealed – No More Guesswork
TradeWise
Learn More
Undo
The latest maneuver: Tactical retreat or strategic reframe?
This week, the Justice Department filed a new motion offering to 'simplify' the case. It distanced itself from the now-infamous May 22 letter by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which had previously served as the basis for the attempted ban. The administration now seeks to proceed through formal administrative channels, an apparent shift in tone, but not in intent.
Officials say the move is designed to 'narrow the issues.'
Critics say it's a strategic recalibration aimed at insulating the administration from further legal embarrassment while continuing to squeeze Harvard through bureaucratic pressure points.
Despite offering to negotiate, the government claims Harvard declined a proposed meeting. Meanwhile, the broader legal war continues, with Harvard filing a separate lawsuit over the withholding of $2 billion in federal research grants, a fiscal stranglehold designed to compel compliance.
The settlement trap: Monitors, money, and mandates
Behind closed doors, however, another game is playing out. According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the White House is seeking a $500 million payment from Harvard as a settlement floor, an extraordinary sum that signals how high the stakes have climbed. And this isn't just about money.
The administration is reportedly insisting on a deal modeled after the one recently imposed on Columbia University: a $221 million settlement that included strict limits on international student enrollment, mandatory reporting of visa infractions, and the appointment of a federal monitor embedded within the institution.
For Harvard, agreeing to such terms would amount to relinquishing a core tenet of academic autonomy. For Washington, it's a litmus test of loyalty and submission. The Trump administration is positioning oversight not just as compliance, but as capitulation.
Academic freedom under siege
The chilling effect of this standoff is already evident. Other elite institutions, many of which rely on international students for tuition revenue and intellectual capital, are recalibrating their risk calculus.
If Harvard can be stripped of access and funding under the guise of national security, no institution is immune.
The targeting of international students also aligns with broader policy trends. Visa appointments are stalling. Work permit pathways are tightening. Campus-based speech is being reframed as a national threat. In this environment, academic institutions are no longer neutral grounds, they are surveillance zones and ideological battlegrounds.
The bigger picture: Exporting fear, importing control
What the administration is executing is not just a legal battle, but a systemic realignment. By linking federal research dollars with immigration enforcement and ideological policing, the White House is effectively recoding the governance of higher education. It's a message to all universities: Comply with our worldview, or pay a price.
The SEVP certification, once a benign bureaucratic requirement, is now a tactical lever.
It turns student mobility into an instrument of statecraft, one that can be granted or revoked based on political favor. This sets a dangerous precedent, not just for Harvard, but for global academic cooperation.
An inflection point for American academia
As the court date looms and negotiations remain fraught, Harvard stands at a critical crossroads. Caving to federal pressure may protect access to funding and visa programs, but at the cost of institutional sovereignty.
Defiance, on the other hand, risks isolation and prolonged legal warfare.
This isn't merely a case of one university versus one administration. It's a referendum on the soul of American higher education, on whether it remains a sanctuary for global learning, or becomes an extension of political machinery.
Either way, the outcome will resonate far beyond Cambridge. Because what's unfolding is not just a lawsuit. It's a test of whether academic independence can survive in a climate where internationalism is no longer an asset, but a liability.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump tariffs a 'slow burn' for Wall Street, likely to hit US economy hard
Trump tariffs a 'slow burn' for Wall Street, likely to hit US economy hard

Hans India

time4 minutes ago

  • Hans India

Trump tariffs a 'slow burn' for Wall Street, likely to hit US economy hard

New Delhi: The reciprocal tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump are a "slow burn" for Wall Street, as they rarely trigger an immediate crisis - but over time, they warp markets, squeeze consumers, and invite retaliation, according to a new report. Investors and policymakers alike would do well to remember that just because the storm isn't here yet doesn't mean it isn't coming, says Zoya Najeeb in an opinion piece in One World Outlook. "While Wall Street pours champagne over record-high stock indexes, the US economy is quietly swallowing a bitter pill: tariffs. The same markets that panicked in April are now shrugging at the reality of a new trade regime - one that could be far costlier than investors seem willing to admit," the article highlighted. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently cheered $29 billion in tariff revenue collected in July, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick predicting $50 billion a month soon. "But tariffs are taxes by another name, and this is a tax hike on Americans at a time when the bottom half of the income ladder is already straining," according to the write-up. Caterpillar Inc., an American construction, mining and other engineering equipment manufacturer, estimates the new tariffs will cost it up to $1.5 billion this year - half a billion in the current quarter alone. "Yet its stock barely flinched, thanks to investor faith in unrelated booms in AI data centres and infrastructure spending. It's a neat metaphor for today's K-shaped economy: Wall Street soars while Main Street watches grocery bills spike and more households turn to 'buy now, pay later' plans just to make ends meet," the report highlighted. The AI gold rush may be propping up the stock indexes, but strip out tech and the S&P 500 is flat. "Even Warren Buffett - hardly a doomsayer - has been quietly selling for 11 straight quarters, amassing a $344 billion war chest to deploy when prices fall. He's betting on a downturn, even if the rest of the market isn't," said the report. In the meantime, former US House Speaker Paul Ryan has warned that "choppy waters are ahead because I think they're (tariffs) going to have some legal challenges."

No president's gift collection looks like Trump's: Here's what makes it so different
No president's gift collection looks like Trump's: Here's what makes it so different

Economic Times

time4 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

No president's gift collection looks like Trump's: Here's what makes it so different

Reuters A gift given by Apple CEO Tim Cook to U.S. President Donald Trump Donald Trump, throughout his presidency, has been the recipient of an extraordinary array of gifts—from luxury jets worth hundreds of millions to golden golf clubs and bespoke plaques. These presents reflect not only diplomatic gestures but also the spectacle around Trump's unique place on the global stage. The latest dazzling addition to the collection was a commemorative plaque gifted by Apple CEO Tim Cook in August 2025. This plaque features a circular piece of Corning Gorilla Glass mounted on a 24-karat gold base crafted by a former US Marine working at Apple. It was presented alongside the announcement of Apple's $600 billion investment in American manufacturing, symbolizing an intertwining of corporate influence, patriotism, and the Trump-era flair for ostentation. Yet, this shining gift is but one of many that have sparked media attention and public debate over the years. Earlier in 2025, Trump accepted perhaps the most expensive gift ever bestowed upon a US president—a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar. Valued at approximately $400 million, this 'palace in the sky' was intended as a replacement for Air Force One during his remaining time in office, later to be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation. This gift sums up to be more in cost and spectacle than nearly all presidential gifts in recent history. According to White House spokesman Davis Ingle, these lavish gifts often symbolize historic investments and diplomatic goodwill inspired by Trump's 'bold vision' for American industry and international relations, reported Axios. Other eye-catching presents include: A full set of 1984 Olympic medals recognizing Trump's role as Chair of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. Gold-plated luxury golf clubs gifted by former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, intended to cement a "special relationship," although these clubs are notably missing from the National Archives. Diplomatic gifts during his tenure range from a ruby and emerald pendant necklace from Saudi King Salman, valued at $6,400, to a bronze Arabian horse sculpture from Bahrain's Crown Prince, as well as intricately carved stone artifacts and personalized books of Psalms from religious officials during high-profile visits. A nearly $5,000 Mont Blanc writing set from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and gemstone portraits from world leaders like Vietnam's Prime Minister contributed further to the eclectic trove. The White House in the Trump era is witnessing a marked shift from the traditionally understated to the extravagant and personalized, reflecting Trump's personality and the global political dynamics of his time. However, the acceptance of such lavish gifts has also drawn legal and ethical scrutiny. A 2023 report by the then Democrat-led House Committee on Oversight and Accountability revealed that the Trump administration failed to report at least 117 foreign gifts during his first term. Some of these valued up to $24,000, including Saudi daggers, swords, and luxury winter coats, breaching disclosure rules governing presidential gifts. The missing gold golf clubs from Japan symbolize concerns about formal record-keeping and these gifts have been accepted, there are provisions that, in cases, prohibits the US president from accepting gifts from foreign governments. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution prohibits any federal official, including the President, from accepting personal gifts from foreign governments or foreign officials without the consent of Congress. The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (1966) governs acceptance of gifts from foreign governments. Gifts from foreign officials above a minimal value threshold (set by the General Services Administration) must be declared and typically become property of the United States, housed in the National Archives or presidential libraries unless purchased by the President.

Trump administration threatens to seize Harvard patents in federal funding dispute
Trump administration threatens to seize Harvard patents in federal funding dispute

Indian Express

time4 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Trump administration threatens to seize Harvard patents in federal funding dispute

The Trump administration has warned Harvard University that it could lose control of its lucrative patent portfolio, adding to the ongoing confrontation between the White House and the Ivy League institution, reported The Guardian. In a letter posted online Friday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick accused Harvard of breaching legal and contractual obligations tied to research funded by the federal government. Lutnick said the Commerce Department had initiated a 'march-in' process under the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows the government to take ownership of patents or issue new licences if certain requirements are not met. 'The Department places immense value on the groundbreaking scientific and technological advancements that emerge from the Government's partnerships with institutions like Harvard,' Lutnick wrote. He added that the university had a 'critical responsibility' to ensure that the federally funded intellectual property benefits the American public. Lutnick gave Harvard four weeks to submit a list of all patents linked to federal research grants, including details on their use and whether licensing agreements require 'substantial US manufacturing', The Guardian reported. As of 1 July 2024, Harvard's Office of Technology Development reported more than 5,800 active patents and over 900 technology licences with 650 industry partners. The patent review is the latest step in a broader White House campaign against Harvard, which the administration has accused of violating civil rights law by not fully complying with directives on addressing alleged antisemitism linked to student protests over Israel's war in Gaza. In April, Harvard sued the federal government after billions of dollars in research funding were frozen or revoked. Other universities under similar scrutiny, including Columbia University and Brown University, have reached financial settlements with Washington. Enacted in 1980, the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act allows institutions to retain ownership of inventions developed with federal funding, provided they meet certain conditions. Supporters, including former President Jimmy Carter, have described the law as key to fostering innovation and strengthening the US economy. (With inputs from The Guardian)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store