These world leaders went to Harvard before Trump's foreign student ban
Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong received a master's in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School in 2004. (EPA Images pic)
WASHINGTON : The Trump administration's move to block Harvard University from enrolling international students doesn't just put more financial pressure on the school but also threatens a cradle for global political leaders.
The US department of homeland security today revoked Harvard's student and exchange visitor programme certification, citing an 'unsafe campus environment'.
It means foreign students can no longer attend the university, while existing international students must transfer or lose their legal status.
The decision has thrust thousands of students into limbo, including those who may have planned to follow a well-trodden path to public office upon graduation.
The school's potential loss may be another's gain: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology today said it would unconditionally accept Harvard students so they can study 'without disruption', seizing the opportunity to grab talent.
Harvard has produced eight US leaders, most recently former president Barack Obama, the most among universities.
Outside the US, Harvard has educated countless international students who went on to become political elites.
From Canada to Singapore, here's a list of some of the current world leaders who attended the Ivy League school.
Mark Carney, prime minister of Canada
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, fresh off an election victory in late April, is well known as a figure in international finance, and previously headed both the Bank of Canada through the 2008 financial crisis and the Bank of England through Brexit.
He earned a bachelor of economics from Harvard University in 1988, before he went to Oxford University for a master of economics in 1993 and a PhD in economics in 1995.
Lawrence Wong
Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who won his mandate to lead the city-state with the ruling People's Action Party earlier this month, received a master's in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School in 2004.
He also earned bachelor's and master's degrees in economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Michigan, respectively.
Lai Ching-te, president of Taiwan
A former kidney doctor, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te entered politics after military tensions flared with Beijing in the mid-1990s.
He obtained a master of public health degree from Harvard University in 2003 and is one of the few physicians in the self-ruled island with an expertise in rehabilitation, clinical care and public health.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis, prime minister of Greece
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, who took office in 2019, obtained his bachelor's degree in social studies from Harvard University, and earned an MA in international relations from Stanford University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Daniel Noboa, president of Ecuador
Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, a scion of wealthy banana exporters who won the country's election last month, studied at a series of US universities and received his master's in public administration in 2020 from Harvard Kennedy School.
Maia Sandu, president of Moldova
Moldovan President Maia Sandu, who pulled out a decisive election victory in the former Soviet republic last year, obtained a master's degree in public policy after completing her studies at the Kennedy School of Public Administration at Harvard University in 2010.
Duma Boko, president of Botswana
Botswana's President Duma Boko is a Harvard-educated human-rights lawyer.
He studied law at the University of Botswana prior to receiving his master of laws at Harvard Law School in 1995.
Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai, prime minister of Mongolia
Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai took office as the prime minister of Mongolia in 2021 after his predecessor Khurelsukh Ukhnaa resigned over the government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
He received a master's degree in public administration in 2015 from Harvard Kennedy School.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's threat to cancel Musk's contracts exposes risks of US reliance on SpaceX
WASHINGTON, June 7 — SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon—the capsule Nasa relies on for crew flights—before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now Nasa's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS—a symbol of post-Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. Space monopoly? The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from Nasa for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the United States would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access — as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. Nasa had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays—and a failed crewed test last year—have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over Nasa's Artemis programme. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit—but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 — it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. Nasa meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'Nasa is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating Nasa's long-term plans. SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. Private power, public risk But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman — a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX — as Nasa administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds — that it might not be worth the trust.' — AFP
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Trump-Musk showdown threatens US space plans
Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. (File pic) WASHINGTON : SpaceX's rockets ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. Its Starlink satellite constellation blankets the globe with broadband, and the company is embedded in some of the Pentagon's most sensitive projects, including tracking hypersonic missiles. So when president Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cancel Elon Musk's federal contracts, space watchers snapped to attention. Musk, the world's richest person, shot back that he would mothball Dragon – the capsule NASA relies on for crew flights – before retracting the threat a few hours later. For now, experts say mutual dependence should keep a full-blown rupture at bay, but the episode exposes just how disruptive any break could be. Founded in 2002, SpaceX leapfrogged legacy contractors to become the world's dominant launch provider. Driven by Musk's ambition to make humanity multiplanetary, it is now NASA's sole means of sending astronauts to the ISS – a symbol of post–Cold War cooperation and a testbed for deeper space missions. The company has completed 10 regular crew rotations to the orbiting lab and is contracted for four more, under a deal worth nearly US$5 billion. That's just part of a broader portfolio that includes US$4 billion from NASA for developing Starship, the next-generation megarocket; nearly US$6 billion from the Space Force for launch services; and a reported US$1.8 billion for Starshield, a classified spy satellite network. Were Dragon grounded, the US would again be forced to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets for ISS access – as it did between 2011 and 2020, following the Space Shuttle's retirement and before Crew Dragon entered service. 'Under the current geopolitical climate, that would not be optimal,' space analyst Laura Forczyk told AFP. NASA had hoped Boeing's Starliner would provide redundancy, but persistent delays – and a failed crewed test last year – have kept it grounded. Even Northrop Grumman's cargo missions now rely on SpaceX's Falcon 9, the workhorse of its rocket fleet. The situation also casts a shadow over NASA's Artemis program. A lunar lander variant of Starship is slated for Artemis III and IV, the next US crewed Moon missions. If Starship were sidelined, rival Blue Origin could benefit – but the timeline would almost certainly slip, giving China, which aims to land humans by 2030, a chance to get there first, Forczyk warned. 'There are very few launch vehicles as capable as Falcon 9 – it isn't feasible to walk away as easily as President Trump might assume,' she said. NASA meanwhile appeared eager to show that it had options. 'NASA is assessing the earliest potential for a Starliner flight to the International Space Station in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues,' the agency said in a statement Friday to AFP. Still, the feud could sour Trump on space altogether, Forczyk cautioned, complicating NASA's long-term plans SpaceX isn't entirely dependent on the US government. Starlink subscriptions and commercial launches account for a significant share of its revenue, and the company also flies private missions. The next, with partner Axiom Space, will carry astronauts from India, Poland, and Hungary, funded by their respective governments. But losing US government contracts would still be a major blow. 'It's such a doomsday scenario for both parties that it's hard to envision how US space efforts would fill the gap,' Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the center for strategic and international studies, told AFP. 'Both sides have every reason to bridge the disagreement and get back to business.' Signs of a rift emerged last weekend, when the White House abruptly withdrew its nomination of e-payments billionaire Jared Isaacman – a close Musk ally who has twice flown to space with SpaceX – as NASA administrator. On a recent podcast, Isaacman said he believed he was dropped because 'some people had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.' The broader episode could also reignite debate over Washington's reliance on commercial partners, particularly when one company holds such a dominant position. Swope noted that while the US government has long favored buying services from industry, military leaders tend to prefer owning the systems they depend on. 'This is just another data point that might bolster the case for why it can be risky,' he said. 'I think that seed has been planted in a lot of people's minds – that it might not be worth the trust.'
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
US court says Trump can bar AP from key White House events for now
The Associated Press decided to continue referring to the 'Gulf of Mexico' – and not the 'Gulf of America' as decreed by US President Donald Trump. (AP pic) WASHINGTON : President Donald Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, pausing a lower court order to give access to the US news agency's journalists. AP journalists and photographers have been barred from the Oval Office and from traveling on Air Force One since mid-February because of the news agency's decision to continue referring to the 'Gulf of Mexico' – and not the 'Gulf of America' as decreed by Trump. In April, district court judge Trevor McFadden deemed that move a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. But on Friday, a panel of judges with the Washington-based federal appeals court ruled that, pending appeal, the government could go ahead and bar AP from 'restricted presidential spaces,' which it said did not fall under First Amendment protections. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted,' the ruling said. 'Moreover, without a stay, the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' it said. Following the ruling, Trump hailed on his Truth Social platform the 'Big WIN over AP today'. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed the sentiment, posting to X, 'VICTORY! As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations.' The AP, a 180-year-old news organisation that has long been a pillar of US journalism, has so far refused to backtrack on its decision to continue referring to the 'Gulf of Mexico'. In its style guide, it highlights that the Gulf of Mexico has 'carried that name for more than 400 years' and the agency 'will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen'. Trump has long had an antagonistic relationship with most mainstream news media, previously describing them as the 'enemy of the people'. Since his return to the presidency in January, his administration has sought to radically restructure the way the White House is covered, notably by favoring conservative podcasters and influencers. Two weeks after barring the AP, the White House stripped journalists of the nearly century-old power to decide which organisation's employees will be members of the daily pool of reporters and photographers covering presidential events. His administration has also pressed to dismantle US government-funded overseas outlets Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, and is seeking to starve National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) of federal funds.
