Federal judge halts Trump administration’s Harvard foreign student ban

Had the government’s action proceeded, nearly 7,000 international students—over a quarter of Harvard’s population—would have faced forced transfers or loss of legal status, risking “chaotic” disruption to academic programs, research labs, and clinical initiatives reliant on their participation

A US federal court has temporarily halted a decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to strip Harvard University of its ability to enroll international students, marking a dramatic escalation in tensions between the prestigious institution and the federal government headed by President Donald Trump.

District Judge Allison Burroughs issued the injunction on Friday (May 23), just hours after Harvard filed an emergency lawsuit. The university argued that the government's move to revoke its certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) was a retaliatory action aimed at punishing Harvard for resisting federal directives perceived as politically motivated.

In her brief ruling, Judge Burroughs ordered an immediate pause on the enforcement of the ban, giving Harvard’s international students temporary relief from looming uncertainty about their visa status.

Legal dispute over federal authority

At the centre of the case is Harvard’s claim that the government acted unlawfully and without due process when it revoked the university’s SEVP status, a designation required to sponsor foreign students on F-1 and J-1 visas. The lawsuit alleges the decision violates administrative procedures and was intended to punish Harvard for its stance on issues ranging from curriculum oversight to campus governance.

“This action is the latest in a series of retaliatory measures taken against Harvard for asserting its institutional independence,” the complaint reads.

Judge Burroughs is also presiding over a separate case involving a federal funding freeze of more than $2.6 billion to Harvard, further highlighting the growing friction between the university and federal authorities.

Immediate impact on students and programs

The government’s action, had it proceeded, would have forced nearly 7,000 international students—comprising over a quarter of Harvard’s student population—to either transfer to other institutions or risk falling out of legal immigration status. The university described the potential fallout as “chaotic,” warning that academic programs, research labs, and clinical initiatives dependent on international participation could face serious disruption.

Harvard Provost Alan Garber issued a statement of solidarity with those affected, saying, “Our international students are an integral part of Harvard’s intellectual and cultural fabric. We will continue to stand with them and work tirelessly to protect their place at our institution.”

Government defends decision

Federal officials defended the move, framing the enrolment of foreign students as a privilege, not a right. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the lawsuit “undermines the President’s constitutional powers” and criticized elite universities for resisting federal oversight while benefiting financially from high international tuition fees.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem pointed to Harvard’s alleged non-compliance with requests for student conduct records and policy documentation related to equity and diversity initiatives. “We had no choice but to act when Harvard refused to meet our requests,” Noem said.

Harvard disputes this characterization, asserting that it provided the requested data and that DHS unreasonably deemed it insufficient.

Academic community responds

The decision triggered widespread concern among educators and students alike. Jason Furman, a Harvard professor and former economic advisor in the Obama administration, called the ban “deeply damaging to the future of American higher education.”

“International students drive innovation, enrich campus life, and contribute significantly to the US economy,” Furman said.

Students have also voiced alarm. Karl Molden, a junior from Austria, said the news left many of his peers uncertain about their futures. “We’ve worked for years to earn our places here. Now we’re being used as leverage in a political fight,” he said.

Broader context and ongoing investigations

The dispute is part of a broader campaign by the federal government targeting universities perceived as opposing its agenda, particularly around protests related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, campus diversity programs, and academic autonomy.

Harvard is also facing a separate federal probe into its tax-exempt status and the suspension of various research grants, suggesting that the current legal fight may be one chapter in a longer, politically charged battle.

With Friday’s court ruling, Harvard has secured temporary relief—but the larger legal and political contest remains far from resolved.