Iranian lawmaker says Tehran considering closing waterway, described as ‘world’s most important oil transit chokepoint’.
Iran is considering closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian news agency IRINN has reported, citing key conservative lawmaker Esmail Kosari, as the conflict with Israel intensifies.
The move would send oil prices soaring and risk expanding the war. So what is the strategic waterway and why is it vital to global trade?
Hormuz is the only marine entryway into the Persian Gulf. It splits Iran on one side and Oman and the United Arab Emirates on the other, and it links the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, about 20 percent of global oil consumption flows through the strait, which the agency describes as the “world’s most important oil transit chokepoint”. At its narrowest point, it is 33km (21 miles) wide, but shipping lanes in the waterway are even narrower, making them vulnerable to attacks and threats of being shut down.
During the Iran-Iraq conflict between 1980 and 1988, which killed hundreds of thousands on both sides, both countries targeted commercial vessels in the Gulf in what became known as the Tanker War, but Hormuz was never completely closed.
More recently, in 2019, four ships were attacked near the strait off the coast of Fujairah, UAE, amid heightened tensions between Iran and the United States during Donald Trump’s first presidency. Washington blamed Tehran for the incident, but Iran denied the allegations.
Attacking shipping lanes has long been used to apply pressure amid conflict. Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen have been attacking ships around Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the entryway into the Red Sea on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula.
While the Houthi campaign has affected global commerce, ships can avoid the Red Sea by sailing around Africa – a longer but safer journey. However, there is no way to ship anything by sea out of the Gulf without going through Hormuz.
Even countries that do not import petrol from Gulf countries would be affected if the strait were to be closed because a major drop in supply would spike the price per barrel on the global market.
Despite the Iranian lawmaker’s threat, it is unclear whether Iran has the ability or willingness to shut down the strait.
Such a move would almost certainly invoke retaliation from the US, which has naval military assets in the region.
After Israel launched a wave of attacks across Iran early on Friday, targeting military leaders, residential buildings, army bases and nuclear sites, Iran responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles.
Although the US helped shoot down the Iranian missiles, Washington has not directly attacked Iran. US officials have stressed that Washington was not involved in the Israeli strikes.
Tehran has not targeted US troops or interests in the region, either.
Closing Hormuz, however, would hit Americans in the wallet and could spark a military response from Trump.
While an Iranian move against the strait may not be imminent, Kosari’s comments underscore that attacking shipping lanes is a card that Tehran may play amid the hostilities.
In April 2024, Iranian armed forces seized a container ship near the Strait of Hormuz amid rising tensions across the region after a deadly Israeli attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria. A limited Iranian strike on Israel in response was followed by an Israeli one on Iran. At the time, they were the most serious direct military exchanges between the two foes.
In this episode of Reframe, Ken Roth and Silvia Fernandez discuss what international justice means today, exploring the significance of the ICC and asking if the “court of last resort” can withstand threats and sanctions by global superpowers and uphold the rule of law.
June 12 (UPI) — The U.N. nuclear energy watchdog ruled Thursday that Iran was in breach of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations by failing to come clean about undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple sites.
A meeting of the 35-member-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna voted 19-3 in a favor of the resolution, the first against Iran in 20 years, amid heightened tension over its nculear program and fears an pre-emptive military strike by Israel could be imminent.
Russia, China and Burkina Faso voted against the U.S., British, French and German-sponsored resolution, 11 countries abstained and two did not take part at all.
The vote came after IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi, in a briefing on the body’s quarterly report, told the board that Iran had not been cooperating and had sufficient 60% enriched uranium to build nine nuclear warheads.
He said the IAEA had been seeking answers from Tehran ever since inspectors found man-made uranium particles at three undeclared locations in 2019 and 2020, including via a series of high-level meetings and consultations that he said he had been personally involved in.
“We have been seeking explanations and clarifications from Iran for the presence of these uranium particles. Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered or not provided technically credible answers to the agency’s questions. It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded agency verification activities,” Grossi said.
The decision prompted a strong reaction from Tehran, which issued a statement criticizing what it called a “political” move that placed the IAEA’s credibility and stature in doubt and that it would bring forward “a new [uranium] enrichment center in a secure location” and update first generation centrifuges at another site.
Prior to the vote it threatened to quit the 1970 NPT, which Tehran has signed but failed to ratify the part that authorizes international inspection teams access to remote regions of Iran where they have reason to believe illicit nuclear development projects may be underway.
On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned the so-called E3 [Britain, France and Germany] against punishing Iran for its own failures with regard to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under which the United States, E3, Russia and China agreed to lift some sanctions in return for Iran reining in its nuclear program.
“The E3 have had seven years to implement their JCPOA commitments. They have utterly failed, either by design or ineptitude. Instead of displaying remorse or a desire to facilitate diplomacy, the E3 is today promoting confrontation through the absurd demand that Iran must be punished for exercising its right under the JCPOA to respond to non-performance by its counterparts,” he wrote on X.
“As I have warned: Another major strategic mistake by the E3 will compel Iran to react strongly. Blame will lie solely and fully with malign actors who shatter their own relevance.”
A joint statement issued by the Foreign Office in London said Britain, France, Germany, and United States welcomed the action by the IAEA.
“The board’s collective action upholds the integrity of the IAEA safeguards system and the broader nuclear nonproliferation regime: states will be held to account if they do not live up to their obligations.
“The action creates an opportunity Iran should seize. Iran still has a chance to finally fulfill its obligations, in full candor, and answer the IAEA’s crucial, longstanding questions on undeclared nuclear material and activities,” said the statement.
However, ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations mediated by Oman that began in April were apparently unaffected with a sixth round between Araghchi and Steve Witkoff, U.S. President Donald Trump‘s special envoy, scheduled to go ahead Sunday as planned, according to Omani Foreign Minister Bad Albusaidi.
The negotiations, exactly five years after Trump pulled the United States out of the JCPOA during his first term, are aimed at replacement deal ensuring Iran does not and cannot develop a nuclear weapon in exchange for removing sanctions.
Iran has always denied working toward developing nuclear weapons, insisting its nuclear program is strictly for energy and other peaceful purposes.
Negotiators say agreement will be presented to US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping for approval.
The United States and China have agreed on a “framework” on trade after two days of talks in London aimed at deescalating tensions between the sides.
While the specifics of the framework announced on Tuesday were unclear, the apparent breakthrough comes a month after Washington and Beijing announced a 90-day pause on most of their tariffs following talks in Geneva.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the sides would work to implement the “Geneva consensus” and had “pounded through” all the issues dividing the world’s two largest economies.
Lutnick said the sides would move forward with the framework pending its approval by US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who held a 90-minute phone call on trade last week.
“Once the presidents approve it, we will then seek to implement it,” Lutnick told reporters outside Lancaster House.
Lutnick indicated that US measures imposed in response to a slowdown in Chinese exports of rare earths, a key issue dividing the sides, would likely be eased once supplies of the critical minerals ticked up.
Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang called the talks “professional, rational, in-depth and candid”.
“The two sides will bring back and report to our respective leaders the talks in the meeting as well as the framework that was reached in principle,” Li told reporters.
“We hope that the progress we made in this London meeting is conducive to increasing trust between China and the United States.”
Asian stock markets rose on hopes of a de-escalation in the trade tensions, which have cast a shadow over the global economy.
The World Bank on Tuesday lowered its forecast for global growth from 2.7 percent to 2.3 percent, pointing to the ongoing uncertainty around trade.
Japan’s Nikkei 225 was up almost 0.5 percent as of 03:30 GMT, while the Hang Seng in Hong Kong and CSI 300 in mainland China were about 1 percent and 0.8 higher, respectively.
“I would say that meeting a 90-day deadline for complex discussions was always going to be challenging,” Deborah Elms, the head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.
“After two rounds of apparently intense discussions, both sides seem to have reaffirmed their interest in avoiding new escalation and have started to flesh out the path forward. Despite the optimistic language from some out of the White House, these talks are not going to be easy.”
Nicholas Pooran, one of the world’s leading T20 batters, has retired from international duty with West Indies aged 29.
The Trinidadian has played 167 times for West Indies, but the decision will allow him to concentrate on playing in lucrative franchise leagues.
He had already skipped the ongoing T20 series against England to rest following his time playing for Lucknow Super Giants in the Indian Premier League (IPL).
He also has deals in Major League Cricket (MLC) and The Hundred this summer.
Cricket West Indies said, external: “We salute his achievements and thank him for the moments he has given fans across the region and beyond.
“We wish him all the very best in the next phase of his journey.”
While Pooran is not the first player to retire from internationals in favour of franchise leagues – South Africa’s Heinrich Klaasen did so last week – his decision is one of the most significant, given his age and profile.
West Indies captain Shai Hope was asked about Pooran’s decision to skip the England series last week but said that decision would not impact his future selection.
It is understood Pooran told West Indies of his retirement on Monday.
He last played for West Indies in December 2024 in T20s against Bangladesh, but has not played an ODI since July 2023 and does not play Tests.
Pooran is the most capped West Indian in T20 internationals with 106, and the leading T20I run-scorer with 2,275.
The administration of President Donald Trump has followed through with a threat to sanction officials on the International Criminal Court (ICC), naming four judges whom it accuses of taking “illegitimate and baseless actions” against the United States and its allies.
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions in a sharply worded written statement.
“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio wrote.
“This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”
The four sanctioned judges include Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin and Beti Hohler of Slovenia.
As a result of the sanctions, the judges will see their US-based property and assets blocked. US-based entities are also forbidden from engaging in transactions with them, including through the “provision of funds, goods or services”.
The ICC quickly issued a statement in response, saying it stood behind its judges and “deplores” the Trump administration’s decision.
“These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution which operates under the mandate from 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe,” the statement said.
“Targeting those working for accountability does nothing to help civilians trapped in conflict. It only emboldens those who believe they can act with impunity.”
Who are the judges?
In a fact sheet, the State Department explained that Bossa and Ibanez Carranza were sanctioned for authorising an investigation into US troops in Afghanistan in 2020, during Trump’s first term as president.
Previously, the ICC had blocked a request to probe alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan, where the US had been leading a slow-grinding war from 2001 to 2021.
But it reversed course the following year, granting a prosecutor’s request to investigate US forces and members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for war crimes in “secret detention facilities” in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Afghanistan, the court noted, was a member of the Rome Statute, which includes the 125 countries where the ICC has jurisdiction.
But the Trump administration at the time blasted the court’s decision, calling the ICC a “political institution masquerading as a legal body”. It has long argued that the US, which is not party to the Rome Statute, lies outside the ICC’s jurisdiction.
Another country that is not a member of the Rome Statute is Israel, which has used similar arguments to reject the ICC’s power over its actions in Palestine.
The second pair of judges named in Thursday’s sanctions — Alapini Gansou and Hohler — were sanctioned for their actions against Israeli leaders, according to the US State Department.
The US is Israel’s oldest ally, having been the first to recognise the country in 1948. It has since offered Israel strong support, including for its ongoing war in Gaza, which has killed an estimated 54,607 Palestinians so far.
Experts at the United Nations and human rights organisations have compared Israel’s military campaign in Gaza to a genocide, as reports continue to emerge of alleged human rights abuses.
In November 2024, those accusations spurred the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who have both been accused of war crimes in Gaza, including intentional attacks on civilians.
Alapini Gansou and Hohler reportedly took part in those proceedings.
Has this happened before?
This is not the first time that the US has issued restrictions against an ICC official since Trump returned to office for a second term on January 20.
Shortly after taking office, Trump issued a broad executive order threatening anyone who participates in ICC investigations with sanctions. Critics warned that such sweeping language could pervert the course of justice, for example by dissuading witnesses from coming forward with evidence.
But Trump argued that the recent arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant necessitated such measures.
He also claimed that the US and Israel were “thriving democracies” that “strictly adhere to the laws of war” and that the ICC’s investigations threatened military members with “harassment, abuse and possible arrest”.
“This malign conduct in turn threatens to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and undermines the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and our allies, including Israel,” the executive order said.
Under that order, the US sanctioned ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who had petitioned the court for the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. That, in turn, slowed the investigation into Israel’s actions in Gaza, and Khan later stepped away from his role amid allegations of sexual misconduct.
But Trump has a history of opposing the ICC, stretching back to his first term. In 2019, for instance, Trump announced his administration would deny or yank visas for ICC officials involved in investigating US troops in Afghanistan.
Then, in 2020, he sanctioned ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and a court official named Phakiso Mochochoko for their involvement in the investigation. Those actions were later overturned under President Joe Biden.
Critics, however, warn that Trump’s actions could have dire consequences over the long term for the ICC, which relies on its member countries to execute orders like arrest warrants. The court itself has called for an end to the threats.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is slapping sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court over the tribunal’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza and in the West Bank.
The State Department said Thursday that it would freeze any assets that the ICC judges, who come from Benin, Peru, Slovenia and Uganda, have in U.S. jurisdictions. The move is just the latest step that the administration has taken to punish the ICC and its officials for investigations undertaken against Israel and the United States.
“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.
“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio said. “This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”
In February, The Hague-based court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was placed on Washington’s list of “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons,” barring him from doing business with Americans and placing restrictions on his entry into the U.S. Khan stepped aside last month pending an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct.
Within minutes of the administration’s announcement, the court condemned its actions. “These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution,” ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah said in a statement.
The new sanctions target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou, who is from the West African country of Benin and was part of the pretrial chamber of judges who issued the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year. She also served on the bench that originally greenlighted the investigation into alleged Israeli crimes in the Palestinian territories in 2021.
The 69-year-old was also part of the panel of judges who issued the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023. Last year, a court in Moscow issued a warrant for her arrest.
From Slovenia, Beti Hohler was elected as a judge in 2023. She previously worked in the prosecutor’s office at the court, leading Israel to object to her participation in the proceedings involving Israeli officials. Hohler said in a statement last year that she had never worked on the Palestinian territories investigation during her eight years as a prosecutor.
Bouth Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, from Peru, and Solomy Balungi Bossa, from Uganda, are appeals judges at the ICC. Each woman has worked on cases involving Israel.
Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a member of and neither recognizes the legitimacy of the court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes over his military response in Gaza after the Hamas attack against Israel in October 2023. Israel strongly denies the allegations.
Lee and Quell write for the Associated Press. Quell reported from The Hague.
Khadija Mahmoud* is pulling an all-nighter, filled with caffeine and surviving on adrenalin to pack up her belongings so she can catch the train in the morning from Washington, DC to New York City for her summer internship.
Mahmoud is a 21-year old international student who has just finished her junior year at Georgetown University. She is anxious and worried after her immigration lawyer advised against leaving the country for the summer due to the recent border control policies for international students.
On 27 May, the State Department instructed United States embassies around the world to temporarily pause scheduling new student visa appointments, as the Trump administration seeks to expand social media screenings for applicants, the latest in a string of restrictions targeting international students.
“It’s been very turbulent, and equally terrifying with each development that comes,” Mahmoud told Al Jazeera, speaking from her college dormitory in Washington, DC.
Mahmoud isn’t alone in feeling this way. Many other international students say they feel they need to stay under the radar, afraid that even a small issue could get them deported.
1.1 million international students
According to NAFSA, a US nonprofit organisation that focuses on international education and student exchange, over the 2023/2024 academic year there were just more than 1.1 million international students studying in the US.
These international students made up 5.6 percent of the nearly 19 million total higher education students across the US.
Together, students from India and China made up 54 percent of the total, with India leading at 331,602 (29 percent) and China at 277,398 (25 percent).
‘Major loss for the United States’
Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, who is herself a former international student, says she knows on a personal and professional level how important the cultural exchange between international students and local communities is, especially in today’s hyper connected world.
“I think this is a major loss for the United States; other countries will open their doors and they are already welcoming students,” Aw told Al Jazeera.
“Students want certainty. They want consistency. And they want to know that the system works. And if they continue to see action after action, they’re already losing trust,” she adds.
“Once you continue down this road, you will have years to recover from this, and you may never recover from it. Because by then, more other countries are competing for these same students.”
“We’re seeing Germany. We’re seeing Japan. We’re seeing South Korea. Malaysia has always been a destination for students. The Middle East, with all of the American-style universities – this is what the US is competing with.”
Where are international students studying?
Although many international students are concentrated at major universities on the East and West coasts, a sizeable number also study at prominent universities in the Midwest and other parts of the US.
According to data compiled by Open Doors, during the 2023/2024 academic year, New York City hosted the largest number of international students, with 27,247 at New York University and 20,321 at Columbia University. Northeastern University in Boston follows, with 21,023 international students.
One such student headed to the Midwest is Noor Ali*, a 23-year-old from Karachi, Pakistan, who is embarking on her masters in journalism on a full scholarship from the university.
Ali has requested her identity be concealed and her institution not be named for her security. Despite having already received her student visa, she’s still concerned about entering the US.
“I got my visa the day that India attacked Pakistan and Pakistan retaliated against India,” she laughs as she explains how she ventured out that day when both nuclear neighbours were engaged in an aerial face-off, far above in the skies.
“Miraculously, the appointment did not get cancelled. And I ended up going there for my interview. And I ended up getting the visa, which was like, insane. I didn’t really know how I got it. But I mean, I’ve gotten it now!” Ali beams, her excitement undeniable at her luck.
Although she had the option to study in Europe, she chose the US because of her familiarity with the country through movies and TV shows. Even without having visited, she feels like she understands American life and culture.
“These values of American democracy are about American freedom. And, you know, just a lot of focus on ethics and morality, and it used to be known for its academic freedom, and a lot of focus on diversity.”
Ali’s ideals are not without scepticism or worry. She admits being very scared and has reconsidered her decision several times. Still, she feels encouraged by the pushback the Trump administration’s policies have received lately.
“The core of American democracy or ideals of freedom are getting reinforced,” says Ali. She feels strongly that the cultural experience will be worth it for her.
Crackdown on pro-Palestine students and staff
The Trump administration’s latest step in its crackdown on US universities has particularly focused on international students who have shown support for Palestinians in Gaza over the past year.
“Georgetown has a pretty large international student population compared to other schools in the US, so you’d think that would translate into a lot more advocacy and more grassroots work going on on campus,” Mahmoud goes on to say.
Students march during an on-campus protest in support of Palestine at Georgetown University on September 4, 2024, in Washington, DC [Andrew Harnik/Getty Images]
Mahmoud feels her college hasn’t been a very vocal campus when it comes to the rights of students, nor in providing a proper safety net for freedom of speech.
“I think a massive inflection point on campus was the detention of Dr Badar Suri. I felt the need to have to scrape through my social media, see if I posted anything that could get me flagged,” says Mahmoud.
Mapheze Saleh, right, wife of arrested and detained Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri, holds a sign calling for her husband’s release after speaking at a news conference following his hearing at Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on May 1, 2025 [Jacquelyn Martin, AP Photo]
Dr Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar of conflict studies, was arrested on March 17 outside his home in Rosslyn, Virginia and held in immigration detention for two months before being released on May 14, following a federal judge’s order. Suri, whose wife Mapheze Saleh is a US citizen of Palestinian descent, has spoken out against Israel’s war in Gaza.
That particular case became a real turning point on the campus, she says, where a lot of international students had spoken up and taken to social media.
How much money is at stake?
According to NAFSA, the 1.1 million international students studying in the US contributed $43.8bn to the US economy during the 2023–2024 academic year, creating 378,175 jobs nationwide.
That means that for every three international students enrolled, one US job was created or supported.
California hosted the highest number of international students, with 140,858 contributing $6.4bn to the state’s economy and supporting 55,114 jobs. New York followed with 135,813 students, generating $6.3bn and creating 51,719 jobs. Texas came third, with 89,546 international students contributing $2.5bn and supporting 22,112 jobs.
In total, 12 states gained more than $1bn each from the economic contributions of international students. According to NAFSA, international student spending in these 12 states combined to generate 57 percent of the total dollar contribution to the US economy.
“When your enrolment declines, then you’re going to have some economic challenges and that’s going to force institutions to have to make some very difficult decisions and choices,” NAFSA executive director Fanta Aw explains.
“The number of high schoolers that are graduating is on the decline in most parts of the country. So it’s not like they can make that up with American domestic students because that’s already on the decline.”
“So when you cannot have the level of enrollment at the undergraduate level here in the US and that is then compounded with the decline in international students, that’s a perfect storm.”
Aw says many international students who return home contribute to their countries, while those who stay in the US contribute through taxes and help boost the overall economy.
What do international students study?
In the 2023-2024 academic year, among the 1.1 million students, the most popular majors were Math and Computer Science, Engineering, and Business and Management.
International students enrolled in English language programs contributed $371.3m and supported 2,691 jobs.
(Al Jazeera)
In terms of degrees, nearly half (502,000) of all international students were registered for postgraduate programmes, 343,000 in undergraduate programmes, 243,000 in Optional Practical Training (OPT), and 39,000 in non-degree programmes.
In addition to suspending visas for new Harvard students, President Donald Trump said the State Department could choose to revoke existing student visas at the school. File Photo by CJ Gunther/EPA-EFE
June 4 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday 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.
Trump also gave Secretary of State Marco Rubio the authority to determine whether existing Harvard students in the country on visas should have theirs revoked.
Citing an increase in crime on the campus — which was also reported by The Harvard Crimson in 2023 — Trump said Harvard has failed in disciplinary actions. He said the school reported misconduct by three foreign students and provided “deficient” data on those incidents.
“Harvard’s actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students,” Trump said.
The proclamation is the Trump administration’s latest of multiple attempts to block the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign students. He has taken issue with students’ anti-Israel protests over the war in Gaza.
A spokesperson for the university told NBC News it planned to fight the administration’s order.
“This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights,” the spokesperson said.
In May, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to deny Harvard to admit international students. At the time Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceled the school’s SEVP certification.
“The administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Noem said.
Hong Kong leader John Lee Ka-chiu said the body’s status would be on par with the UN’s International Court of Justice.
The Chinese government has signed a convention establishing an international mediation organisation located in Hong Kong, with Beijing hoping it will rival the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the world’s leading conflict resolution body.
The Convention on the Establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation (IOMed) was signed into law on Friday, in a ceremony presided over by Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi in Hong Kong.
The ceremony was attended by representatives from several countries, including Indonesia, Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia and Serbia. Representatives from 20 international bodies, including the United Nations, also attended the ceremony, according to Hong Kong’s RTHK public broadcaster.
A video shown at the signing ceremony said the scope of cases handled by the body would include disputes between countries, between a country and nationals of another country, and between private international entities.
Beijing plans for the body to cement Hong Kong’s presence as a top global mediation hub, as it hopes to bolster the city’s waning international credentials.
In an un-bylined opinion piece published in China’s state-run Global Times newspaper, IOMed was described as the “world’s first intergovernmental international legal organisation dedicated to resolving international disputes through mediation”.
IOMed would fill a “critical gap in mechanisms focused on mediation-based dispute resolution”, it said.
“The establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation marks a milestone in global governance and highlights the value of resolving conflicts in an ‘amicable way’,” it added.
The ICJ – the principal judicial organ of the UN, also known as the World Court – is currently the top body for solving legal disputes between member states in accordance with international law. It also provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by UN bodies.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu said this week that IOMed’s status would be on par with the UN bodies the ICJ and the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
Lee said it would also help bring “substantial” economic benefits and job opportunities, as well as stimulate various sectors including hospitality and transport, to Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has experienced sustained economic stagnation since its handover back to Chinese rule in 1997 after more than a century and a half as a British colony.
Investor confidence has been rocked by Beijing’s increasing control over all aspects of life in the territory – including the economy – while gloom also persists about the state of China’s post-pandemic recovery.
In an opinion piece published in the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong’s Justice Secretary Paul Lam said IOMed would help Hong Kong cope with challenges presented by “hostile external forces” that are “attempting to de-internationalise and de-functionalise” it.
“To cope with such a challenge, Hong Kong needs to make good use of the IOMed headquarters as a focus for strengthening the city as an international dispute resolution centre, so as to give full play to its institutional advantages under the ‘one country, two systems’ framework,” Lam said, referring to China’s model of governing Hong Kong, which nominally allows it a level of autonomy.
The IOMed headquarters, due to open by the end of this year or in early 2026, will be located at a former police station in Hong Kong’s Wan Chai district.
US administration said it will revoke the visas of Chinese students.
It is the latest move by the Trump administration in a campaign against US universities and international students: a decision to revoke the visas of Chinese students, who number in the hundreds of thousands in the United States.
The US secretary of state has also announced the suspension of interviews for new student visa applicants – and an increase in the vetting of their social media postings.
With China being the second-biggest source of international students in the US after India, the reduction in revenues for American schools and universities is expected to be heavy.
US President Donald Trump has already cut funding to Harvard University.
How are academia and research likely to be affected in the US – and around the world?
Presenter:
James Bays
Guests:
Clay Harmon – Executive director of the Association of International Enrollment Management
Alexandra Miller – Immigration lawyer and senior adviser to Vecina, a non-profit group advocating for immigrant justice
Josef Gregory Mahoney – Professor of politics and international relations, East China Normal University
A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated (PDF) US President Donald Trump’s tariffs a day after a trade court ruled that it exceeded the authorities granted to the president.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington temporarily blocked the lower court’s decision on Thursday, but provided no reasoning for the decision, only giving the plaintiffs until June 5th to respond.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an emergency motion from the Trump administration arguing that a halt is “critical for the country’s national security”.
The White House has applauded the move.
“You can assume, even if we lose tariff cases, we will find another way,” trade adviser Peter Navarro said.
Wednesday’s surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to halt or delay Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on most US trading partners, as well as import levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US.
The International Court of Trade said tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is typically used to address issues of national emergencies rather than addressing the national debt, were considered overreach.
Experts said the IEEPA, which was passed in 1977, is narrow in scope and targets specific countries, US-designated “terrorist organisations”, or gang activity pegged to specific instances. The US, for example, used the law to seize property belonging to the government of Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and the property of drug traffickers in Colombia in 1995.
“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.
Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.
‘Product-by-product’
Despite the appeal court’s reprieve, Wednesday’s decision has been viewed as a blow to the administration’s economic agenda that has thus far led to declining consumer confidence and the US losing its top credit rating.
Posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday, lawyer Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote that, if the trade court’s decision “is upheld, importers should eventually be able to get a refund of [IEEPA] tariffs paid to date. But the government will probably seek to avoid paying refunds until appeals are exhausted.″
“The power to decide the level of tariffs resides with Congress. The IEEPA doesn’t even mention raising tariffs. And it was actually passed in order to narrow the president’s authority. Now the president is using it to rewrite the tariff schedule for the whole world,” Greg Schaffer, professor of international law at Georgetown Law School, told Al Jazeera.
The US trade court did not weigh in on tariffs put in place by other laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act – the law used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminium, and automobiles.
There are additional targets for similar narrow tariffs, such as pharmaceuticals from China. In April, the White House announced that the US Department of Commerce launched an investigation to see if the US reliance on China for active ingredients in key medications posed a national security threat, thus warranting tariffs.
“This is not an issue of whether the president can impose tariffs,” said Fein, the former associate deputy attorney general. “He can under the 1962 act after there’s a study and after showing that it’s not arbitrary and capricious and that it’s a product-by-product, not a country-by-country approach.”
“If he doesn’t like that, he can ask Congress to amend the statute.”
President Donald Trump said Harvard University is refusing to tell the United States government who its international students are.
On May 22, the Trump administration stripped Harvard of the federal government certification that lets it enrol international students. A federal judge on May 23 temporarily blocked the administration’s effort.
“Part of the problem with Harvard is that there are about 31 percent of foreigners coming to Harvard … but they refuse to tell us who the people are,” Trump told reporters on May 25. “We want a list of those foreign students and we’ll find out whether or not they’re OK. Many will be OK, I assume. And I assume with Harvard many will be bad.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says Harvard did not provide the information it requested about the university’s international students. DHS cited that as one reason for revoking Harvard’s certification. But Harvard disputed that in its lawsuit against the Trump administration.
Courts have not yet ruled on whether Harvard complied with providing DHS with the additional information it requested. DHS asked for details about students’ activities, including “illegal” and “dangerous or violent activity”. However, immigration law experts said Trump’s statement that the US government doesn’t know the identities of Harvard’s international students is incorrect.
US colleges and universities that enrol international students must be certified under the Department of Homeland Security’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, called SEVP.
SEVP’s database “contains all information about every student visa holder. Addresses, courses, grades, jobs, social media accounts and much more”, Charles Kuck, an Atlanta-based immigration lawyer and Emory University law professor, said.
Harvard has been certified to enrol international students since 1954, according to court documents. As part of the certification, the university is required to report to the US government detailed information about its international students.
Schools renew their SEVP certification every two years. In its lawsuit, Harvard said the university’s “seamless recertification across this period – spanning more than 14 presidential administrations”, is evidence of its compliance.
Additionally, to enter the US, all international students must apply for and be issued student visas via the State Department. To be eligible for a student visa, a person must be enrolled in an SEVP-certified university. The visa application process requires students to provide the US government with detailed biographical information.
When contacted for comment, a White House spokesperson said Trump was “making a simple ask” for Harvard to comply with the government.
What is the Student and Exchange Visitor Program?
The Student and Exchange Visitor Program “collects, maintains, analyses and provides information so only legitimate foreign students or exchange visitors gain entry to the United States”, the DHS website says. “SEVP also ensures that the institutions accepting non-immigrant students are certified and follow the federal rules and regulations that govern them.”
As part of the programme, DHS manages the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System which maintains records on international students and certified universities. Immigration law dictates what records universities must keep and report to maintain certification.
These records include “US entry and exit data, US residential address changes, programme extensions, employment notifications, and program of study changes”, Sheila Velez Martínez, University of Pittsburgh immigration law professor, said. “The information is available to US government agencies.”
The certification programme does not provide visas to students. The federal State Department issues visas. To apply for a student visa, a person must fill out a form and schedule an interview. As part of the application process, students must provide biographical and employment information, including information about their relatives, and answer security questions, including about their criminal records.
Trump administration says Harvard failed to provide international students’ information
On April 16, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent Harvard a letter requesting information about every international student enrolled in the university. Noem asked for “relevant information” about international students’ “illegal activity”, “dangerous or violent activity”, “known threats to students or university personnel” and “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel”.
Noem said failure to comply with the request would “be treated as a voluntary withdrawal” from the SEVP certification programme.
On April 30, Steve Bunnell, a Harvard lawyer, responded to Homeland Security with information about 5,200 international students, according to Bunnell’s email included in the court filing.
The university said it did not seek to withdraw from the certification and said that while parts of Noem’s request used terms not defined in the immigration law that dictates what information universities must provide, “Harvard is committed to good faith compliance and is therefore producing responsive materials that we believe are reasonably required” by law.
According to Harvard’s lawsuit, the information included student identification numbers, names, dates of birth, countries of citizenship and enrolment information such as academic status, coursework and credit hours. Harvard also provided information about international students who left and why they left, which can cover a “range of reasons, including but not limited to disciplinary action”, Harvard’s email to DHS said.
On May 7, DHS responded saying the information Harvard provided “does not completely address the Secretary’s request”. It reiterated its original request.
Harvard responded on May 14 saying it was “not aware of any criminal convictions” of international students and identified three students who received disciplinary consequences.
As for students who deprived the rights of classmates, faculty or staff, Harvard said it did not find any.
On May 22, Noem sent Harvard a letter saying the university’s certification had been revoked.
“As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information … you have lost this privilege.”
Our ruling
Trump said Harvard University “refuse(s) to tell us” who its international students are.
To enrol international students, Harvard, and all other certified institutions must provide the US government with detailed biographical information about every international student at its institution. That includes students’ names, addresses, contact information and details about their coursework.
Additionally, all international students must have student visas to enter the US. To get these, students who have enrolled in a government-certified university must apply via the State Department. That process also requires students to provide biographical and security information to the federal government.
“I like people having options, it’s healthy,” Bellamy said.
“He’s not ready for our squad yet. It’s something he’d like to go and have a look at, but I like to think we have done our work as well.
“At the end the decision will be his. He knows where we are and where he is. He’s not ready for first-team football with us at this moment.
“It’s his decision. I’ve known him since he was very young and I know his family really well. Whatever he does will be the right thing for him, it’s not a problem.”
Canada boss Jesse Marsch has praised Biancheri and compared him to his highly rated Lille striker Jonathan David.
The former Leeds boss told Canadian reporters last week: “He’s a dynamic player. He’s very good around the goal. You can see he’s an intelligent player.
“He’s a version of Jonathan David. He’s not exactly the same player but he’s a striker that can play up on the backline and is also good at coming underneath and connecting plays and being part of the build-up phase.
“I’ve had good conversations with Gabe and his family. He has several options to think about in what country he wants to represent.
“I think it’s really important that the family feels the connection to Canada.”
American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.
Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.
In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.
Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.
Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.
“Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.
This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.
Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.
In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.
Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.
Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”
This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.
American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.
Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.
Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?
And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.
Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.
And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.
If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance and punishment of government critics do not belong here.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed to “chart a unified and collective path towards a peaceful, prosperous, and just future”, following their meeting in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.
In a world roiled by United States President Donald Trump’s threats of crippling tariffs and rising economic uncertainties, alternative centres of global power were on full display, with the GCC and China attending the ASEAN summit for the group’s inaugural trilateral meeting on Tuesday.
In their joint statement released on Wednesday, the GCC – comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – China, and ASEAN members Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar said they were committed to enhancing economic cooperation.
Chief among that cooperation will be the promotion of free trade, the signatories said, adding they looked “forward to the early completion of the GCC-China Free Trade Agreement negotiations” and the upgrading of the ASEAN-China free trade area.
“We reaffirm our collective resolve to work hand in hand to unleash the full potential of our partnership, and ensure that our cooperation translates into tangible benefits for our peoples and societies,” they said.
ASEAN and GCC members join hands for a group photo as they attend the 2nd ASEAN-GCC Summit at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on May 27, 2025 [Hasnoor Hussain/Reuters]
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim – whose country is currently chair of ASEAN and hosted the summits – told a news conference that the US remains an important market while also noting that ASEAN, the GCC, and China collectively represent a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $24.87 trillion with a total population of about 2.15 billion.
“This collective scale offers vast opportunities to synergise our markets, deepen innovation, and promote cross-regional investment,” Anwar said.
The prime minister went on to dismiss suggestions that the ASEAN bloc of nations was leaning excessively towards China, stressing that the regional grouping remained committed to maintaining balanced engagement with all major powers, including the US.
James Chin, professor of Asian studies at the University of Tasmania in Australia, told Al Jazeera that the tripartite meeting was particularly important for China, which is being “given a platform where the US is not around”.
ASEAN and the GCC “already view China as a global power”, Chin said.
‘The Gulf is very rich, ASEAN is a tiger, China…’
China’s Premier Li Qiang, who attended the summit, said Beijing was ready to work with the GCC and ASEAN “on the basis of mutual respect and equality”.
China will work with “ASEAN and the GCC to strengthen the alignment of development strategies, increase macro policy coordination, and deepen collaboration on industrial specialisation,” he said.
Former Malaysian ambassador to the US Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz said China was “quickly filling up the vacuum” in global leadership felt in many countries in the aftermath of Trump’s tariff threats.
Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, right, poses for photos with China’s Premier Li Qiang before the ASEAN-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)-China Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Tuesday [Mohd Rasfan/Pool via Reuters]
The economic future looks bright, Nazri said, for ASEAN, China and the Gulf countries, where economies are experiencing high growth rates while the US and European Union face stagnation.
“The Gulf is very rich, ASEAN is a tiger, China… I cannot even imagine where the future lies,” Nazri said.
Jaideep Singh, an analyst with the Institute of Strategic & International Studies in Malaysia, said ASEAN’s trade with GCC countries has been experiencing rapid growth.
Total trade between ASEAN and the Gulf countries stood at some $63bn as of 2024, making GCC the fifth-largest external trading partner of the regional bloc, while Malaysia’s trade with the GCC grew by 60 percent from 2019 to 2024.
In terms of foreign direct investment, FDI from GCC countries in ASEAN totalled some $5bn as of 2023, of which $1.5bn went to Malaysia alone, Singh said.
However, the US, China, Singapore and the EU still make up the lion’s share of FDI in Malaysian manufacturing and services.
US still ASEAN’s biggest export market
Even as China’s trade with ASEAN grows, economist say, the US still remains a huge market for regional countries.
In early 2024, the US took over China as ASEAN’s largest export market, with 15 percent of the bloc’s exports destined for its markets, up nearly 4 percent since 2018, said Carmelo Ferlito, CEO of the Center for Market Education (CME), a think tank based in Malaysia and Indonesia.
“The US is also the largest source of cumulative foreign direct investment in ASEAN, with total stock reaching nearly $480bn in 2023 – almost double the combined US investments in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan,” Ferlito said.
Israel’s war on Gaza was also highlighted at the ASEAN-GCC-China meeting on Tuesday.
Delegates condemned attacks against civilians and called for a durable ceasefire and unhindered delivery of fuel, food, essential services, and medicine throughout the Palestinian territory.
Supporting a two-state solution to the conflict, the joint communique also called for the release of captives and arbitrarily-detained people, and an end to the “illegal presence of the State of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory as soon as possible”.
The civil war in Myanmar was also a focus of the talks among ASEAN members at their summit on Tuesday, who called for an extension and expansion of a ceasefire among the warring sides, which was declared following the earthquake that struck the country in March. The ceasefire is due to run out by the end of May. However, human rights groups have documented repeated air attacks by the military regime on the country’s civilian population despite the purported temporary cessation of fighting.
Zachary Abuza, professor of Southeast Asia politics and security issues at the Washington-based National War College, said that while Prime Minister Anwar may be “more proactive” – in his role as ASEAN chair – in wanting to resolve the conflict, Myanmar’s military rulers were “not a good faith actor” in peace talks.
“The military has absolutely no interest in anything resembling a power-sharing agreement,” he said.
To help you parse through the offerings, here’s a list of 10 films not to miss at the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival, which kicks off Wednesday.
ECB President Christine Lagarde argues the US economic policy shifts have created inroads for the euro to the standard currency for future global trade.
The euro could become a viable alternative to the US dollar as the global standard currency for international trade, according to European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde.
In a speech in Berlin, Germany, Lagarde said on Monday that the erratic economic policy of the United States has spooked global investors into limiting their exposure to the dollar in recent months. Many have opted to invest in gold, without seeing a viable alternative.
“The ongoing changes create the opening for a ‘global euro moment’,” she said.
Lagarde said investors seek “geopolitical assurance in another form: they invest in the assets of regions that are reliable security partners and can honour alliances with hard power”.
“The global economy thrived on a foundation of openness and multilateralism underpinned by US leadership … but today it is fracturing.”
The dollar’s role has been on the decline for years and now makes up 58 percent of international reserves, the lowest in decades, but still well above the euro’s 20 percent share.
Any enhanced role for the euro must coincide with greater military strength that can back up partnerships, Lagarde said.
Europe should also make the euro the currency of choice for businesses invoicing international trade, she said. This could be supported by forging new trade agreements, enhanced cross-border payments and liquidity agreements with the ECB.
Looming challenges
The euro’s global role has been stagnant for decades now since the European Union’s financial institutions remain unfinished and governments have shown little appetite to embark on more integration.
For this, Europe needs a deeper, more liquid capital market, must bolster its legal foundations, and needs to underpin its commitment to open trade with security capabilities, Lagarde argued.
Reforming the domestic economy may be more pressing, however, she said. The euro area capital market is still fragmented, inefficient and lacks a truly liquid, widely available safe asset that investors could flock to.
“Economic logic tells us that public goods need to be jointly financed. And this joint financing could provide the basis for Europe to gradually increase its supply of safe assets,” Lagarde said.
Joint borrowing has been taboo for some key eurozone members, particularly Germany, which fears that its taxpayers could end up having to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of others.
If Europe succeeded, the benefits would be large, Lagarde said. The investment inflow would allow domestic players to borrow at lower cost, insulate the bloc from exchange rate movements and protect it against international sanctions.
Harvard’s crest adorns a gate on the campus of the university. File Photo by CJ Gunther/EPA-EFE
May 25 (UPI) — President Donald Trump again raged against Harvard University on Sunday, demanding that the university provide a list of names of its international students and the countries they come from.
Trump made his comments amid his ongoing feud with the prestigious university on his Truth Social platform.
It was not immediately clear what Trump meant, as international students are required to have student visas provided by the State Department, the records of which his administration would be able to access.
After students arrive in the United States, their status is then monitored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which tracks such students through its Student and Exchange Visitor Information System database. Universities are legally required to update this federal database regularly.
“Why isn’t Harvard saying that almost 31% of their students are from foreign lands, and yet those countries, some not at all friendly to the United States, pay nothing toward their student’s education, nor do they ever intend to,” Trump said.
“Nobody told us that! We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard billions of dollars, but Harvard isn’t exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries.”
The remarks from Trump came after a federal judge on Friday blocked his administration’s efforts to prevent the university from enrolling anyone in the United States on a student visa.
“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body,” university president Alan Garber said in a statement Friday morning.
“We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action. It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams.”
The university has not yet publicly commented on Trump’s latest demand.
The clash between Trump and Harvard has been escalating for months. In April, the administration froze over $2 billion in federal research funding to the university after Harvard refused to comply with demands to alter its curriculum, admissions policies, and faculty hiring practices.
The administration also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and demanded the university conduct a “viewpoint diversity” audit.
