Cambridge, Mass. – May 29, 2025 -A federal judge has extended a restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to bar Harvard University from enrolling international students, marking a critical turn in a legal and political battle that has gripped the academic community and reignited tensions over immigration and education policy in the United States.
Judge Allison Burroughs, of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, issued the decision on Thursday, May 29, 2025, after a court hearing in Cambridge. The ruling followed Harvard University’s emergency legal challenge to the federal government’s controversial policy that sought to strip the prestigious institution of its ability to admit international students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had, on May 22, officially revoked Harvard’s certification under the SEVP, thereby disqualifying the university from enrolling students from abroad. The move was widely condemned across the academic and political spectrum as an overreach aimed at undermining elite educational institutions.
Harvard responded swiftly, filing a lawsuit on May 23 against the federal government. In the same day, Judge Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the enforcement of the DHS directive, ordering that Harvard’s SEVP status be preserved pending a full hearing.
Government Retreats Slightly After Court Action
In a development seen as a retreat from its earlier hardline stance, the Trump administration submitted a notice to the court ahead of Thursday’s hearing. The document, dated May 28, stated that DHS would now allow Harvard a 30-day window to contest the revocation of its SEVP status.
The notice marked a softening of tone, with sources close to the matter telling CNN that the shift came in direct response to the TRO and growing legal and public opposition.
Despite this adjustment, former President Donald Trump, who returned to the White House in January 2025, has continued to apply pressure on Harvard and other top-tier institutions.
During a campaign-style rally held on Wednesday, May 28, Trump criticized Harvard for what he called an “over-reliance on foreign students,” suggesting that the institution should be limited to enrolling no more than 15 percent of its student body from abroad.
“We must ensure American universities are serving American students first,” Trump declared. “Harvard and schools like it are flooded with foreign nationals. It’s time we bring that number down—15 percent should be the ceiling.”
Trump also renewed his demand that Harvard submit a complete list of its foreign students to federal authorities—an act critics say violates privacy laws and could open the door to discrimination.
Funding and Legal Threats Intensify
The international student policy is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to overhaul the governance of elite American universities, particularly those perceived to lean liberal.
In recent months, the administration has frozen access to billions of dollars in federal funding to Harvard after the university resisted calls to revise its governance structures, hiring practices, and admissions protocols. Federal officials also raised the possibility of stripping the institution of its tax-exempt status, launching multiple investigations into its operations.
The White House has defended these moves as part of an effort to ensure transparency and accountability in higher education.
“This is about fairness, not politics,” White House Press Secretary Linda Rosen said earlier this month. “Universities that accept federal funds must play by the rules and be accountable to the American people.”
But critics argue that the administration’s actions are politically motivated and designed to suppress dissenting academic voices.
“There’s a clear pattern here,” said Dr. Meredith Klein, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University. “This administration is targeting universities that challenge its worldview. Harvard is just the latest and most visible example.”
Public and Academic Backlash
Public opinion has been sharply divided over the administration’s handling of elite universities. While some conservative commentators have applauded Trump’s efforts to “clean up” academia, many scholars, students, and civil rights advocates have raised alarms about academic freedom, immigration policy, and xenophobia.
“It’s deeply troubling to see the federal government use immigration enforcement as a weapon against educational institutions,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “This is not about protecting jobs for Americans. It’s about silencing dissent and demonizing foreigners.”
International students make up approximately 20 percent of Harvard’s student population, contributing not only to the school’s cultural diversity but also to the broader U.S. economy. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students contributed $33.8 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023–2024 academic year alone.
Harvard President Claudine Gay, speaking in a statement after the court hearing, reaffirmed the university’s commitment to its global student body.
“Harvard remains steadfast in our mission to welcome talented students from all backgrounds and all nations,” she said. “We will not be intimidated. The court’s ruling today reaffirms that the law must protect, not punish, institutions that uphold the principles of academic freedom and inclusion.”
What’s Next?
With the restraining order extended, Harvard now has 30 days to contest the DHS decision formally. Legal experts say the university is likely to argue that the policy violates constitutional protections and administrative procedure laws.
“This case could set a significant precedent for the future of international education in the U.S.,” said legal analyst Nina Feldman. “If Harvard prevails, it may curtail the ability of future administrations to use immigration tools to punish universities.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration shows no signs of backing down, signaling that it may expand its scrutiny to other institutions with large foreign student enrollments.
As the battle plays out in courtrooms and political arenas, the fate of thousands of international students — and the universities that depend on them — remains uncertain.
