US judge halts Trump move to revoke Harvard’s right to enroll international students

A US federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's controversial decision to revoke Harvard University's authorization to enroll international students. The move, which could have impacted over 7,000 visa holders, drew sharp backlash from the academic community and legal experts.

The policy was announced earlier this month by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, claiming Harvard had created a “hostile learning environment for Jewish students” and failed to curb alleged antisemitic activity on campus. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit in Boston, calling the decision a “blatant violation” of the US Constitution and federal law.

Judge Allison Burroughs, who presides in the District Court of Massachusetts, issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the enforcement of the new policy while legal proceedings continue. The court acknowledged Harvard’s argument that revoking its certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program would cause “immediate and devastating” harm to its global academic community.

Harvard emphasized that international students make up nearly a quarter of its student body and play a vital role in its intellectual ecosystem. The university accused the government of acting with political motives, targeting institutions seen as dissenting or uncooperative with Trump’s broader agenda.

The revocation came amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and elite academic institutions. Columbia University reportedly agreed to revise its curriculum after threats of funding cuts. In Harvard’s case, the government demanded video and audio evidence of student protests and accused the institution of ties with foreign adversaries — charges the university strongly denied.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed the legal challenge as a distraction. “If only Harvard cared this much about ending pro-terrorist agitation on campus,” she said. Harvard, however, maintained that the administration’s actions lacked legal basis and constituted a “quintessential case of administrative overreach.”