In the latest move in the government’s dramatic feud with the US’s oldest university – and a major victory for international education sector – district judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order yesterday, halting the directive stripping Harvard of its eligibility to enrol students from overseas.
It follows the institution’s swift decision to mount a legal challenge against the administration’s demands that it hand over all disciplinary records for international students from the last five years if it wanted to regain its SEVP status.
In its lawsuit, Harvard said: “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission.” The next hearing in the case will be held in Boston on May 29.
If it comes to pass, the ban on international student enrolments would significantly harm Harvard’s financial situation – with last year’s 6,793 overseas students making up a sizeable 27% of the student body.
With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission
Harvard University
Orders from the Trump administration would not only prevent Harvard from enrolling any F-1 or J-1 students for the 2025/26 academic year, but also force current international students to transfer to another university if they want to stay in the country.
The move cause widespread panic among international students – especially given that some are set to graduate in just one week.
Students told The PIE News that they were worried about what was happening, but trusted Harvard to “have our backs”.
The institution’s row with Harvard stems from the stand it took – one of the only US institutions to do so – against the administrations raft of demands, including that it reform its admissions and hiring practices to combat antisemitism on campus, end DEI initiatives and hand over reports on international students.
When the institution refused to do so, the government froze $2.2 billion in the university’s funding, threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, and demanded international students’ records if it didn’t want to lose its SEVP certification.
Although Harvard did send over some student information on April 30, and maintained that it had provided the information it was legally bound to supply, this seems to have been insufficient for the Trump administration.
The administration is using Harvard as a test case, and every university president is watching to see if the courts will allow this level of federal overreach into academic governance
Shaun Carver, UC Berkeley
In US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem’s letter to Harvard, she said: “This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements”.
Reacting to the news, executive director and CEO of International House at UC Berkeley, said Harvard had been given “no choice: but to “move quickly to the courts”.
He stressed that the lawsuit was not just about the approximately 7,000 impacted students, but whether the federal government could “weaponise immigration policy to control academic institutions”.
“When the Department of Homeland Security can revoke a university’s ability to enrol foreign students without proper due process, we’re entering dangerous territory for higher education independence,” he warmed. “The administration is using Harvard as a test case, and every university president is watching to see if the courts will allow this level of federal overreach into academic governance.”
