Harvard

Nov. 4 (UPI) — Two male suspects were arrested Tuesday morning for allegedly setting off an explosive device inside a Harvard Medical School building early Saturday morning.

The two suspects are Logan David Patterson, 18, of Plymouth, Mass., and Dominick Frank Cardoza, 20, of Bourne, Mass., each of whom is accused of conspiring to damage, by means of an explosive, the Harvard Medical School Goldenson Building at 220 Longwood Ave. in Boston, the Department of Justice announced Tuesday.

FBI special agent Erin O’Brien submitted a criminal complaint in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in which she says there is probable cause that Patterson and Cardoza conspired to damage by fire or explosive device a building owned by an institution that receives federal financial assistance and is used in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce.

O’Brien said surveillance cameras at the intersection of Huntington and Longwood avenues at 2:23 a.m. EDT Saturday recorded two people walking toward the HMS campus.

One was wearing a blue/gray balaclava, a “distinctive” brown sweatshirt, tan sweatpants and white Crocs, while the other wore a blue mask, dark hooded jacket, dark plaid pajama pants and black sneakers.

Surveillance video also shows them lighting what appears to be a Roman candle firework at 2:24 a.m. before video from another camera shows them climbing over a chain-link fence and entering a construction area surrounding the Goldenson Building.

They climbed scaffolding next to the Goldenson Building to access its roof at 2:36 a.m., and Harvard University Police responded to a fire alarm on the building’s fourth floor at about 2:45 a.m.

The suspects exited the building via its first-floor emergency exit that leads to a courtyard, where each fled on foot in opposite directions, O’Brien said.

Harvard police found evidence of an explosive device detonating inside a wooden locker in the building’s fourth-floor research lab, which an FBI bomb technician said likely was a large commercial firework after inspecting its remains.

Soon after the alarm alerted police, a surveillance camera recorded one of the suspects removing clothing while sitting on a bench and depositing them in a garbage bin near Longwood Avenue and Autumn Street.

Footage recorded by a security camera at the Wentworth Institute of Technology, which is near the Goldenson Building, shows the other suspect on the campus at 3:09 a.m., entering a residential campus building and charging his phone and then using it to talk to someone at 3:23 a.m.

That suspect had removed his brown sweatshirt and tan pants and left the building soon after, met the other suspect and another individual, and the three walked to the Massachusetts College of Art and Design campus at 3:49 a.m., according to O’Brien.

Several Wentworth students identified Patterson and Cardoza as the suspects and said Patterson told them of his participation in the incident.

The witnesses said the pair told them that they allegedly placed an explosive cherry bomb firework in a locker and shut it before it exploded.

O’Brien said images of the two suspects match those that are posted on social media and that are maintained by the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Each faces up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine if convicted of conspiring to damage the university building.

An arraignment hearing for each suspect had not been scheduled as of Tuesday afternoon.

Nov. 1 (UPI) — The FBI, local and university police are investigating an “intentional” explosion that occurred early Saturday morning on the fourth floor of the Harvard Medical School building in Boston.

The explosion occurred at 2:48 a.m. EDT in the medical school’s Goldenson Building and triggered a fire alarm that alerted university police, The New York Times reported.

A Harvard University Police officer responded to the building at 220 Longwood Ave. and saw two individuals running from it.

The officer tried to stop the individuals but could not and then found evidence of an explosion on the fourth floor, according to The Boston Globe.

The Boston Fire Department and its arson unit also responded to the alarm and determined the explosion likely was intentional.

Boston police searched the building for explosive devices but found none.

No one was injured during the incident, and the FBI is assisting with the investigation.

University police released video stills of the two suspects, who appear to be young, white males wearing light-colored masks while fleeing the building.

One wore a brown sweatshirt with a hood and what looked like “NYC” printed on the front, khaki pants and gray Crocs.

The other wore a dark hooded sweatshirt and dark plaid pajama pants, according to university police.

The university police released images of each suspect that were captured by surveillance cameras.

Anyone who has information regarding the incident or suspects can contact the Harvard University Police Department’s detective bureau by calling 617-495-1796.

Oct. 23 (UPI) — New data released by Harvard University’s undergraduate school showed a decline for the class of 2029 in both Hispanic and Black students, with a spike in its Asian student population.

Massachusetts-based Harvard College stated its 2029 class makeup showed Black students comprised 11.5%, with Hispanics at 11% and Asian-American students at 41%, according to newly released data.

However, the university did not release demographics and data on its White student population.

The data release followed the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent ruling that struck down affirmative action practices in America’s higher learning institutions.

Prior to the high court’s decision, the Harvard student population had been made up of about 18% of Black students.

But Harvard’s total number of Hispanic students went up following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

According to data, roughly 21% of Harvards 2029 graduating class were eligible for federal Pell Grants. It added 45% were tuition free and 26% on an entirely free program.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump instructed the Department of Education to inform U.S. educational institutions on the receiving end of federal funds to officially end affirmative action policies in a number of school-related practices.

Meanwhile, a Yale professor and expert on affirmative action history called the decline an example how the high court’s “disastrous decision from 2023 continues to cause Black enrollment rates to decline at many of the nation’s premier universities.”

“I fear that Harvard’s plummeting trend lines over the last two years offers an unattractive preview of the future in American higher education,” Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, told The New York Times.

Oct. 1 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said the Department of Education has reached a potential deal to settle a months-long battle with Harvard University over federal funding.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon “is finishing up the final details” of the plan, Trump said during an unrelated executive order signing Tuesday in the Oval Office.

She has “a good chance of getting that closed,” he said.

The plan would have Harvard University pay $500 million and require the school to open trade schools and teach artificial intelligence.

“They’ll be teaching people how to do AI and lots of other things, engines, lots of things,” Trump said, adding that the school would run a “series of trade schools.”

Harvard did not immediately respond to Politico and CNN‘s requests for a comment on the matter.

Trump and Harvard have been locked in a legal battle after the president attempted to withhold more than $2 billion in funding and block Harvard from admitting international students after taking issue with students’ anti-Israel protests over the war in Gaza. The administration accused Harvard of failing to crack down on anti-Semitism.

Earlier this month, U.S. Judge Allison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts restored the funding — in the form of grants and contracts — in response to a lawsuit brought by the university and employee groups. The lawsuit accused Trump of leveraging the funding “to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.”

Among the programs affected by the block in funding were research in science and medicine, including on radiation exposure, ALS diagnostics and tuberculosis treatment.

On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights launched a process that could see Harvard ineligible for federal funding on Title VI grounds.

Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Department of Health and Human Services has launched a process that could see Harvard University ineligible for federal funding, as the Trump administration escalates its fight with the Ivy League school.

The HHS’ Office for Civil Rights announced Monday it has referred Harvard to its office responsible for suspension and debarment decisions, where officials could decided to make the university ineligible for government contracts.

“OCR’s referral of Harvard for formal administrative proceedings reflects OCR’s commitment to safeguard both taxpayer investments and broader public interest,” Paula Stannard, the OCR director, said in a statement.

Harvard is one of several universities the Trump administration has targeted with punitive measures on allegations of failing to protect Jewish students amid pro-Palestine protests that erupted on campuses during the spring of 2024.

While the White House says the actions are to clamp down on anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students at the schools, critics say it is a tactic to suppress dissent and left-leaning ideology, as the Trump administration has pressured universities to adopt policies that amount to federal interference in hiring, admissions and curriculum.

Several of the schools have reached costly agreements to settle allegations with the administration, but Harvard is the most high-profile institution to fight back.

After the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in government funding for the school, Harvard sued, with a judge earlier this month blocking the federal government’s attempt to withhold the money.

In support of its decision to refer Harvard to its OCR on Monday, HHS cited a June 30 notice it issued to the school stating it had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which found it had acted “with deliberate indifference toward discrimination and harassment against Jewish and Israeli students on its campus” amid Israel’s war in Gaza.

It also pointed to the OCR’s July 30 referral of Harvard to the Justice Department.

Harvard has 20 days to notify the OCR whether it will use its right to a formal administrative hearing, where an HHS administrative law judge will make a determination on whether it violated Title VI as alleged.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — A federal judge cited First Amendment rights Wednesday in an order blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold more than $2 billion in government funding from Harvard University.

U.S. Judge Allison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts restored the funding — in the form of grants and contracts — in response to a lawsuit brought by the university and employee groups. The lawsuit accused the President Donald Trump of leveraging the funding “to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard.”

Among the programs affected by the block in funding were research in science and medicine, including on radiation exposure, ALS diagnostics and tuberculosis treatment.

Trump attempted to withhold funding and block Harvard from admitting international students after taking issue with students’ anti-Israel protests over the war in Gaza. The administration accused Harvard of failing to crack down on anti-Semitism.

Burroughs said that while Harvard was wrong to not attempt to curtail “hateful behavior for as long as it did,” she doubts the administration’s stated aims.

“The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting anti-semitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combatting anti-Semitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment,” she wrote.

In June, Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s efforts to bar international students from enrolling at Harvard.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Administrators at the state university’s campus in Colorado Springs thought they stood a solid chance of dodging the Trump administration’s offensive on higher education.

Located on a picturesque bluff with a stunning view of Pikes Peak, the school is far removed from the Ivy League colleges that have drawn President Trump’s ire. Most of its students are commuters, getting degrees while holding down full-time jobs. Students and faculty alike describe the university, which is in a conservative part of the blue state of Colorado, as politically subdued, if not apolitical.

That optimism was misplaced.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of emails from school officials, as well as interviews with students and professors, reveals that school leaders, teachers and students soon found themselves in the Republican administration’s crosshairs, forcing them to navigate what they described as an unprecedented and haphazard degree of change.

Whether Washington has downsized government departments, rescinded funding or launched investigations into diversity programs or campus antisemitism, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs has confronted many of the same challenges as elite universities across the nation.

The school lost three major federal grants and found itself under investigation by the Trump Education Department. In the hopes of avoiding that scrutiny, the university renamed websites and job titles, all while dealing with pressure from students, faculty and staff who wanted the school to take a more combative stance.

“Uncertainty is compounding,” the school’s chancellor told faculty at a February meeting, according to minutes of the session. “And the speed of which orders are coming has been a bit of a shock.”

The college declined to make any administrators available to be interviewed. A spokesman asked the AP to make clear that any professors or students interviewed for this story were speaking for themselves and not the institution. Several faculty members also asked for anonymity, either because they did not have tenure or they did not want to call unnecessary attention to themselves and their scholarship in the current political environment.

“Like our colleagues across higher education, we’ve spent considerable time working to understand the new directives from the federal government,” the chancellor, Jennifer Sobanet, said in a statement provided to the AP.

Students said they have been able to sense the stress being felt by school administrators and professors.

“We have administrators that are feeling pressure, because we want to maintain our funding here. It’s been tense,” said Ava Knox, a rising junior who covers the university administration for the school newspaper.

Faculty, she added, “want to be very careful about how they’re conducting their research and about how they’re addressing the student population. They are also beholden to this new set of kind of ever-changing guidelines and stipulations by the federal government.”

A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Misplaced optimism

Shortly after Trump won a second term in November, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs leaders were trying to gather information on the incoming president’s plans. In December, Sobanet met the newly elected Republican congressman who represented the school’s district, a conservative area that Trump won with 53% of the vote. In her meeting notes obtained by the AP, the chancellor sketched out a scenario in which the college might avoid the drastic cuts and havoc under the incoming administration.

“Research dollars — hard to pull back grant dollars but Trump tried to pull back some last time. The money goes through Congress,” Sobanet wrote in notes prepared for the meeting. “Grant money will likely stay but just change how they are worded and what it will fund.”

Sobanet also observed that dismantling the federal Education Department would require congressional authorization. That was unlikely, she suggested, given the U.S. Senate’s composition.

Like many others, she did not fully anticipate how aggressively Trump would seek to transform the federal government.

Conservatives’ desire to revamp higher education began well before Trump took office.

They have long complained that universities have become bastions of liberal indoctrination and raucous protests. In 2023, Republicans in Congress had a contentious hearing with several Ivy League university leaders. Shortly after, the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigned. During the presidential campaign last fall, Trump criticized campus protests against the war in Gaza, as well as what he said was a liberal bias in classrooms.

His new administration opened investigations into alleged antisemitism at several universities. It froze more than $400 million in research grants and contracts at Columbia, along with more than $2.6 billion at Harvard. Columbia reached an agreement last month to pay $220 million to resolve the investigation.

When Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s actions, his administration tried to block the school from enrolling international students. The Trump administration has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Northwestern University, Penn, Princeton and Cornell have seen big chunks of funding cut over how they dealt with the protests about Israel’s war in Gaza or over the schools’ support for transgender athletes.

Trump’s decision to target the wealthiest, most prestigious institutions provided some comfort to administrators at the approximately 4,000 other colleges and universities in the country.

Most higher education students in the United States are educated at regional public universities or community colleges. Such schools have not typically drawn attention from culture warriors.

Students and professors at UCCS hoped Trump’s crackdown would bypass the school and others like it.

“You’ve got everyone — liberals, conservatives, middle of the road” at the college, said Jeffrey Scholes, a professor in the philosophy department. “You just don’t see the kind of unrest and polarization that you see at other campuses.”

The purse strings

The federal government has lots of leverage over higher education. It provides about $60 billion a year to universities for research. In addition, a majority of students in the U.S. need grants and loans from various federal programs to help pay tuition and living expenses.

This budget year, UCCS got about $19 million in research funding from a combination of federal, state and private sources. Though that is a relatively small portion of the school’s overall $369-million budget, the college has made a push in recent years to bolster its campus research program by taking advantage of grant money from government agencies such as the U.S. Defense Department and National Institutes of Health. The widespread federal grant cut could derail those efforts.

School officials were dismayed when the Trump administration terminated research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Defense Department and the National Science Foundation, emails show. The grants funded programs in civics, cultural preservation and boosting women in technology fields.

School administrators scrambled to contact federal officials to learn whether other grants were on the chopping block, but they struggled to find answers, the records show.

School officials repeatedly sought out the assistance of federal officials only to learn those officials were not sure what was happening as the Trump administration halted grant payments, fired thousands of employees and closed agencies.

“The sky is falling” at NIH, a university official reported in notes on a call in which the school’s lobbyists were providing reports of what was happening in Washington.

There are also concerns about other changes in Washington that will affect how students pay for college, according to interviews with faculty and education policy experts.

While only Congress can fully abolish the Department of Education, the Trump administration has tried to dramatically cut back its staff and parcel out many of its functions to other agencies. The administration laid off nearly 1,400 employees, and problems have been reported in the systems that handle student loans. Management of student loans is expected to shift to another agency.

In addition, an early version of a major funding bill in Congress included major cuts to tuition grants. Though that provision did not make it into the law, Congress did cap loans for students seeking graduate degrees. That policy could have ripple effects in the coming years on institutions such as UCCS that rely on tuition dollars for their operating expenses.

DEI and transgender issues

To force change on campus, the Trump administration has begun investigations targeting diversity programs and efforts to combat antisemitism.

The Education Department, for example, opened an investigation in March targeting a PhD scholarship program that partnered with 45 universities, including the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, to expand opportunities for women and nonwhites in graduate education. The administration alleged the program was only open to certain nonwhite students and amounted to racial discrimination.

“Sorry to be the bearer of bad news UCCS is included on the list” of schools being investigated, wrote Annie Larson, assistant vice president of federal relations and outreach for the entire University of Colorado system.

“Oh wow, this is surprising,” wrote back Hillary Fouts, dean of the graduate school at UCCS.

UCCS also struggled with how to handle executive orders, particularly those on transgender issues.

In response to an order that aimed to revoke funds to schools that allowed trans women to play women’s sports, UCCS began a review of its athletic programs. It determined it had no transgender athletes, the records show. University officials were also relieved to discover that only one school in their athletic conference was affected by the order, and UCCS rarely if ever had matches or games against that school.

“We do not have any students impacted by this and don’t compete against any teams that we are aware of that will be impacted by this,” wrote the vice chancellor for student affairs to colleagues.

Avoiding the spotlight

The attacks led UCCS to take preemptive actions and to self-censor in the hopes of saving programs and avoiding the Trump administration’s spotlight.

Emails show that the school’s legal counsel began looking at all the university’s websites and evaluating whether any scholarships might need to be reworded. The university changed the web address of its diversity initiatives from www.diversity.uccs.edu to www.belonging.uccs.edu.

And the administrator responsible for the university’s division of Inclusive Culture & Belonging got a new job title in January: director of strategic initiatives. University professors said the school debated whether to rename the Women’s and Ethnic Studies department to avoid drawing attention from Trump, but so far the department has not been renamed.

Along the same lines, UCCS administrators have sought to avoid getting dragged into controversies, a frequent occurrence in the first Trump administration. UCCS officials attended a presentation from the education consulting firm EAB, which encouraged schools not to react to every news cycle. That could be a challenge because some students and faculty are calling for vocal resistance on issues from climate change to immigration.

Soon after Trump was sworn in, for example, a staff member in UCCS’s sustainability program began pushing the University of Colorado system to condemn Trump’s withdrawal from an international agreement to tackle climate change. It was the type of statement universities had issued without thinking twice in past administrations.

In an email, UCCS’ top public relations executive warned his boss: “There is a growing sentiment among the thought leadership in higher ed that campus leaders not take a public stance on major issues unless they impact their campus community.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press. AP education writer Collin Binkley in Washington contributed to this report.

What’s the difference between Harvard and UCLA when it comes to fighting President Trump’s attacks?

It may come down to how much Gavin Newsom wants his shot at the White House.

Harvard appears to be on the brink of caving to the president’s demands around claims of antisemitism and a host of issues that most would describe as policies for inclusiveness and diversity, but which Trump derides as “woke,” whatever that means.

The storied university may pay out a huge settlement — rumored to be about $500 million — to pacify an administration increasingly bent on domination of American institutions. Armed with that success, the president has targeted UCLA by freezing more than $500 million in federal grants and demanding a payout of about $1 billion.

“We will not be complicit in this kind of attack on academic freedom on this extraordinary public institution,” Newsom said recently. “We are not like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path.”

Let’s hope that’s true.

Technically, the University of California is run by the Board of Regents, of which Newsom is a member. But Newsom has so far appointed or reappointed several voting members, and you’re not going to convince me that the rest will go rogue on this decision on how to battle for the soul of UCLA, one of the most important the board will ever make.

So Newsom will be the decider, to steal a phrase from President George W. Bush.

And deciding to capitulate not only looks bad, but has terrible consequences that would dog a candidate Newsom. Not to mention crippling California as a whole.

Harvard may hold a place in the American psyche as the best of the best, but when it comes to actual impact, UCLA and the University of California system are in an entirely different league. More than 1 million Californians hold a degree from a UC, with about 200,000 currently enrolled across the system. Each year, UCLA alone contributes more than $2 billion to the local economy, and adds to the body of human knowledge with its unparalleled research in ways that money cannot quantify.

“With all respect to Harvard, the University of California dwarfs Harvard in terms of size and scale and the impact on the country,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) told me. “When you look at the UC just in terms of science and healthcare and helping to birth Silicon Valley, helping to birth the pharmaceutical industry, the UC has a cultural, educational and economic relevance unlike any other institution on the planet.”

The stakes are simply higher for California. Harvard, a private university, can not only withstand more financially, but ultimately matters less. UCLA, with great respect to UC Berkeley, is the “people’s university,” as Zev Yaroslavsky puts it. He’s a former L.A. County supervisor and current director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

“There is a difference between a Harvard and a UCLA, or UC Berkeley or UC San Diego or University of Michigan,” he said, and if the president managed to extract his pound of flesh, “it would bankrupt the No. 1 public university in the United States.”

The problem is this is a lose-lose situation. If the university settles, it is going to be forced to pay a tribute of hundreds of millions of dollars. While it may be able to lower the purposefully debilitating $1 billion Trump is demanding, it will still pay a price that damages it for years to come. But at least it will know the number.

If the university doesn’t settle, it risks years of litigation with no certainty of an eventual win.

On Tuesday, a federal court in a separate lawsuit ordered the administration to unfreeze more than $80 million in funding that is currently being withheld. But even with that win, the entire UC system remains in jeopardy of the president’s agenda, and there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would side with California if or when the case made it that far.

But even if UCLA were to settle, what’s to stop Trump from coming back next year for another bite? As Yaroslavsky points out, give a bully your lunch money once, and they’ll keep coming back for more.

“There’s always a temptation to negotiate and work it out,” said Wiener, the state senator. “I don’t think that that’s an option here.”

Neither do I, though the business-minded decision would be to cut a deal. But we also have a larger issue to consider.

Education is resistance to authoritarianism, and crushing it has long been a goal of the far right. Point being, educated, free-thinking folks often prefer diversity and democracy.

In 2021, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech titled “The Universities are the Enemy,” which summed it up well.

“We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country,” he said. And here we are.

If the university of the fourth-largest economy on the planet signals that it can’t stand up to this, what university will risk it?

“California needs to say, ‘No, we’re not going to give him control over the UC, we’re not going to pay him taxpayer dollars as extortion,’” Wiener said. “If California can’t say no, then I don’t see who can.”

So once again, California — and Californians — are a line of defense. It’s up to us to let our leaders know that we don’t want our taxpayer-funded universities to cave to this assault, and that we expect our governor to fight.

It’s in his best interest, and ours.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has launched a new investigation against Harvard University, this time targeted at an exchange programme that allows foreign scholars to visit the elite school.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement on Wednesday saying the probe was necessary to ensure US security — but the investigation is likely to be seen by critics as the latest attempt to bully the school into compliance with President Donald Trump’s policies.

“The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law, and provide safe environments for all students,” Rubio wrote in the statement.

“The investigation will ensure that State Department programs do not run contrary to our nation’s interests.”

At stake is Harvard’s exchange visitor programme, which allows professors, students and researchers to come to the US on a temporary basis.

Participating scholars receive a J-1 visa, which allows them to participate in cultural and academic exchange programmes on the basis that they are coming to the US not as immigrants but as visitors.

But Harvard’s ability to host such a programme is contingent on the State Department’s approval. Rubio suggested that the school’s “continued eligibility as a sponsor” would hang in the balance of Wednesday’s investigation.

“To maintain their privilege to sponsor exchange visitors, sponsors must comply with all regulations, including conducting their programs in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States,” Rubio wrote.

Questions of national security

Under President Trump’s second term, the US has repeatedly cited questions of national security and foreign policy in its attempts to expel foreign students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian and antiwar movements.

Rubio himself has drawn on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — a relatively obscure Cold War-era law — in his efforts to deport student protest leaders like Mahmoud Khalil.

The law allows the secretary of state to expel foreign nationals “whose presence or activities” could pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

The government’s use of such laws, however, is currently being challenged in court. Critics argue they violate the constitutional right to free speech and protest.

It was President Trump’s opposition to the pro-Palestinian protests that led him to engage in a high-profile confrontation with Harvard, the country’s oldest university and a member of the much-vaunted Ivy League.

Schools like Harvard in Massachusetts and Columbia University in New York were considered the epicentre of the protest movement. At Columbia, for instance, students erected a tent encampment that inspired similar demonstrations across the world.

The schools’ crackdowns on those protests, however, were also emulated at other campuses. Columbia, for instance, called in police to clear pro-Palestinian demonstrators, and other schools took similar action, leading to more than 3,000 campus arrests across the country last year.

Critics of the protests, including President Trump, have called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and warned they create an unsafe learning environment for Jewish students.

Protest leaders, however, point out that most of the demonstrations were peaceful and have forcefully rejected anti-Jewish hate. Rather, they argue their protests are about shining a light on the abuses Israel has perpetrated in Gaza — and the crackdowns are aimed at stamping out views that run contrary to the US’s close relationship with Israel.

Pressure on schools

Upon taking office in January, however, Trump pledged to take “forceful and unprecedented steps” to root out alleged anti-Semitism on campus.

In early March, he began his broadside on Ivy League campuses like Columbia and Harvard. He began by stripping Columbia of $400m in federal contracts and grants and then by requesting compliance with a list of demands, including disciplinary reform and external oversight for certain academic departments.

By March 22, Columbia had agreed to make concessions.

But Trump encountered greater resistance at Harvard University. On April 11, the Trump administration likewise issued a list of demands that would have required Harvard to commit to “structural and personnel changes” to foster “viewpoint diversity”, eliminate its diversity programmes and agree to external audits.

It refused. Instead, Harvard President Alan Garber said such requests would violate Harvard’s rights as a private institution committed to academic freedom.

Since then, the Trump administration has stripped Harvard of billions of dollars in federal contracts, research funding and grants. A federal court in Boston began hearing a legal challenge against that decision this week.

A multipronged attack

But the Trump administration has also explored other avenues to pressure Harvard into compliance.

Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status — though critics warn it would be illegal to do so — and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blocked Harvard from accessing the Student and Exchange Visitor Programme (SEVP), a system that schools are required to use to enrol international students.

Foreign students make up about a quarter of Harvard’s student body. Losing access to the SEVP system effectively meant those students were no longer able to attend the school.

Harvard challenged the Trump administration’s ban on its foreign students in court and received a preliminary injunction that allows its international students to remain while the case plays out.

But other hurdles have since emerged. Earlier this month, for instance, the Trump administration accused Harvard of civil rights violations and called for a review of its accreditation, the industry-wide quality standard that gives university diplomas their value.

Meanwhile, news outlets have reported that officials from the Trump administration and Harvard continue to negotiate over whether a deal can be struck to defuse the ongoing tensions.

The move gives US Treasury a chance to recommend replacement, at time that US President Donald Trump is reshaping global economy.

Gita Gopinath, the No. 2 official at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will leave her post at the end of August to return to Harvard University, the IMF has said.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva will name a successor to Gopinath in “due course”, the financial institution said in a statement on Monday.

Gopinath joined the fund in 2019 as chief economist, the first woman to serve in that role, and was promoted to first deputy managing director in January 2022.

No comment was immediately available from the United States Department of the Treasury, which manages the dominant US shareholding in the IMF. While European countries have traditionally chosen the IMF’s managing director, the US Treasury has traditionally recommended candidates for the first deputy managing director role.

Gopinath is an Indian-born US citizen.

The timing of the move caught some IMF insiders by surprise, and appears to have been initiated by Gopinath.

Gopinath, who had left Harvard to join the IMF, will return to the university as a professor of economics.

Her departure will offer the US Treasury a chance to recommend a successor at a time when President Donald Trump is seeking to restructure the global economy and end longstanding US trade deficits with high tariffs on imports from nearly all countries.

She will return to a university that has been in the Trump administration’s crosshairs after the school rejected demands to change its governance, hiring and admissions practices.

Georgieva said Gopinath joined the IMF as a highly respected academic and proved to be an “exceptional intellectual leader” during her time, which included the pandemic and global shocks caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Gita steered the Fund’s analytical and policy work with clarity, striving for the highest standards of rigorous analysis at a complex time of high uncertainty and rapidly changing global economic environment,” Georgieva said.

Gopinath has also overseen the fund’s multilateral surveillance and analytical work on fiscal and monetary policy, debt and international trade.

Gopinath said she was grateful for a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to work at the IMF, thanking both Georgieva and the previous IMF chief, Christine Lagarde, who appointed her as chief economist.

“I now return to my roots in academia, where I look forward to continuing to push the research frontier in international finance and macroeconomics to address global challenges, and to training the next generation of economists,” she said in a statement.

July 9 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent administrative subpoenas to Harvard University demanding that it turn over data on its Student Visitor and Exchange Program.

“We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a press release announcing the subpoenas. “Harvard, like other universities, has allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus. If Harvard won’t defend the interests of its students, then we will.”

In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, Harvard said it plans to follow all “lawful requests” but dismissed the subpoenas as “unwarranted.”

In May, Noem said in a letter to the school, “As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ policies, you have lost this privilege.”

Noem announced in April that the government would cancel two grants to the school worth more than $2.7 million. She said the school was “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.”

Wednesday’s release said the university’s refusal to comply means “these subpoenas are the only option left for the Department.”

“Other universities and academic institutions that are asked to submit similar information should take note of Harvard’s actions, and the repercussions, when considering whether or not to comply with similar requests,” DHS warned.

A federal task force threatens to cut all of Harvard’s federal funding over alleged violations of the rights of Jewish and Israeli students.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has accused Harvard University of violating the civil rights of its Jewish and Israeli students and threatened to cut off all federal funding to the institution.

The announcement on Monday is the latest action by the Trump administration against the United States’s oldest university after the institution rejected earlier demands to alter its operations.

In a letter sent to Harvard president Alan Garber, a federal task force said its investigation has concluded that “Harvard has been in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff”.

The letter went on to say that the majority of Jewish students at Harvard felt they suffered discrimination on campus, while a quarter felt physically unsafe.

It also threatened further funding acts if Harvard did not change course.

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” it said, without elaborating what the reforms needed were.

In a statement, Harvard pushed back against the allegations.

The university said that it had taken “substantive, proactive steps” to combat anti-Semitism on campus, and had made “significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias”.

“We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognise that this work is ongoing,” it said, adding that it remains “committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard”.

At a White House briefing later, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said discussions between the Trump administration and Harvard were taking place “behind closed doors”, but offered no further details.

Protests against Israel’s war on Gaza

US universities have faced controversy over alleged anti-Semitism on their campuses since the eruption last year of nationwide student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Trump has called such protests “illegal” and accused participants of anti-Semitism. But protest leaders – who include Jewish students – have described their actions as a peaceful response to Israel’s actions, which have elicited concerns about human rights abuses, including genocide.

The Trump administration has frozen some $2.5bn in federal grant money to Harvard, moved to block it from enrolling international students and threatened to remove its tax-exempt status.

It has demanded that Harvard end all affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions and disband student groups that promote what it calls criminal activity and harassment.

It also called for changes to the admissions process “to prevent admitting international students hostile to the American values”, including “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”.

Harvard has rejected those demands, and sued the administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.

The Trump administration has also gone after top colleges, including Columbia, Cornell and Northwestern.

In early March, Columbia – whose protest camps were copied by students at colleges all over the country – had $400m in federal funding cut from its budget.

The school later agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration. These included changing its disciplinary rules and reviewing its Middle East studies programme.

Separately, University of Virginia president James Ryan said last week he chose to step down rather than fight the US government as the Trump administration investigated the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Around the same time, the Trump administration also launched a probe into hiring practices at the University of California system – which enrols nearly 300,000 students – to determine whether they violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

The universities have, meanwhile, said that the Trump administration’s actions threaten academic freedom and free speech, as well as critical scientific research.

June 30 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Monday threatened more funding cuts to Harvard University after a federal task force claimed the Ivy League school was in “violent violation” of the Civil Rights Act over a perceived failure to protect Jewish students.

“Harvard holds the regrettable distinction of being among the most prominent and visible breeding ground for race discrimination,” read the letter in part to University President Alan Garber from the federal government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.

The letter, signed by four federal officials from the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, the U.S. General Services Administration, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon, cited the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on Harvard’s admission practices.

It said that its Title VI investigation via the 1964 Civil Rights Act — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin — concluded that Harvard allegedly failed to suppress anti-Semitism on its Boston-based campus.

“That legacy of discrimination persists with Harvard’s continued anti-Semitism,” it stated, adding that any institution refusing to “meet its duties under federal law may not receive a wide range of federal privileges.”

The task force listed in its examples a series of allegations that it says Harvard “did not dispute our findings of fact, nor could it.”

It indicated a quarter of Harvard’s Jewish students felt unsafe, saw negative bias and reported alleged assaults during campus demonstrations that federal officials claimed violated university policy, among a number of other issues.

In their letter, it went on to express how the Holocaust engulfed Europe “due to the ‘[d]isbelief, incredulity, and denial on the part of both victims and onlookers’ which ‘worked to the advantage of those who wanted to eradicate the Jews.'”

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” the letter continued. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”

On Monday, the university pointed to “substantive, proactive steps” officials took to address “the root causes of antisemitism” on campus, saying Harvard is “far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government’s findings.”

“In responding to the government’s investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue,” a university spokesman told The Hill in a statement.

Harvard previously refused to give in to the administration’s demands to end its diversity, equity, inclusion and other policies, leading to a lawsuit over a pause in more than $3 billion in federal funds and Trump’s order to rid Harvard’s long-existing right to enroll foreign students.

This month, the president in a social media post said a deal with Harvard could arrive but offered no other detail and has not spoken of it since.

In their own distinct ways, Bellamy and Martin are flagbearers for the progressive trends of modern football; possession-based styles of play and building from the back.

Most young coaches want to follow that path, as you can see when watching this year’s crop of FAW Pro Licence candidates working on and off the field.

But there is still room for the old school on this course.

On the final day, former Stoke manager Tony Pulis is invited to host a masterclass on set-pieces. It is a wet and windy Tuesday. This is meant to be.

Before his practical session on the pitch at a rain-lashed Dragon Park, he gives the Pro Licence group a presentation on his career – and it is pure gold.

Pulis is in his element as he reels off stories about his humble beginnings as a player and coach, before getting on to his various managerial tenures, complementing each piece of advice with at least a couple of entertaining anecdotes that could earn him a second career on the after dinner speaking circuit.

The 67-year-old Welshman has the room howling with laughter, and on a couple of occasions a giggling Dante asks for a little translation help from those next to him as he tries to decipher Pulis’ broad Newport accent and industrial language.

Among the jokes are a number of useful lessons, as Pulis answers questions on various topics, from the help he got from his peers (Sir Alex Ferguson and Carlo Ancelotti get a mention) to balancing family life with the exhaustive travelling that comes with management.

Then he steps out on to the field to take the practical session with a group of young players, freezing in the rain as Pulis barks orders at them as if he was preparing them for a long-throw from Rory Delap.

“It’s always nice to come back to Wales and Newport. It’s a special place, this is my town,” Pulis says.

“I loved playing football for my local club, or just on the streets. It’s always nice to come and to be involved in football, helping people starting out in their careers.

“Set-plays have always been an important part of football and I think they’ve been undervalued. Mikel [Arteta] doing it with Arsenal, such a big club not just in England but on the world stage, has brought it to the fore again.

“I’ve had such a tremendous career and the world’s changed, the game’s changed. My first training session at Gillingham, we had to take the goals off the main pitch and take them on a tractor to a park and train there with people and their dogs walking past. Then you look at this and the facilities we’ve got today… it’s the greatest sport in the world and it’s our sport.”

Listening as intently to Pulis as the fledgling coaches – and laughing just as hard at the jokes – at the back of the room is the man who oversees the course, Dave Adams.

As the FAW’s chief football officer, Adams is responsible for the men’s and women’s game at all levels in Wales.

He appointed both senior national team head coaches last year and, on top of his work in developing Welsh football, he leads the Pro Licence course.

“I’m standing on the work of other people in some respects. Osian Roberts [former FAW technical director] did a great job in creating a programme which was world-class,” says Adams.

“What I tried to do with it when I started in 2019 was to go into the market and speak to head coaches because, fundamentally, you want a course that reflects the needs of head coaches, which are really complex and multi-faceted. It’s very much reality-based learning. We don’t want things to be abstract because coaching is a vocational skill.

“We get close to 400 applicants for 20 [Pro Licence] places every two years. It’s highly competitive. We’ve got to try and support our Welsh coaches like Chris Gunter and people who are working for our national association. But equally, we recognise that by having people like Nuri Sahin and Mikel Arteta, Chris Wilder, Roberto Martinez, Steve Cooper before that – the names are extensive – they bring a different lens and, as much as we help them, they actually help us as well.

“They’ve coached and worked at the highest level. There’s a recognition on our side that when we bring people like that, it’s also about taking from them, and that helps us grows an association. We learn new things, which we can apply to our programmes or our national teams, and that helps us grow as well.”

At the heart of the FAW’s work is the concept of the Welsh Way, an ethos underpinning everything from the elite level to grassroots; a vision for football in Wales, how to develop the game and foster its sense of national pride.

“It’s our mantra, Together Stronger. In any department, being small, being agile, being dynamic and everyone feeling a part of something is really important,” Adams adds.

“In any high-performance coaching environment, that sense of togetherness is really important. Whether you’re the head coach or the masseur or the chef, you’ve all got a vital part to play and got to buy into the vision of the head coach.

“It’s important we have that mantra and it drives everything we do. Why should we dream small? Dream big. We’re a small country but we’ve got incredible talent. We’re interested in the small margins and that’s what gives us a competitive advantage at the highest level.”

President Trump and his administration have tried several tactics to block Harvard University’s enrollment of international students, part of the White House’s effort to secure policy changes at the private Ivy League college.

Targeting foreign students has become the administration’s cornerstone effort to crack down on the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college. The block on international enrollment, which accounts for a quarter of Harvard’s students and much of its global allure, strikes at the core of Harvard’s identity. Courts have stopped some of the government’s actions, at least for now — but not all.

In the latest court order, a federal judge Friday put one of those efforts on hold until a lawsuit is resolved. But the fate of Harvard’s international students — and its broader standoff with the Trump administration — remains in limbo.

Here are the ways the Trump administration has moved to block Harvard’s foreign enrollment — and where each effort stands.

Harvard’s certification to host foreign students

In May, the Trump administration tried to ban foreign students at Harvard, citing the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to oversee which colleges are part of the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. The program allows colleges to issue documents that foreign students need to study in the United States.

Harvard filed a lawsuit, arguing the administration violated the government’s own regulations for withdrawing a school’s certification.

Within hours, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston put the administration’s ban on hold temporarily — an order that had an expiration date. On Friday, she issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Homeland Security’s move until the case is decided. That could take months or longer.

The government can and does remove colleges from the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, making them ineligible to host foreign students on their campuses. However, it’s usually for administrative reasons outlined in law, such as failing to maintain accreditation, lacking proper facilities for classes, failing to employ qualified professional personnel — even failing to “operate as a bona fide institution of learning.” Other colleges are removed when they close.

Notably, Burroughs’ order Friday said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard’s ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. After Burroughs’ emergency block in May, DHS issued a more typical “Notice of Intent to Withdraw” Harvard’s participation in the international student visa program.

“Today’s order does not affect the DHS’s ongoing administrative review,” Harvard said Friday in a message to its international students. “Harvard is fully committed to compliance with the applicable F-1 (student visa) regulations and strongly opposes any effort to withdraw the University’s certification.”

U.S. entry for incoming Harvard students

Earlier this month, Trump moved to block entry to the United States for incoming Harvard students, issuing a proclamation that invoked a different legal authority.

Harvard filed a court challenge attacking Trump’s legal justification for the action — a federal law allowing the president to block a “class of aliens” deemed detrimental to the nation’s interests. Targeting only those who are coming to the U.S. to study at Harvard doesn’t qualify as a “class of aliens,” Harvard said in its filing.

Harvard’s lawyers asked the court to block the action. Burroughs agreed to pause the entry ban temporarily, without giving an expiration date. She has not yet ruled on Harvard’s request for another preliminary injunction, which would pause the ban until the court case is decided. “We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,” Harvard told international students Friday.

At the center of Trump’s pressure campaign against Harvard are his assertions that the school has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment, especially during pro-Palestinian protests. In seeking to keep Harvard students from coming to the U.S., he said Harvard is not a suitable destination. Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism and will not submit to the administration’s demands for further changes.

Scrutiny of visas

In late May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to start reviewing social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism.

On Wednesday, the State Department said it was launching new vetting of social media accounts for foreigners applying for student visas, and not just those seeking to attend Harvard. Consular officers will be on the lookout for posts and messages that could be deemed hostile to the United States, its government, culture, institutions or founding principles, the department said, telling visa applicants to set their social media accounts to “public.”

In reopening the visa process, the State Department also told consulates to prioritize students hoping to enroll at colleges where foreigners make up less than 15% of the student body, a U.S. official familiar with the matter said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to detail information that has not been made public.

Foreign students make up more than 15% of the total student body at almost 200 U.S. universities — including Harvard and the other Ivy League schools, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal education data from 2023. Most are private universities, including all eight Ivy League schools.

Some Harvard students are also caught up in the government’s recent ban against travel to the U.S. by citizens of 12 nations, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. The Trump administration last weekend called for 36 additional countries to commit to improving vetting of travelers or face a ban on their citizens visiting the United States.

F-1 and J-1 visas

Harvard sponsors more than 7,000 people on a combination of F-1 and J-1 visas, which are issued to students and to foreigners visiting the U.S. on exchange programs such as fellowships. Across all the schools that make up the university, about 26% of the student body is from outside the United States.

But some schools and programs, by nature of their subject matter, have significantly more international students. At the Harvard Kennedy School, which covers public policy and public administration, 49% of students are on F-1 visas. In the business school, one-third of students come from abroad. And within the law school, 94% of the students in the master’s program in comparative law are international students.

The administration has imposed a range of sanctions on Harvard since it rejected the government’s demands for policy reforms related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Conservatives say the demands are merited, decrying Harvard as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard says the administration is illegally retaliating against the university.

Federal judge pauses Trump’s efforts as the US president says a ‘deal’ with the Ivy League school was in the works.

A federal judge in the United States has blocked President Donald Trump’s bid to block Harvard from enrolling foreign students, delivering the prestigious university another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House.

Friday’s order by District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard’s ability to host international students while a lawsuit filed by the Ivy League school plays out in the courts.

Burroughs, however, added that the federal government still had the authority to review Harvard’s foreign admission policies through normal processes outlined in law.

Harvard found itself embroiled in a polarising debate about academic freedom and the right to protest against Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza as its pro-Palestine students demanded full disclosure of the country’s oldest and wealthiest university’s investments in companies linked to Israel and divestment from those companies.

Trump and his allies claim that Harvard, and other US universities that saw similar protests, are unaccountable bastions of liberal, anti-conservative bias and “anti-Semitism”.

In May, Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security after the agency abruptly withdrew the school’s certification to enrol foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures.

The action would have forced Harvard’s roughly 7,000 international students – about a quarter of its total enrolment and a major source of income – to transfer or risk being in the US without the necessary documents. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard.

The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House’s demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions and hiring.

Trump, who has cut about $3.2bn of federal grants for Harvard and tried numerous tactics to block the institution from hosting international students, said that his administration has been holding negotiations with Harvard.

“Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution,” Trump said in a post on Friday on Truth Social.

“We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” he said. “If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”

Trump did not provide any details about the purported “deal”.

June 20 (UPI) — Harvard University received good news on two fronts Friday — the courts and President Donald Trump — in its fight with the federal government on funding and foreign students.

A federal judge in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction that would continue blocking Trump efforts to bar international students from attending the private university.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, previously had issued a temporary block halting the moves by Trump, though her decision can be appealed to the circuit court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Shortly afterward at 3:40 p.m. EDT, Trump posted on Truth Social that a deal could be reached with the Ivy League school in Cambridge, Mass., after billions of dollars in grants were paused as the school faced accusations of anti-Semitism.

“Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their large-scale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” Trump said.

“They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon last week said: “We are, I think, making progress in some of the discussion, where even though they have taken a hard line, they have, for instance, replaced their head of Middle East Studies.” Her comments came during a moderated conversation with Bloomberg in Washington, D.C.

The Education Department has frozen $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts to Harvard University after the school rejected its demands to make policy changes and “uphold federal civil rights laws.” Halted were science and medicine research, including radiation exposure, ALS diagnostics and tuberculosis treatment.

Harvard sued the Trump administration in April, asking for an expedited final decision in the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 21. Two dozen universities filed an amicus brief in support of the school this month.

The IRS is considering revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

On June 4, Trump ordered a suspension of international visas for new students seeking to attend Harvard University, accusing the school of failing to report “known illegal activity” carried out by its students.

In a proclamation, Trump said the suspension applies only to new nonimmigrant students who travel to the United States solely or primarily to attend the Massachusetts university. International students are allowed to enter the country to attend U.S. schools under the Student Exchange Visa Program.

In the 2024-2025 academic year, Harvard had nearly 7,000 international students, representing about 27% of its total student body. They came from over 140 different countries. When counting researchers, the total international population at Harvard exceeds 10,000.

This is the case before Judge Burroughs.

The judge, in the three-page decision, blocked the Trump administration from ending Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which was based on a May 22 revocation notice the Department of Homeland Security sent to Harvard administrators.

Burroughs directed the government to “immediately” prepare guidance to alert Trump administration officials to disregard that notice and to restore “every visa holder and applicant to the position that individual would have been absent such Revocation Notice.”

Also, student visa holders shouldn’t be denied entry to the United States.

Burroughs wrote the government must “file a status report within 72 hours of entry of this Order describing the steps taken to ensure compliance with this Order and certifying compliance with its requirements.”

In the May letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the administration was revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students in part because it had been “perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies.”

Ian Heath Gershenger, an attorney for the university, accused the administration of “using international students as pawns” and targeting Harvard.

Justice Department attorneys instead focused on national security concerns because they do not trust Harvard to vet its international students.

An attorney for the Trump administration previously said that it does not have the same concerns in regard to other schools but that that could change.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Friday blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House.

The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard’s ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard’s legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard’s ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law.

Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school’s certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard’s roughly 7,000 international students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard.

The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House’s demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government’s action hours after Harvard sued.

Less than two weeks later, in early June, President Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump’s proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and the judge did not address the proclamation in her order Friday.

“We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,” Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. “Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.”

Students in limbo

The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America’s oldest and wealthiest university.

The Trump administration’s efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of “profound fear, concern, and confusion,” the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said.

Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they’ll be able to attend the university.

For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard’s Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn’t refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration’s policies, she still hasn’t heard back.

“Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,” Huang said in a social media post. “Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?”

An ongoing battle

Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump administration officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

On Friday, the president said in a post on social media that the administration has been working with Harvard to address “their largescale improprieties” and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,” the post said.

The Trump administration first targeted Harvard’s international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.

The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard’s reputation as a global research hub. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the lawsuit said.

The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard’s students, including two universities in Hong Kong.

Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums.

Binkley and Zhang write for the Associated Press.

June 6 (UPI) — A federal judge temporarily paused President Donald Trump‘s ban on foreign nationals coming to study, teach, or do research at Harvard University, pending a hearing later in June.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs’ ruling Thursday night came after Harvard filed a suit in Boston alleging Trump’s proclamation, issued a day earlier, was unlawful because it violated the First Amendment.

Burroughs said she was granting Harvard’s motion for a restraining order against the Homeland Security Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Justice Department, State Department and the Student and Exchange Visitor Program after accepting Harvard’s claim that it would otherwise “sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there was an opportunity to hear from all parties.”

The motion was in a hastily amended complaint by Harvard after Trump on Wednesday suspended entry of all foreign nationals “who enter or attempt to enter the United States to begin attending Harvard,” and directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider cancelling the visas of foreigners already there.

She said the court would reconvene on June 16 for a full hearing on whether Trump’s proclamation is legal.

Burroughs’ order also extended through June 20 a temporary restraining order she issued May 23, preventing DHS from implementing a ban on Harvard sponsoring holders of F-1 and J-1 non-immigrant visas, something the university has been permitted to do for more than seven decades.

The school’s legal team argued Wednesday’s proclamation was an effort to get around this restraining order.

“The proclamation simply reflects the administration’s effort to accomplish the very result that the Court sought to prevent. The Court should not stand for that,” Harvard’s legal counsel alleged in court filings.

Harvard has maintained that the orders represent executive overreach, while Trump insists there is a national security risk posed by its foreign students.

The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard water down its diversity, equality and inclusion policies in hiring and admissions, beef up enforcement of anti-Semitism measures on campus following anti-Gaza war protests and hand over the records of its international students.

Trump’s proclamation stated that the step was in the national interest because he believed Harvard’s refusal to share “information that the federal government requires to safeguard national security and the American public” showed it was not suitable for foreign nationals.

In April, Trump cancelled more than $2 billion in federal funding that the university receives and threatened to remove its tax-exemption status and ability to enroll overseas students.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Hill that Harvard’s lawsuit was a bid to “kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers” to suspend entry to the country of persons whose presence was not in line with national interests.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” McLaughlin said. “The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.”

Harvard University has broadened its existing lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump to fight a new action that attempts to stop its international students from entering the United States.

On Thursday, the prestigious Ivy League school filed an amended complaint that alleges Trump’s latest executive order violates the rights of the school and its students.

Just one day earlier, Trump published an executive order claiming that “it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally” to attend Harvard.

He called Harvard’s international students a “class of aliens” whose arrival “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”. As a result, he said that he had the right under the  Immigration and Nationality Act to deny them entry into the country.

But in Thursday’s court filing, Harvard dismissed that argument as the latest salvo in Trump’s months-long campaign to harm the school.

“The President’s actions thus are not undertaken to protect the ‘interests of the United States,’ but instead to pursue a government vendetta against Harvard,” the amended complaint says.

It further alleged that, by issuing a new executive order to restrict students’ entry, the Trump administration was attempting to circumvent an existing court order that blocked it from preventing Harvard’s registration of foreign students.

The complaint called upon US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts to extend her temporary restraining order to include Trump’s latest attack on Harvard’s foreign students.

“Harvard’s more than 7,000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders — and their dependents — have become pawns in the government’s escalating campaign of retaliation,” Harvard wrote.

Trump began his campaign against Harvard and other prominent schools earlier this year, after taking office for a second term as president. He blamed the universities for failing to take sterner action against the Palestinian solidarity protests that cropped up on their campuses in the wake of Israel’s war on Gaza.

The president called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and pledged to remove foreign students from the US who participated. Protest organisers, meanwhile, have argued that their aims were non-violent and that the actions of a few have been used to tar the movement overall.

Critics have also accused Trump of using the protests as leverage to exert greater control over the country’s universities, including private schools like Harvard and its fellow Ivy League school, Columbia University.

In early March, Columbia — whose protest encampments were emulated at campuses across the country — saw $400m in federal funding stripped from its budget.

The school later agreed to a list of demands issued by the Trump administration, including changes to its disciplinary policies and a review of its Middle East studies programme.

Harvard University was also given a list of demands to comply with. But unlike Columbia, it refused, citing concerns that the restrictions would limit its academic freedom.

The Trump administration’s demands included ending Harvard’s diversity programmes and allowing the federal government to audit its hiring and admissions processes to “establish viewpoint diversity”. When those demands were not met, it proceeded to strip Harvard of its federal funding, to the tune of billions of dollars.

Trump also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status and barred it from receiving future federal research grants.

But the attack on Harvard’s international students has threatened to drive away tuition revenue as well. Nearly a quarter of Harvard’s overall student body is from overseas.

In May, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would revoke Harvard’s access to a system, the Student Exchange Visitor Program, where it is required to log information about its foreign students.

That would have forced currently enrolled Harvard students to transfer to another school, if they were in the country on a student visa. It would have also prevented Harvard from accepting any further international students.

But Harvard sued the Trump administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.

On May 23, Judge Burroughs granted Harvard’s emergency petition for a restraining order to stop the restriction from taking effect. But since then, the Trump administration has continued to exert pressure on Harvard and other schools.

Earlier this week, for example, the Trump administration wrote a letter to Columbia University’s accreditor, accusing the New York City school of falling short of federal civil rights laws.