Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge on Friday temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Harvard University’s certification to host international students, granting a reprieve just hours after the Ivy League school filed a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional retaliation.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order, effectively preserving the university’s ability to enroll foreign students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The order maintains the status quo while a broader challenge proceeds, with a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for May 29.
Harvard’s legal action marks its second lawsuit against the administration in recent months and underscores growing tensions between the White House and elite academic institutions. In its complaint filed Friday morning, Harvard accused the administration of political reprisal for the university’s refusal to comply with federal demands that it called invasive and unlawful.
“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body,” the lawsuit stated, calling the action “an attack on our academic independence and constitutional rights.”
Trump Administration Cites “Anti-American Agitation”
The Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, announced Thursday that Harvard would lose its SEVP certification unless it submitted detailed information on foreign students allegedly linked to campus protests and supposed connections to foreign entities, including the Chinese Communist Party.
The administration accused Harvard of creating an “unsafe campus environment” and claimed the school had hosted or trained “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators.” Homeland Security also alleged the university had ongoing ties with members of a Chinese paramilitary group.
Noem demanded Harvard provide video, audio, and academic records for foreign students engaged in protests within 72 hours — a demand Harvard said it partially fulfilled within legal limits.
Retaliation and Free Speech Concerns
In its lawsuit, Harvard argued that the government’s actions were “retaliatory in nature” and violated First Amendment protections. The university emphasized the devastating impact such a move would have on its international student population, which includes nearly 7,000 students from more than 100 countries.
The government’s targeting of Harvard came after months of escalating friction. Earlier this year, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants to the university and suggested stripping its tax-exempt status. These moves followed Harvard’s refusal to adopt policies pushed by the administration, including “viewpoint diversity” audits of students and faculty.
“This revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a statement to the university community on Friday.
Garber also defended the university’s recent efforts to combat antisemitism, which included the implementation of a new oversight structure and disciplinary procedures after campus tensions rose in the wake of the Israel-Gaza war.
White House and DHS Push Back
The White House reacted sharply to the judge’s ruling. “The American people elected President Trump — not random local judges with their own liberal agenda — to run the country,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. “These unelected judges have no right to stop the Trump Administration from exercising rightful control over immigration policy.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called the court’s order “disappointing” and said the administration’s actions were intended to “send a warning” to other universities.
“No institution — not even Harvard — is above national security scrutiny,” Noem said.
Broader Implications
The court battle has implications far beyond Harvard. International students contribute over $40 billion annually to the U.S. economy, and any disruption to their visa status could have widespread academic and financial consequences.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized the Trump administration’s actions on Friday, warning that the move “undermines U.S. academic credibility and global standing.” In 2024, Chinese nationals made up the largest segment of Harvard’s foreign student population, with over 1,200 students.
Harvard’s athletic programs would also take a hit, with international students comprising 21% of its sports rosters for the 2024–25 season, including entire segments of teams like men’s rowing and women’s golf.
Legal scholars noted the unusually aggressive nature of the administration’s approach. “This isn’t just about immigration enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law. “This is about using immigration powers to punish a university for protected expression and perceived disloyalty.”
What’s Next?
Judge Burroughs’ ruling keeps Harvard’s SEVP certification in place, at least temporarily. The court will hear further arguments on May 29 to determine whether to issue a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.
Meanwhile, Harvard has vowed to resist what it calls “a campaign of intimidation” and promised to “defend the rights of all its students — regardless of their country of origin — under the law.”
As the legal fight continues, other U.S. universities are watching closely. Several institutions have issued statements of support for Harvard, with MIT, Stanford, and Yale all warning that politically motivated attacks on academic freedom set a dangerous precedent.
