A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration, temporarily halting its efforts to prevent Harvard University from admitting international students, as reported by the Associated Press. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, ensures that Harvard can continue enrolling foreign students as the legal battle continues.
This decision marks another significant legal victory for Harvard in its ongoing confrontation with the federal government over multiple sanctions initiated by the White House. The university has found itself at odds with the Trump administration over various issues, culminating in legal action.
In May, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) following the agency’s decision to revoke the university’s certification to enrol foreign students and issue documents necessary for obtaining student visas. This administrative move, if left unchallenged, would have affected approximately 7,000 international students already studying at Harvard. These students would have been compelled to transfer to other institutions or face the risk of losing their legal immigration status in the United States. Furthermore, new international students would have been blocked from enrolling altogether.
Harvard described the government’s action as illegal retaliation. The university argued that the DHS decision was a response to its refusal to adhere to several demands from the White House, including changes to campus protest policies, admissions criteria, and faculty hiring practices, among other internal policies. Shortly after Harvard initiated the lawsuit, Judge Burroughs acted to temporarily suspend the DHS directive.
Then, less than two weeks later, President Donald Trump made a separate attempt to stop international students from entering the United States to study at Harvard, this time citing a different legal rationale. Once again, Harvard contested the action in court. Judge Burroughs responded by issuing another temporary order, blocking the new attempt by the administration.
The growing feud between Harvard and the Trump administration stems from broader political tensions. The university has come under scrutiny from Trump and his allies for what they claim is a liberal bias and a lenient stance on antisemitism. The administration accused Harvard of failing to address these concerns adequately, leading to an escalating series of federal actions.
As part of its response, the Trump administration cut more than $2.6 billion in research funding previously directed to the university. In addition to withdrawing financial support, the government cancelled existing contracts with Harvard and threatened to remove the university’s tax-exempt status—an aggressive step rarely taken against academic institutions.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem intensified the conflict in April by requesting a broad array of records from Harvard that pertained to any potentially dangerous or unlawful behaviour by foreign students. Although Harvard claimed it had complied with the request, Noem reportedly found the university’s response unsatisfactory. Consequently, on May 22, she revoked Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a move that triggered the legal showdown.
According to Harvard’s legal filing, the revocation of SEVP certification immediately damaged the university’s ability to attract high-calibre international students. The lawsuit argues that the decision had a chilling effect on the university’s global competitiveness and reputation. As Harvard’s complaint stated, “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”
The loss of international students would have severely impacted various academic programs, particularly graduate programs, which often rely heavily on enrollment from abroad. Recognising the threat, several foreign universities extended offers of admission to Harvard students who faced uncertainty due to the U.S. government’s actions. Among them were at least two institutions based in Hong Kong, demonstrating the global academic community’s willingness to provide alternatives to the affected students.
Harvard President Alan Garber acknowledged that the university has taken steps to address antisemitism, a key concern cited by the Trump administration. However, he firmly defended Harvard’s stance against what he described as federal overreach into the university’s internal governance.
Garber expressed the university’s resolve to uphold its institutional autonomy and foundational values. “Harvard will remain committed to its core, legally-protected principles,” he said, underscoring that the institution will not be intimidated by political pressure.
The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Burroughs temporarily halts the federal government’s efforts while the lawsuit proceeds. The ruling is not a final determination but does signal the judge’s recognition of the serious legal and constitutional questions raised by the case.
The legal developments reflect a broader tension between academic freedom and government oversight, especially regarding policies affecting international students. With over 7,000 international students, Harvard represents a significant hub of global talent, and the court’s ruling preserves their ability to study in the U.S., at least for now.
Although the Trump administration has defended its measures as part of a broader national security agenda, critics argue that the actions appear politically motivated and risk undermining America’s longstanding reputation as a destination for world-class higher education.
As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes will be on the federal courts to determine whether the administration’s attempts to curtail foreign student access to American universities can be upheld or whether they violate constitutional protections afforded to educational institutions.
For now, Harvard retains its ability to welcome international students and continue its academic mission without federal interference. The outcome of the lawsuit could set a precedent for how universities across the country navigate federal regulations, particularly when they conflict with institutional values and academic independence.