students

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.

For 24 years, immigrants lacking documentation who graduated from high school in California have received in-state tuition benefits at public colleges and universities under a law that’s given tens of thousands access to higher education that many couldn’t otherwise afford.

When the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 540 in 2001, it was the second state in the nation — after Texas — to embrace such tuition policies. Bipartisan efforts quickly grew across the country, with more than 20 states adopting similar policies.

But recent court actions by the Trump administration are causing alarm among immigrant students and casting a shadow over the tuition benefit in California, the state with the largest population of people living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

On June 4, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas over its tuition statute for immigrants without authorization, alleging it violated a federal law that prevents people who do not have legal status from receiving public benefits. Texas did not defend its law and instead put its support behind the Trump administration, leaving 57,000 undocumented college students in the state in educational limbo after a federal judge blocked the statute.

Last week, the DOJ launched a similar suit in Kentucky, asking a federal judge to strike down a state practice that it says unlawfully gives undocumented immigrants access to in-state college tuition while American citizens from other states pay higher tuition to attend the same schools.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Atty. Gen. Bondi said of the Texas lawsuit in a statement that signaled a broader fight. “The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.”

Is California next?

Legal experts say that it’s not a matter of “if” but when and how the Trump administration will come for California’s law. The White House is already battling the state over liberal policies, including support of transgender students in school sports; sanctuary cities opposing ongoing federal immigration raids; and diversity, equity and inclusion programs in education.

“We are just waiting to see when it’s California’s turn,” said Kevin R. Johnson, the dean of the UC Davis law school, who specializes in immigration. Johnson predicted the White House was going after “lower-hanging fruit” in more conservative states before California, where Trump will face “firm resistance.”

The potential threat has shaken California’s undocumented students.

“If I no longer qualify for lower tuition, I really don’t know what I would do,” said Osmar Enríquez, who graduated last month with an associate’s degree from Santa Rosa Junior College and will enroll at UC Berkeley in August to embark on an undergraduate degree in media studies.

The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for people like Enríquez can be thousands of dollars at a community college and tens of thousands at CSU and UC campuses. International students pay out-of-state rates. At Santa Rosa Junior College, the average tuition for two semesters for an in-state student is $621. For an out-of-state student, it’s $5,427.

“What I see the Trump administration doing is trying to exclude us,” said Enríquez, who aspires to one day operate a public relations company. “They don’t want us to get educated or to reach positions of power. And with everything going on now, they are just trying to dehumanize us any way they can.”

More than 80,000 undocumented college students in California

Campus and university-level data on undocumented student populations can be difficult to estimate.

Although universities and colleges keep track of how many students without documentation receive tuition exemptions under AB 540, the data also include citizens who qualify for in-state tuition. These students grew up in the state and graduated from a California high school before their families moved elsewhere.

Numbers are also complicated by changes in the California Dream Act Application, which was established for students lacking documentation to apply for state aid but has expanded to allow students who are citizens and have an undocumented parent.

Out of the University of California system’s nearly 296,000 students, it estimates that between 2,000 and 4,000 are undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 total students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, comprises community college students and recent graduates such as Enríquez.

Born in Mexico and brought by his family to the U.S. when he was a 1-year-old, Enríquez said in-state tuition has made his education monumentally more affordable. At his next stop, UC Berkeley, in-state tuition and fees last year amounted to $16,980. Out-of-state and international students had to pay a total of $54,582.

What students say

Several undocumented students from UCLA, Cal State Los Angeles and other schools declined interviews with The Times or requested to be cited without their names, saying they were fearful of identifying themselves publicly as the federal government undertakes a third week of immigration raids across Southern California.

“I just want to go to school. What is wrong with that?” said an undocumented graduate student at Cal State Los Angeles who received his undergraduate degree at a UC campus. The Latin American studies student asked for his name to be withheld because of concern over immigration enforcement agents targeting him.

“I don’t only want to go a school, I want to go to a public university. I want to contribute to my university. I want to become a professor and teach others and support the state of California,” he said. “Why are we so bent on keeping students from getting an education and giving back?”

Sandra, a Cal State Northridge student who asked to be only identified by her first name, had a similar view. An undocumented immigrant whose parents brought her from Mexico to Los Angeles at age two, she said she would not be in college without the in-state tuition law.

“I was not eligible for DACA, so money is thin,” Sandra said, referencing the Obama-era program that gave work authorization to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children but hasn’t taken new applications since 2021. “We save and we squeeze all we can out of fellowships and scholarships to pay in hopes that we use our education to make a difference and make an income later.”

Legal questions

The Trump administration’s challenge to the tuition rules rest on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

“There are questions about exactly what that means,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. “Does that apply to universities that do not use residency as a requirement for the tuition rate but instead use high school graduation in the state?” he said, explaining that state practices differ.

In California, an undocumented immigrant who did not graduate from a high school in the state would typically not qualify for reduced tuition.

The Justice Department has argued in court that giving in-state tuition to immigrants without proper authorization violates the federal law. Some Trump opponents point out that the law does not speak specifically to tuition rates, although courts have interpreted the word “benefit” to include cheaper tuition.

In the recent Texas case, undocumented students, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, have filed a motion in court, asking the judge to allow them to argue in support of upholding reduced tuition rates.

The tuition policies have survived other legal challenges.

Before Trump administration intervened, the Texas law appeared to be legally sound after a federal appeals court ruled in 2023 that the University of North Texas could charge out-of-state students more than it charges in-state undocumented immigrants. In that case, the court said the plaintiffs did not make good case that out-of state students were illegally treated differently than noncitizens. But the court suggested there could be other legal challenges to tuition rates for immigrants lacking documentation.

The California law has also withstood challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld its legality in 2010 after out-of-state students sued. The next year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case.

The California court concluded that undocumented immigrants were not receiving preferential treatment because of their immigration status but because they attended and graduated from California schools. Justices said U.S. citizens who attended and graduated from the state’s schools had the same opportunity.

Still, momentum has built to abolish in-state tuition rates for immigrants without legal documentation.

This year, lawmakers in Florida — which had a rule on the books for more than a decade allowing tuition waivers for undocumented students — eliminated the option. Prior to the federal action against Texas, legislators in the state also tried and failed to follow Florida’s lead. During this year’s legislative sessions, bills were also introduced in Kansas and Minnesota, although they have not passed.

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.

The railroad tunnel in which John Doe #135 was found had spooky graffiti and a dark mystique, the kind of place kids dared each other to walk through at night. People called it the Manson Tunnel — the cult leader and his disciples had lived nearby at the Spahn Movie Ranch — and someone had spray-painted HOLY TERROR over the entrance.

By June 1990, occult-inspired mayhem had become a common theme in the Los Angeles mediasphere. The serial killer known as the Night Stalker, a professed Satanist, had been sentenced to death a year before, and the McMartin Preschool molestation case, with its wild claims of ritual abuse of children, was still slogging through the courts.

So when venturesome local teenagers discovered a young man’s body in the pitch-black tunnel above Chatsworth Park, the LAPD considered the possibility of occult motives. The victim was soon identified as Ronald Baker, a 21-year-old UCLA student majoring in astrophysics. He had been killed on June 21, a day considered holy by occultists, at a site where they were known to congregate.

Ronald Baker in an undated photo.

(Courtesy of Patty Elliott)

Baker was skinny and physically unimposing, with a mop of curly blond hair. He had been to the tunnel before, and was known to meditate in the area. He had 18 stab wounds, and his throat had been slashed. On his necklace: a pentagram pendant. In the bedroom of his Van Nuys apartment: witchcraft books, a pentagram-decorated candle and a flier for Mystic’s Circle, a group devoted to “shamanism” and “magick.”

Headline writers leaned into the angle. “Student killed on solstice may have been sacrificed,” read the Daily News. “Slain man frequently visited site of occultists,” declared The Times.

Baker, detectives learned, had been a sweet-tempered practitioner of Wicca, a form of nature worship that shunned violence. He was shy, introverted and “adamantly against Satanism,” a friend said. But as one detective speculated to reporters, “We don’t know if at some point he graduated from the light to the dark side of that.”

Investigators examine the scene where Ronald Baker’s body was found.

(Los Angeles Police Department )

People said he had no enemies. He loved “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” singalongs, and worked a candle-making booth at Renaissance faires. He had written his sister a birthday card in Elizabethan English.

Had he gone into the hills to meditate and stumbled across practitioners of more malignant magic? He was known as a light drinker, but toxicology results showed he was heavily drunk when he died.

In this series, Christopher Goffard revisits old crimes in Los Angeles and beyond, from the famous to the forgotten, the consequential to the obscure, diving into archives and the memories of those who were there.

Had someone he trusted lured him to the tunnel? How was his death connected to the raspy-voiced man who placed calls to Baker’s father around that time, demanding a $100,000 ransom in exchange for his son’s life?

U.S. Army photo of Nathan Blalock.

(U.S. Army)

Baker’s housemates, Duncan Martinez and Nathan Blalock, both military veterans in their early 20s, had been the last known people to see him alive, and served as each other’s alibis. They said they had dropped him off at a Van Nuys bus stop, and that he had planned to join his Mystic’s Circle friends for the solstice.

There had been no sign of animosity between the roommates, and Baker considered Martinez, an ex-Marine, one of his best friends. They had met working at Sears, years earlier.

Martinez helped to carry Baker’s casket and spoke movingly at his memorial service at Woodland Hills United Methodist Church. His friend was “never real physically strong, like a lot of the guys I know,” Martinez said, but was the “friendliest, sweetest guy.”

His voice filled with emotion. “He would talk to anybody and be there for anybody at the drop of a dime,” Martinez continued. “And I just hope that it’s something I can get over, because I love him. It’s just hard to think of a time without Ron.”

But something about the roommates’ story strained logic. When Baker’s father had alerted them to the ransom calls, the roommates said they had looked for him at Chatsworth Park, knowing it was one of Baker’s favorite haunts. Why would they assume a kidnapper had taken him there?

Duncan Martinez in an LAPD interview room.

(Los Angeles Police Department)

There was another troubling detail: Martinez had cashed a $109 check he said Baker had given him, but a handwriting expert determined that Baker’s signature was forged.

Martinez agreed to a polygraph test, described his friend’s murder as “a pretty unsensible crime” and insisted he had nothing to do with it. “I’ve never known anybody to carry a grudge or even dislike Ron for more than a minute, you know,” Martinez said.

The test showed deception, and he fled the state. He was gone for nearly 18 months.

He turned up in Utah, where he was arrested on a warrant for lying on a passport application. He had been hoping to reinvent himself as “Jonathan Wayne Miller,” an identity he had stolen from a toddler who died after accidentally drinking Drano in 1974, said LAPD Det. Rick Jackson, now retired. Jackson said Martinez sliced the child’s death certificate out of a Massachusetts state archive, hoping to disguise his fraud.

In February 1992, after being assured his statement could not be used against him, Martinez finally talked. He said it had been Blalock’s idea. They had been watching an old episode of “Dragnet” about a botched kidnapping. Martinez was an ex-Marine, and Blalock was ex-Army. With their military know-how, they believed they could do a better job.

They lured Baker to the park with a case of beer and the promise of meeting girls, and Blalock stabbed him with a Marine Corps Ka-Bar knife Martinez had lent him. Baker begged Martinez for help, and Martinez responded by telling his knife-wielding friend to finish the job.

“I told him to make sure that it was over, because I didn’t want Ron to suffer,” Martinez said. “I believe Nathan slit his throat a couple of times.” He admitted to disguising his voice while making ransom calls to Baker’s father.

But he never provided a location to deliver the ransom money. The scheme seemed as harebrained as it was cruel, and Martinez offered little to lend clarity. He sounded as clueless as anyone else, or pretended to be. “You know, it doesn’t completely click with me either,” he said.

“They ruined their lives, and all of the families’ lives, with the stupidest crime,” Patty Baker Elliott, the victim’s elder sister, told The Times in a recent interview.

Ronald and Patty Baker at her college graduation in the 1980s.

(Courtesy of Baker family)

In the end, the occult trappings were a red herring, apparently intended to throw police off the scent of the real culprits and the real motive.

The killers “set this thing up for the summer solstice, because they knew he wanted to be out, hopefully celebrating the solstice,” Jackson said in a recent interview. “What are the chances, of all the days, this is the one they choose to do it on?”

Jackson, one of the two chief detectives on the case, recounts the investigation in his book “Black Tunnel White Magic: A Murder, a Detective’s Obsession, and ‘90s Los Angeles at the Brink,” which he wrote with author and journalist Matthew McGough.

Blalock was charged with murder. To the frustration of detectives, who believed him equally guilty, Martinez remained free. His statements, given under a grant of immunity, could not be used against him.

Det. Rick Jackson in the LAPD’s Robbery Homicide Division squad room.

(Los Angeles Police Department )

“I almost blame Duncan more, because he was in the position, as Ron’s best friend, to stop this whole thing and say, ‘Wait a minute, Nathan, what the hell are we talking about here?’” Jackson said. “He didn’t, and he let it go through, and what happened, happened.”

Martinez might have escaped justice, but he blundered. Arrested for burglarizing a Utah sporting goods store, he claimed a man had coerced him into stealing a mountain bike by threatening to expose his role in the California murder.

As a Salt Lake City detective recorded him, Martinez put himself at the scene of his roommate’s death while downplaying his guilt — an admission made with no promise of immunity, and therefore enough to charge him.

“That’s the first time we could legally put him in the tunnel,” Jackson said.

Jurors found both men guilty of first-degree murder, and they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

In June 2020, Baker’s sister was startled to come across a news site reporting that Gov. Gavin Newsom had intervened to commute Martinez’s sentence, making him eligible for parole. No one had told her. The governor’s office said at the time that Martinez had “committed himself to self-improvement” during his quarter-century in prison.

The news was no less a shock to Jackson, who thought the language of the commutation minimized Martinez’s role in concocting the kidnapping plan that led to the murder. He said he regarded Martinez as a “pathological liar,” and one of the most manipulative people he’d met in his long career.

Martinez had not only failed to help Baker, but had urged Blalock to “finish him off” and then posed as a consoling friend to the grieving family. The victim’s sister remembers how skillfully Martinez counterfeited compassion.

“He hugged everybody and talked to everybody at the service,” she said. “He cried. He got choked up and cried during his eulogy.”

A prosecutor intended to argue against Martinez’s release at the parole hearing, but then-newly elected L.A. Dist. Atty. George Gascon instituted a policy forbidding his office from sending advocates. The victim’s sister spoke of her loss. Jackson spoke of Martinez’s gift for deception.

“It was like spitting into the wind,” Jackson said.

The parole board sided with Martinez, and he left prison in April 2021. Blalock remains behind bars.

Rick Jackson and Matthew McGough, authors of “Black Tunnel White Magic.”

(JJ Geiger)

For 35 years now, the retired detective has been reflecting on the case, and the senselessness at its core. Jackson came to think of it as a “folie à deux” murder, a term that means “madness of two” and refers to criminal duos whose members probably would not have done it solo. He regarded it as “my blue-collar Leopold and Loeb case,” comparing it to the wealthy Chicago teenagers who murdered a boy in 1924 with the motive of committing the perfect crime.

An old cop show about a kidnapping had provoked the two young vets to start bouncing ideas off each other, until a plan took shape to try it themselves. They weighed possible targets. The student they shared an apartment with, the Wiccan pacifist without enemies, somehow seemed a convenient one.

“You have to understand their personalities, especially together,” Jackson said. “It’s kind of like, ‘I’m gonna one-up you, and make it even better.’ One of them would say, ‘Yeah, we could do this instead.’ And, ‘Yeah, that sounds cool, but I think we should do this, too.’”

Santa Barbara, California – Far away from US President Donald Trump’s public confrontations with elite universities like Harvard and Columbia, students at the bustling University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) are finishing up their final exams under the sunny skies shining above the nearby beach.

Despite the distance and pleasant weather, students here still feel the cloud of uncertainty hanging over them, created by Trump’s rhetoric and policies towards foreign students.

“The overall mood across the room [among international students] is that people are looking for other options,” said Denis Lomov, a 26-year-old PhD student from Russia who has been at UCSB since 2022 studying climate change politics and energy transitions.

Since coming into office this year, the Trump administration has revoked the student visas of hundreds of foreign nationals, slashed funding for science and research programmes, arrested and tried to deport foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestine campus activism, and suspended student visa appointments.

For international students at universities like UCSB, where nearly 15 percent of all students are from outside the US, the rhetoric and policies have left students wondering about their futures in the country.

“It makes you wonder if maybe you’d rather go somewhere else,” Lomov told Al Jazeera, adding that he is still several years away from completing his PhD.

Like his fellow international students, he said he has started to consider whether his skills might be more valued in places like Canada or Europe after he finishes his programme.

“I think it’s the unpredictability of these policies that makes me fear about the future, both with me being a student, but also after I graduate,” he said.

Lack of certainty

The Trump administration’s actions against universities and foreign students have met mixed results in the courts.

On Monday, in one of the Trump administration’s first significant legal victories in those efforts, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from Columbia University over the government’s cuts to the university’s federal funding, based on allegations that the university had not taken adequate steps to curb pro-Palestine activism in the name of combatting anti-Semitism on campus.

In another ruling, also on Monday, a judge extended a restraining order pausing Trump’s efforts to block incoming international students from attending Harvard as the case makes its way through the legal system. Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and has frozen more than $2.6bn in research grants. Harvard has also filed a lawsuit challenging those cuts.

Several universities in the UC system, including UCSB, have warned international students against travelling outside of the country, a restriction that poses serious complications for their academic work and their personal lives.

“People are considering whether they’ll be able to go home and visit their families during their programme,” said Anam Mehta, a US national and PhD student at UCSB.

“They’re being extra cautious about what they post online out of concern about being questioned at the airport,” added Mehta, who is also involved with the UAW 4811 academic workers union.

These concerns, he said, could also stymie the ability of international students to conduct field work in foreign countries, a common feature of graduate research, or attend academic conferences abroad.

Some students — and even university administrators themselves — have noted that it is difficult to keep up with the raft of policy announcements, media reports, lawsuits, and counter-lawsuits that have unfolded as Trump presses his attacks on higher education.

“There have been frequent changes and a lot of these policies have been implemented very quickly and without a lot of advanced notice,” Carola Smith, an administrator at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), said, noting that prospective international students have reached out with questions about whether they are still able to study in the US.

Smith says that between 60 and 70 different national identities are represented on campus and that, in addition to international students paying higher tuition fees than US students, their presence on campus provides a welcome exposure to a wider variety of perspectives for their classmates and creates connections with people from other parts of the world.

With student visa appointments currently suspended, Smith predicted the number of foreign student enrollments could drop by as much as 50 percent in the coming year.

Shifting attitudes

The stress of keeping up with shifting developments has also been paired with a more abstract concern: that the US, once seen as a country that took pride in its status as a global destination for research and academics, has become increasingly hostile to the presence of foreign students.

“Harvard has to show us their lists [of foreign students]. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump said in March.

The administration has also said that international students take university spots that could go to US students, in line with a more inward-looking approach to policy that sees various forms of exchange with other countries as a drain on the US rather than a source of mutual benefit.

“They’re arguing that they don’t need international students, that this is talent they should be cultivating here at home,” says Jeffrey Rosario, an assistant professor at Loma Linda University in southern California.

“You can see a throughline between this and their tariffs abroad, based on this form of economic nationalism that says the rest of the world is ripping us off,” added Rosario, who has written about the government’s history of trying to exert influence over universities.

For Lomov, the student from Russia, the atmosphere has him wondering if his skills might find a better home elsewhere.

“I left Russia because I didn’t feel welcome there, and my expertise wasn’t really needed. That’s why I left for the United States, because I knew the United States provides amazing opportunities for academics and research,” said Lomov.

“But now it feels like maybe I’m back in the same place, where I have to leave again.”

Officials say death toll expected to rise as authorities launch search operation in the country’s Eastern Cape province.

At least 49 people have died in heavy flooding in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province after an extreme cold front brought torrential rain and blanketed snow in parts of the country, officials said.

Eastern Cape Premier Oscar Mabuyane said on Wednesday that the death toll, provided by police, is expected to rise as authorities continue to search for the missing.

“As we speak here, other bodies are being discovered,” Mabuyane told reporters at a briefing.

In one tragic incident, authorities reported the deaths of six high school students who were washed away on Tuesday when their school bus was caught in floodwaters near a river. Four other students were among the missing, Mabuyane said.

Authorities found the school bus earlier Wednesday, but it was empty. Three of the students were rescued on Tuesday when they were found clinging to trees, the provincial government said.

Disaster response teams have been activated in Eastern Cape province and the neighbouring KwaZulu-Natal province after torrential rain hit parts of southern and eastern South Africa over the weekend. Power outages have affected hundreds of thousands of homes, authorities said.

Eastern Cape officials said at least 58 schools and 20 hospitals were damaged by the floods. Approximately 500 people were taken to temporary shelters after their homes were washed away or damaged, they added.

“I have never seen something like this,” Mabuyane said.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa offered his condolences to the affected families in a statement. His office said South Africa’s National Disaster Management Centre was now working with local authorities in the Eastern Cape.

Weather forecasters had warned for days prior that an especially strong weather front was heading for the eastern and southern parts of South Africa, bringing damaging rains in some parts and snow in others.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*Name has been changed to protect anonymity

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.

The United States will begin revoking visas for Chinese students. The State Department said this will include those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party as well as those studying in “critical fields”, though it did not provide details. This is to stop the exploitation of US universities and protect national security, according to the statement. Who is losing out in this latest development in US-China tensions?

Students could face subject “cold spots” if universities are not allowed to work together more to deliver courses, according to a new report.

The review by Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, found universities were reluctant to collaborate because of concerns around breaking business laws designed to promote healthy competition between them.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it wanted to support collaboration where possible in a “very challenging” financial situation for the sector.

A government review of how higher education will be funded in the long term is under way in England, and is expected to be published later this year.

The Universities UK report said greater collaboration between universities could be a solution for institutions who are struggling to cut costs and become more efficient.

Some universities are already delivering courses this way, to the benefit of students.

Mature student Joe Vincent, 33, lives at home in Devon with his partner and baby while studying in Plymouth for a masters degree in pharmacy from the University of Bath, over 130 miles away.

“It’s everything for me”, he says, adding that being able to study and qualify locally “is the difference between me having this career, and not having this career”.

In 2018, he trained as a pharmacy technician at a nearby college, because there was no local university course available to become a pharmacist.

This close collaboration between universities is also intended to meet a shortage of community pharmacists in the South West.

Sir Nigel Carrington, who led the review for Universities UK, said more clarity was needed to prevent universities having to make decisions about which courses to close, or merge, in isolation from one another.

He told the BBC there was a risk of “cold spots emerging in which there will be no opportunity for prospective students to study the subjects they want to study in their home cities or their home regions”.

He said neighbouring universities should be allowed to look at which subjects they recruit the fewest students for and agree that only one of them should teach that course, “divvying up other courses between them” and working out where delivering a subject would be most cost effective.

After the University of Cardiff announced job losses earlier this year, vice-chancellor Prof Wendy Larner told The Times newspaper she was “deeply frustrated” by legal advice not to consult other universities on the impact of course closures, adding the system was “set up to enhance competition, not collaboration”.

The CMA enforces the existing law, which applies across different sectors to protect consumers, in this case students.

In a blog post published on Friday, it said it recognised the financial problems facing universities and that it wanted to support collaboration where possible.

The CMA said ideas such as sharing back-office functions, or discussing possible mergers with other universities, were unlikely to raise competition law concerns.

Juliette Enser, executive director of competition enforcement at the CMA, said: “We know universities are interested in collaborating on courses they offer and we are working to understand how this fits with overall plans for higher education reform.”

It would be for the government to change the law, or how universities are regulated, to allow up-front conversations to be had about whether some subjects need a different kind of collaboration in different regions.

University budgets have been strained by a 16% drop in international students – who pay higher fees than domestic students – after changes to visa rules came into force last January.

University income in the form of fees has also failed to keep up with inflation, rising for the first time in eight years this autumn from £9,250 to £9,535.

The higher education regulator in England, the Office for Students, has said four in 10 universities are heading for a financial deficit by this summer, despite thousands of job losses already having been announced.

Course cutbacks or closure announcements have also followed one after the other this year, from the University of East Anglia to Sheffield, Durham, Bournemouth and many more.

It has become a patchwork of individual institutional decisions, largely driven by market forces, including how many students want to sign up for individual subjects.

The government said it had been clear that universities needed to increase opportunities for students and contribute more to growth in the economy.

In response to the review, Jacqui Smith, the Skills Minister, said: “I am pleased to see the sector taking steps to grip this issue as we restore our universities as engines of opportunity, aspiration and growth.”

A review of the longer term future of higher education in England is expected to be published before the summer.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s salvo against Chinese students, promising to “aggressively revoke” their visas, is the latest move in heightening tensions between the world’s two largest economies.

Despite a temporary tariff truce reached between them earlier this month, divisions between Washington and Beijing remain wide, with recent ruptures over higher education, artificial intelligence (AI) chips and rare earth minerals.

Here’s all we know about how relations between China and the United States are worsening despite diplomatic efforts.

What did the US and China agree on tariffs?

A US-China trade spat escalated after Trump’s administration raised tariffs on Chinese goods to 145 percent earlier this year, with cumulative US duties on some Chinese goods reaching a staggering 245 percent. China retaliated with 125 percent tariffs of its own on US goods.

Under an agreement reached on May 12 following two days of trade talks in Geneva, tariffs on both sides were dropped by 115 percentage points for 90 days, during which time negotiators hope to secure a longer-term agreement. For now, the US has maintained a 30 percent tariff on all Chinese goods while Beijing has a 10 percent levy on US products.

In the weeks since the temporary reprieve, however, Washington and Beijing appear to have had only limited discussions.

On Thursday, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that trade talks between the US and China are “a bit stalled”, and may need to be reinvigorated by a call between US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

In the meantime, the Trump administration has announced new, strict visa controls on Chinese university students and told US companies to stop selling their advanced chip software used to design semiconductors to Chinese groups.

Why is the US targeting Chinese students?

On Wednesday, Rubio announced that the US will “aggressively revoke” the visas of Chinese students studying in the country. He also pledged to ramp up scrutiny of new visa applicants from China and Hong Kong.

The Trump administration’s decision to carry out deportations and to revoke student visas is part of wide-ranging efforts to fulfil its hardline immigration agenda.

China is the second-largest country of origin for international students in the US, behind India. Chinese students made up roughly a quarter of all foreign students in the US during the 2023-2024 academic year – more than 270,000 in total.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticised the decision to revoke visas, saying it “damaged” the rights of Chinese students. “The US has unreasonably cancelled Chinese students’ visas under the pretext of ideology and national rights,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said.

The Trump administration also banned Harvard University from enrolling any foreign students on May 22, accusing the institution of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party”. That move has since been blocked by a US federal judge.

Still, the largest portion of foreign students at Harvard – almost 1,300 – are Chinese, and many top officials, including the current leader Xi Jinping, have sent their children to the Ivy League school.

How is the US taking aim at Chinese semiconductors?

On May 13, just after the end of trade talks in Geneva, the US Commerce Department issued guidance warning American firms against using Huawei’s Ascend AI semiconductor chips, stating that they “were likely developed or produced in violation of US export controls”. 

The move marked the latest in a series of efforts by the Trump administration to stymie China’s ability to develop cutting-edge AI chips. The tiny semiconductors, which power AI systems, have long been a source of tension between the US and China.

China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson fired back against the guidance last week, accusing Washington of “undermining” the consensus reached in Geneva and describing the measures as “typical unilateral bullying and protectionism”.

Then, on May 28, the US government ramped up the row by ordering US companies which make software used to design semiconductors to stop selling their goods and services to Chinese groups, The Financial Times reported.

Design automation software makers, including Cadence, Synopsys and Siemens EDA, were told via letters from the US Commerce Department to stop supplying their technology to China.

Why is the US targeting Chinese semiconductors?

The US has been tightening its export controls on semiconductors for more than a decade, contending that China has used US computer chips to improve military hardware and software.

Chinese officials and industry executives deny this and contend that the US is trying to limit China’s economic and technological development.

In his first term as president, Trump banned China’s Huawei from using advanced US circuit boards.

Huawei is seen as a competitor to Nvidia, the US semiconductor giant which produces its own-brand of “Ascend” AI chips. In April, Washington restricted the export of Nvidia’s AI chips to China.

But Nvidia’s chief executive, Jensen Huang, recently warned that attempts to hamstring China’s AI technology through export controls had largely failed.

How could China be affected by US measures?

The suspension of semiconductor sales will limit supplies for aerospace equipment needed for China’s commercial aircraft, the C919, a signature project in China’s push towards economic and transport self-reliance.

Christopher Johnson, a former CIA China analyst, told The Financial Times that this week’s new export controls underscored the “innate fragility of the tariff truce reached in Geneva”.

“With both sides wanting to retain and continue demonstrating the potency of their respective chokehold capabilities, the risk the ceasefire could unravel even within the 90-day pause is omnipresent,” he added.

Will China ease restrictions on rare earth minerals exports?

US officials had expected the Geneva talks to result in China easing its export restrictions on rare earth elements. So far, there have been few signs of that, however.

Rare earth minerals are a group of precious minerals required to manufacture a wide range of goods in the defence, healthcare and technology sectors.

Rare earth metals, which include scandium and yttrium, are also key for producing components in capacitors – electrical parts which help power AI servers and smartphones.

China processes some 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals and instituted export controls in April to counter Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, triggering alarm among US companies.

Last week, for instance, Ford temporarily closed a factory in Chicago which makes utility vehicles after one of its suppliers ran out of a specialised rare earth magnet.

In most new cars, especially elevate vehicles (cars with robotic technology allowing them to “climb” over obstacles), these high-tech magnets are used in parts which operate brake and steering systems, and power seats and fuel injectors.

The restrictions on the supply of rare earth minerals provide Beijing with a strategic advantage in future negotiations, as it can limit supplies of crucial technologies for US industry.

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

Washington, DC – For Anson, hearing the news that Chinese student visas were the latest target of US President Donald Trump’s administration was “heartbreaking”.

The Chinese graduate student, who is studying foreign service at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that he feels uncertain about the future of students like himself after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the US would begin to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields”.

“There is definitely a degree of uncertainty and anxiety observed amongst us,” Anson said, asking that only his first name be used.

The Trump administration has offered little further clarity on which students would be affected, with some observers seeing the two-sentence announcement, which also vowed to “revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny” for future visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, as intentionally vague.

While 23-year-old Anson said he understood the US government had concerns about foreign influence and national security when it came to China, he was confused as to why the Trump administration’s new policy was potentially so wide reaching.

Most students from his homeland, he said, were just like the other more than one million students who study every year in the US, a country that is known both for its educational opportunities and for its “inclusivity and broad demographics”.

“It is heartbreaking for many of us to see a country built by immigrants becoming more xenophobic and hostile to the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he and other Chinese students in the US were still trying to decipher the policy shift.

‘Greater and greater suspicion’

It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at Chinese students, with the US Department of Justice in 2018, during Trump’s first term, launching the so-called “China Initiative” with the stated aim of combatting “trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage”.

An MIT analysis instead showed the programme focused predominantly on researchers and academics of Chinese descent, in what critics said amounted to “racial profiling and fear mongering”. It was discontinued in February 2022 by the administration of former US President Joe Biden.

Since then, there has only been “greater and greater suspicion in the US, almost on a bipartisan basis, of various aspects of Chinese technology, actions by Beijing around the world, and now these concerns about surveillance and spying within the US”, according to Kyle Chan, a researcher on China at Princeton University.

That included a Republican-led congressional report in September 2024 that claimed hundreds of millions of US tax dollars – funneled through US-China partnerships at universities – helped Beijing develop critical technologies, including those related to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and nuclear capabilities.

But Chan, while acknowledging “genuine security concerns” exist, said the broad announcement from the Trump administration did not appear to actually address those concerns.

Instead, it has sent “shock waves of fear throughout university campuses across the country”, he said.

That uncertainty has been compounded by Trump’s recent pressure campaigns on US universities, which most recently involved a since-blocked revocation of Harvard University’s ability to enrol international students.

“I think the vagueness is part of the [Trump administration’s] strategy, because it is not about a concrete policy,” Chan told Al Jazeera. “I don’t think it’s really, at the end of the day, about national security and trying to find the few individuals who may pose a genuine risk.”

Instead, he saw the move as aimed at Trump’s political audience, those sitting at an “overlap between people who are very anxious about immigrants in general, and people who are very anxious about China”.

‘Tremendous disruption’

The administration has offered little clarity on the scope of the visa revocations, or how it will define students with “connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields”.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce gave few further specifics, saying only that the department “will continue to use every tool in our tool chest to make sure that we know who it is who wants to come into this country and if they should be allowed to come in”.

“The United States, I further can say here, will not tolerate the CCP’s exploitation of US universities or theft of US research, intellectual property or technologies to grow its military power, conduct intelligence collection or repress voices of opposition,” she said.

Despite the dearth of clarity, the eventual shape of the policy will determine just how “disruptive” it could be, according to Cole McFaul, a research analyst at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University.

He pointed to “real concerns about research security and about illicit IP [intellectual property] transfer” when it comes to Beijing, noting there have been a handful of documented cases of such activity in recent years.

“My hope is that this is a targeted action based on evidence and an accurate assessment of risk that takes into account the costs and the benefits,” McFaul said.

“My worry is that this will lead to broad-based, large-scale revocations of visas for Chinese students operating in STEM subjects,” he said, referencing the abbreviation for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

McFaul noted that about 80 percent of the estimated 277,000 Chinese students who study in the US annually are in STEM subjects, in what he described as “an enormously important talent pipeline from China to the United States for the past 40 years”.

A vast majority of Chinese PhDs in STEM subjects – also about 80 percent – tend to stay in the US after their studies, in what McFaul described as another major benefit to the US.

“The question is, what counts as someone who’s working in a critical technology? Are life sciences critical? I would say ‘yes’. Are the physical sciences critical? I’d say ‘yes’. Is computer science critical? Is engineering critical?” McFaul said.

“So there’s a world where the vast majority of Chinese students are disallowed from studying in the United States, which would be an enormous loss and tremendous disruption for the United States science and technology ecosystem,” he said.

‘Generating unnecessary fear’

As the policy remains foggy, Chinese students in the US said they are monitoring the often fickle winds of the Trump administration.

Su, a 23-year-old applied analytics graduate student at Columbia University, said she swiftly changed her plans to travel home to China this summer amid the uncertainty.

“I was afraid if I go back to China, I won’t be able to come back to the US for when classes begin,” said Su, who asked to only use her last name given the “sensitive” situation.

“When Trump announces something, we never know if it’s going to be effective or not,” she told Al Jazeera. “It’s always changing”.

Deng, a graduate student at Georgetown who also asked that his full name not be used, said he broadly agreed that reforms were needed to address issues related to Chinese influence in US academia.

Those included intimidation of political dissidents, the spread of nationalist propaganda, and “oligarchy corruption”, he said.

But, in an email to Al Jazeera, he said the administration’s approach was misguided.

“The current measures not only do not achieve such goals,” he said, “but [are] also generating unnecessary fear even among the Chinese student communities that have long been fully committed to the development and enrichment of US society.”

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.

We rate the statement False.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The US will also ‘enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications’ from China and Hong Kong, the State Department said.

The United States will “aggressively revoke” the visas of Chinese students studying in the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced, as the Trump administration continues its crackdown on foreign students enrolled at higher education institutions in the country.

Rubio announced the shock move both in a post on X, as well as a statement published late on Wednesday titled “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China”.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the US State Department will work with the Department of Homeland Security to aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,” the statement said.

“We will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong,” it added.

Rubio’s announcement added to the uncertainty for international students in the US, who have faced intensifying scrutiny over recent months amid the administration’s wider assault on higher education institutions.

On Tuesday, the White House also temporarily suspended the processing of visas for foreign students, ordering embassies and consulates not to allow any additional student or exchange visas “until further guidance is issued”.

The State Department also said it plans to “issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applications”.

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.

Sarah McLaughlin is senior scholar on global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and author of the forthcoming book “Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.”