Harvard spars with Trump administration over order protecting its international enrollment

Dive Brief:

• Harvard University argued Thursday that the Trump administration may attempt to use “creative relabeling” to circumnavigate a court order blocking its attempt to end the institution’s ability to enroll international students.
• U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs has twice blocked attempts by the federal government to halt all international students from attending Harvard through temporary orders. Now, Harvard and the Trump administration are clashing over what a more permanent preliminary injunction should look like.
• In legal filings, the Ivy League institution called on the court to approve its own proposal, which would place more restrictions on the Trump administration and require it to provide a status report detailing its compliance with the pending preliminary injunction. “Given the government’s pattern of behavior thus far and the chaos it has inflicted, this surety is more than warranted,” it said.

Dive Insight:

In late May, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students by terminating its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. The agency alleged that the university had permitted a “toxic campus climate” to flourish by accommodating “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators.”

The loss of SEVP certification — required to host international students — would have devastating impacts on both Harvard and its international students.

In the 2024-25 academic year, nearly 6,800 foreign students attended Harvard, according to institutional data. They made up 27.2% of the university’s total student body.

The day after the SEVP revocation, Harvard sued the federal government, arguing that the Trump administration acted abruptly and without “rational explanation.” 

Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order to block DHS’ decision later that day, ruling the university would undergo “immediate and irreparable injury” if the ban was enforced before she could hear from both parties.

After the judge issued the order, the federal government formally notified Harvard of its intent to revoke the university’s SEVP certification on May 28, according to court documents. 

The notification alleged in part that Harvard failed to sufficiently fulfill a federal information request about its international students and gave the university 30 days to rebut the allegations.

The next day, Burroughs ruled that she would issue a preliminary injunction in the case and directed Harvard and the Trump administration to negotiate the terms of the order. 

The Trump administration then tried another tactic. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation in early June ordering top federal officials to stop all international students heading to Harvard from entering the country.

The university updated its lawsuit and asked Burroughs also to block the proclamation, arguing it is tantamount to a “government vendetta against Harvard.” Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order on June 5 against Trump’s proclamation and extended the block on the SEVP revocation.

Now, Harvard and the Trump administration are fighting out the specifics of that injunction in court.

In legal filings Thursday, Harvard said its proposed preliminary injunction is “tailored to preserve the status quo” while its lawsuit proceeds.

But the Trump administration is pushing back on multiple aspects. One disputed passage would prohibit the federal government from restricting Harvard’s ability to sponsor student visas outside of the attempted SEVP revocation, the university said. 

If DHS again tries to revoke Harvard’s DHS certification, another part of the proposed order would delay the decision by 30 days. The timeframe would give Harvard time to seek another injunction, it argued. 

“Requiring Harvard to rush to the courthouse for a third time, and requiring the Court to take up these issues on an emergency basis yet again to prevent predictable harms — the inevitable result of the government’s approach — is inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary,” it said.

The federal government also pushed back on a proposal that would require it to promptly demonstrate how it intends to comply with the court order once approved.