Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/us-doesnt-welcome-foreign-talents-as-trump-bars-harvard-from-enrolling-foreign-students-anymore.22891/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

US doesn't welcome foreign talents as Trump bars Harvard from enrolling foreign students anymore

tonyget

Well-known member
1748013046426.png


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students in its escalating battle with the Ivy League school, saying thousands of current students must transfer to other schools or leave the country.

The Department of Homeland Security announced the action Thursday, saying Harvard has created an unsafe campus environment by allowing “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators” to assault Jewish students on campus. It also accused Harvard of coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party, saying it hosted and trained members of a Chinese paramilitary group as recently as 2024.

“This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status,” the agency said in a statement.

Harvard enrolls almost 6,800 foreign students at its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, accounting for more than a quarter of its student body. Most are graduate students, coming from more than 100 countries.

Harvard called the action unlawful and said it’s working to provide guidance to students.

“This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission,” the university said in a statement.

The Trump administration’s clash with Harvard, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, has intensified since it became the first to openly defy White House demands for changes at elite schools it has criticized as hotbeds of liberalism and antisemitism. The federal government has cut $2.6 billion in federal grants to Harvard, forcing it to self-fund much of its sprawling research operation. President Donald Trump has said he wants to strip the university of its tax-exempt status.

The administration has demanded records of campus protests

The threat to Harvard’s international enrollment stems from an April 16 request from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who demanded that it provide information about foreign students that might implicate them in violence or protests that could lead to their deportation.

In a letter to Harvard on Thursday, Noem said the school’s sanction is “the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements.” It bars Harvard from hosting international students for the upcoming 2025-26 school year.

Noem said Harvard can regain its ability to host foreign students if it produces a trove of records on foreign students within 72 hours. Her updated request demands all records, including audio or video footage, of foreign students participating in protests or dangerous activity on campus.

“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Noem said in a statement.

The action revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which gives the school the ability to sponsor international students to get their visas and attend school in the United States.

Harvard President Alan Garber earlier this month said the university has made changes to its governance over the past year and a half, including a broad strategy to combat antisemitism, but warned it would not budge on its “its core, legally-protected principles” over fears of retaliation. He said he wasn’t aware of evidence to support the administration’s allegation that its international students were “more prone to disruption, violence, or other misconduct than any other students.”

Students in Harvard College Democrats said the Trump administration is playing with students’ lives to push a radical agenda and to quiet dissent. “Trump’s attack on international students is text book authoritarianism — Harvard must continue to hold the line,” the group said in a statement.

The administration drew condemnation from free speech groups, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which said Noem is demanding a “surveillance state.”

“This sweeping fishing expedition reaches protected expression and must be flatly rejected,” the group said in a statement.

The revocation opens a new front in a closely watched battle

Many of Harvard’s punishments have come through a federal antisemitism task force that says the university failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence amid a nationwide wave of pro-Palestinian protests.

Homeland Security officials echoed those concerns in their Thursday announcement. It offered examples, including a recent internal report at Harvard, finding that many Jewish students reported facing discrimination or bias on campus.

It also tapped into concerns that congressional Republicans have raised about ties between U.S. universities and China. Homeland Security officials said Harvard provided training to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps as recently as 2024. As evidence, it provided a link to a Fox News article, which in turn cited a letter from House Republicans.

Asked for comment on the alleged coordination with the Chinese Communist Party, a Harvard spokesperson said the university will be responding to the House Republicans’ letter.

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, called the latest action an “illegal, small-minded” overreach.

“I worry that this is sending a very chilling effect to international students looking to come to America for education,” he said.

The Trump administration has leveraged the system for tracking international students’ legal status as part of its broader attempts to crack down on higher education. What was once a largely administrative database has become a tool of enforcement, as immigration officials revoked students’ legal status directly in the system.

Those efforts were challenged in court, leading to restorations of status and a nationwide injunction blocking the administration from pursuing further terminations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The title of this thread is nonsense. The Trump Administration's cultural battle with Harvard and a few other universities is not indicative of a general US policy of excluding foreign students.

Watching this pathetic battle play out, I'm pretty disappointed in the targeted universities. What did they think was going to happen by flouting directives from a presidential administration which wishes it was an autocracy (perhaps even a monarchy), and uses every tool US federal law gives the executive branch to win the cultural battle? And includes the Justice Department? The targeted universities all have what are considered to be top-notch law schools, but they didn't seem to bother to research that federal law gives the executive branch authority to limit foreign student admissions, withhold federal funding, and restrict university participation in federal projects? How ignorant and unprepared can they be? They thought Trump would show restraint? The best and the brightest are obviously not in the university administrative offices or in the faculty break room. Dummies.
 
When my children and I toured Universities in California we were told that foreign students had priority since they paid more than residents, even though resident's parents (me) paid into the UC systems our entire working life. Does that seem fair? Sure, they also said the D word (diversity), but there were budget cuts so "diversity" was more important. All four of my children made it through college but the experience still pisses me off since I am still paying into the California UC system that discriminated against my family.
 
When my children and I toured Universities in California we were told that foreign students had priority since they paid more than residents, even though resident's parents (me) paid into the UC systems our entire working life. Does that seem faire? Sure, they also said the D word (diversity), but there were budget cuts so "diversity" was more important. All four of my children made it through college but the experience still pisses me off since I am still paying into the California UC system that discriminated against my family.
Doesn't that mean that without the foreign students paying more, your own children would have to pay higher fees and run up even bigger debts?
 
Doesn't that mean that without the foreign students paying more, your own children would have to pay higher fees and run up even bigger debts?
I'm not thinking that. I think there would just be fewer administrators and fewer showpiece capital projects, because state university systems are subject to legislative agendas. Voters don't seem to care broadly enough about foreign and out of state students taking slots. They should, but they don't seem to.

And then there's state university sports, for a real distortion in the system.
 
When my children and I toured Universities in California we were told that foreign students had priority since they paid more than residents, even though resident's parents (me) paid into the UC systems our entire working life. Does that seem faire? Sure, they also said the D word (diversity), but there were budget cuts so "diversity" was more important. All four of my children made it through college but the experience still pisses me off since I am still paying into the California UC system that discriminated against my family.
Just curious. Does this applied to Harvard etc as well ?
 
Doesn't that mean that without the foreign students paying more, your own children would have to pay higher fees and run up even bigger debts?

It means my children will not get accepted to college so I save even more money. :LOL: Unless I send them to Harvard or Stanford then I pay 2X more than the University of California system that I am still paying into.

My gripe is with the state of California not Harvard.
 
The title of this thread is nonsense. The Trump Administration's cultural battle with Harvard and a few other universities is not indicative of a general US policy of excluding foreign students.
Sorry, but Trump's cultural battle is with anyone smarter than he is - which is a lot of people, including all immigrants who come here for college and advanced degrees. It's pretty clear he wants a country of gullible rubes he can easily control and scam on.
 
When my children and I toured Universities in California we were told that foreign students had priority since they paid more than residents, even though resident's parents (me) paid into the UC systems our entire working life. Does that seem faire? Sure, they also said the D word (diversity), but there were budget cuts so "diversity" was more important. All four of my children made it through college but the experience still pisses me off since I am still paying into the California UC system that discriminated against my family.
Your timing might have been bad Dan,
Between 2009 and 2016, the UCs ramped up external (international and out-of-state) admissions, mostly due to cuts in funding during the Great Recession, but then scaled up in-state numbers starting in 2017. The UCs are toward the low end when it comes to percentage of international and out-of-state students. But from what I can tell, most of the top talent that comes to the UCs from out-of-state and international, stays in California - that's part of the strategy.

We were lucky - we had two kids who chose Berkeley, when we had been planning for private tuitions. Their housing and food bill was substantially more expensive than the tuition.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-05-23 at 12.55.55 PM.png
    Screenshot 2025-05-23 at 12.55.55 PM.png
    124.8 KB · Views: 11
  • 1.1.4.png
    1.1.4.png
    80 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Sorry, but Trump's cultural battle is with anyone smarter than he is - which is a lot of people, including all immigrants who come here for college and advanced degrees. It's pretty clear he wants a country of gullible rubes he can easily control and scam on.
That's ridiculous. Even Trump must know he can't make a nation of followers in three years by just curbing university admissions. Why do you think he's issuing executive orders every week? He knows he's a short timer, and like Putin and Jinping wants a historical legacy. He certainly has made the past five months seem like an eternity.
 
Your timing might have been bad Dan,
Between 2009 and 2016, the UCs ramped up external (international and out-of-state) admissions, mostly due to cuts in funding during the Great Recession, but then scaled up in-state numbers starting in 2017. The UCs are toward the low end when it comes to percentage of international and out-of-state students. But from what I can tell, most of the top talent that comes to the UCs from out-of-state and international, stays in California - that's part of the strategy.
We were lucky - we had two kids who chose Berkeley, when we had been planning for private tuitions. Their housing and food bill was substantially more expensive than the tuition.

Exactly, bad timing, but also bad state budget management. I think the UC tuition about doubled between my first kid and fourth one and living expenses were very high. Dorms were for your first two years and off campus life was expensive. One kid got into UC Santa Cruz as a freshman the others transferred over to Davis and Berkely after a year in city college. A college hack as they now say. The freshman drop rate was significant.

I went to Chico State for my undergrad and told my kids no state universities if I was paying! :ROFLMAO: Chico State in the 1980s was not conducive for higher learning. 🍻
 
That's ridiculous. Even Trump must know he can't make a nation of followers in three years by just curbing university admissions. Why do you think he's issuing executive orders every week? He knows he's a short timer, and like Putin and Jinping wants a historical legacy. He certainly has made the past five months seem like an eternity.
Agree with all that you suggest. But you misread my statement - He's not trying to make a nation of followers. Just leverage his sub-majority of enablers to stretch the Overton Window for presidential acts into despot territory, while intimidating those who fight back and cowing the majority those who her know is wrong. The cultural battle is just a tool to ratchet up his temporal power, all under false pretenses by weakening and terrorizing those who call him on his hypocrisy, duplicity and fallacies.

Harvard Derangement Syndrome​


 
Exactly, bad timing, but also bad state budget management. I think the UC tuition about doubled between my fist kid and fourth one and living expenses were very high. Dorms were for your first two years and off campus life was expensive. One kid got into UC Santa Cruz as a freshman the others transferred over to Davis and Berkely after a year in city college. A college hack as they now say. The freshman drop rate was significant.

The UCs share the same high-cost-of-housing issues that plague the rest of California (and growingly, the rest of the urbanized US). High levels of R1 zoning and NIMBYism when it comes to building higher density housing. When a UC has to go to the state Supreme Court and get a new law made that says "students are not noise pollution", to build a new dorm on their own land, you know that NIMBYism is the problem.


As for the community college to UC "hack", it's great your kids took advantage of it. It's an intended "hack" designed to help kids get into UC system with a lower cost to entry. DeAnza, Diablo Valley and Foothill are the three biggest feeders in our area.

 
One kid got into UC Santa Cruz as a freshman the others transferred over to Davis and Berkely after a year in city college. A college hack as they now say. The freshman drop rate was significant.
Our sons did that too. It's also a great hack for getting tough undergrad courses taught by experts who want to teach (e.g. calculus, chemistry, physics, etc), rather than grad students who sometimes view teaching assignments in large classrooms as indentured servitude (like where I went to school).
 
Back
Top