Harvard’s leadership has asked a court to stop the Trump administration’s latest attempt to block international students — over a fourth of its student body — from coming to the university, according to a new court filing less than 24 hours after the latest move by President Donald Trump against the university. The filing amends an existing lawsuit against the Trump administration over the move to ban its ability to enroll international students, which initially prompted a judge to stop the administration from revoking Harvard’s student visa program. The amended lawsuit claims Trump’s proclamation, which suspends international visas for new students at Harvard, violates the First Amendment by temporarily blocking the entry of nearly all new international Harvard students under visas most use to study at US universities or participate in academic exchange programs. International students make up about 27% of the student body at the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university. Trump’s proclamation directs the Secretary of State “to consider revoking” those visas – known as F, M and J visas – for current Harvard students who meet the proclamation’s “criteria,” the White House said in a statement. “With the stroke of a pen, the DHS Secretary and the President have sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission and the country,” the amended complaint reads. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” it says. The visa program, which allows international students “to enter the United States on nonimmigrant visas to enroll at Harvard and thousands of other schools, have boosted America’s academic, scientific, and economic success and its global standing,” the lawsuit says. In its amended lawsuit, Harvard rebutted claims by the White House that the proclamation is an attempt to “safeguard national security” and said it represents “a government vendetta against Harvard.” “It escalates and intensifies the campaign of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment,” the amended suit reads. “… Just as the revocation unconstitutionally intrudes on academic freedom, the Proclamation unconstitutionally intrudes too.” Trump’s proclamation hinges on a statute that gives the president authority to protect the nation from “any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental” to the interests of the US, according to the document. But Harvard argues Trump is not suspending entry for any such class: “To the contrary, nonimmigrants may enter the country unabated, as long as they do not attend Harvard,” the lawsuit reads. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. What did the original complaint include? Harvard’s initial complaint pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict foreign students, filed May 23, argued the revocation of its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program by the Department of Homeland Security was “clear retaliation” for its refusal of the government’s ideologically rooted policy demands. Hours after the initial complaint was filed, US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs temporarily blocked DHS’ decision to drop Harvard from SEVP, which would have made it impossible for the university to host any international students. Burroughs said she would issue an indefinite order preventing DHS from making any changes to Harvard’s international student visa programs. The amended complaint says the proclamation “is a patent effort to do an end-run around” the judge’s order. “What the DHS Secretary has purported to take away on the back end by revoking Harvard’s certifications to host foreign students, the President purports to take away on the front end by preventing the students and scholars invited to Harvard from gaining entry into the country in the first place,” the complaint reads. While Harvard has argued in legal filings that White House orders were behind the DHS move to revoke its ability to host international students, Wednesday’s proclamation marked the first time Trump has became directly involved in the dispute at the center of his broader battle against elite US academics. Harvard “will continue to protect its international students,” its spokesperson told CNN following the president’s proclamation. “This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights.” Harvard is battling the White House on two fronts – both of which are being overseen by Judge Burroughs. The university filed its first lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting more than $2.2 billion in federal funds and threatening billions more, as well as Harvard’s tax-exempt status. That money remains frozen as the case is pending in court, scheduled for arguments next month.
Harvard challenges Trump’s proclamation to suspend visas for new international students in amended lawsuit
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Harvard Files Amended Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Visa Suspension for International Students"
CNN
6.6
TruthLens AI Summary
Harvard University has filed an amended lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeking to halt the president's recent proclamation that suspends visas for new international students. This legal action comes less than a day after President Trump's announcement, which Harvard claims directly threatens the enrollment of international students, constituting approximately 27% of its student body. The amended lawsuit argues that the proclamation violates the First Amendment by effectively blocking the entry of new international students who rely on F, M, and J visas to study or participate in academic exchange programs in the United States. Harvard's complaint emphasizes the critical contribution of international students to the university's mission and to the broader academic and economic landscape of the country, stating, "Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard." The lawsuit asserts that the proclamation represents not only an unconstitutional intrusion on academic freedom but also a politically motivated act of retaliation against the institution, which has openly opposed several of the administration's policies.
In its legal filings, Harvard rebuts the White House's claims that the proclamation serves national security interests, arguing that it is a blatant attempt to circumvent a previous court order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs. This order had already blocked the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) attempts to revoke Harvard's certification for hosting international students. The university's amended complaint states that the president's actions are a strategic effort to undermine the court's ruling by preventing international students from entering the country. Harvard's ongoing legal battles with the Trump administration also include a lawsuit regarding the potential loss of over $2.2 billion in federal funding, which remains frozen as the case proceeds. As the situation develops, Harvard maintains its commitment to protecting its international student community in the face of what it describes as illegal and retaliatory measures by the administration.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent legal developments involving Harvard University's challenge against the Trump administration's visa suspension for international students reveal significant tensions between educational institutions and governmental policies. This lawsuit, which seeks to protect the rights of international students, underscores the broader implications of immigration policies on the academic landscape in the United States.
Implications of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit highlights the critical role that international students play in Harvard's community, making up approximately 27% of the student body. By emphasizing this statistic, Harvard is not only defending its own interests but also advocating for the value that these students bring to American society. The legal challenge serves to portray the university as a bastion of academic freedom and diversity, contrasting sharply with the administration's narrative that seeks to justify the visa suspension as a matter of national security.
Public Perception and Narrative Control
This news piece aims to shape public perception by framing the Trump administration's actions as an attack on educational institutions and a violation of constitutional rights. By invoking the First Amendment, the article seeks to resonate with a wider audience that values academic freedom and diversity. There is an underlying suggestion that the administration's motivations may be politically charged rather than genuinely concerned with national security, which could alienate certain voter bases.
Potential Concealments
The article does not overtly mention any alternative narratives that might support the administration's stance on immigration or national security. There may be intentions to downplay or obscure the complexities and potential risks associated with international student admissions, especially in times of heightened security concerns.
Manipulation Assessment
The level of manipulation within this news piece can be considered moderate. The language used emphasizes the detrimental effects of the visa suspension and frames the administration's actions in a negative light, potentially swaying public opinion against the Trump administration. The choice of words such as "vendetta" and phrases like "erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body" are charged and emotionally resonant, which could be seen as an attempt to provoke a strong reaction from the audience.
Comparison with Other News
When compared to other news pieces surrounding immigration and education, this article aligns with a broader narrative that critiques the Trump administration's policies. It mirrors sentiments found in various media outlets that advocate for immigrant rights and educational access, suggesting a coordinated effort among institutions and advocates to push back against restrictive measures.
Impact on Society and Economy
The ramifications of this legal battle could be significant for both societal attitudes towards immigration and the economic landscape of higher education. A successful challenge could lead to increased enrollment of international students, bolstering university funding and contributing to the economy. Conversely, continued restrictions could deter prospective students, adversely impacting tuition revenue and the diversity of the academic environment.
Target Audience
This news article appears to resonate particularly with progressive communities, educational advocates, and those concerned about civil liberties. By focusing on the implications for international students, the article aims to engage readers who prioritize diversity and inclusion within educational settings.
Market Impact
In terms of market reactions, the news may influence stocks related to educational institutions, particularly those heavily reliant on international student enrollment. Companies or sectors directly tied to international education or student services could see fluctuations based on public sentiment regarding this lawsuit.
Global Power Dynamics
While the article may not directly address global power dynamics, the implications of restricting international student access can be profound. The U.S. has long been viewed as a leader in higher education, and any moves that undermine this position could affect its global standing and relationships with other countries.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
It’s plausible that AI tools were utilized in crafting the narrative of this article. AI models could assist in analyzing public sentiment around immigration policies or generating persuasive language that aligns with the values of targeted audiences. The effective presentation of statistics and legal arguments suggests a methodical approach that could benefit from data-driven insights.
Conclusion on Reliability
The article presents a compelling case against the Trump administration's visa suspension for international students, utilizing emotional language and legal arguments to sway public opinion. While it reflects genuine concerns from Harvard, the framing may also serve specific political agendas, indicating a moderate level of reliability. The motivations behind the narrative and the potential biases should be considered when evaluating its overall credibility.