A federal judge has once again shielded Harvard University from the Trump administration’s crackdown on its foreign student program. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction, halting efforts to bar the Ivy League giant from enrolling international students. This ruling, a win for Harvard’s globalist ambitions, raises questions about campus safety and accountability.
Judge Burroughs’ decision blocks the Trump administration’s attempt to curb Harvard’s ability to host foreign students, citing the university’s lawsuit against the policy. The injunction, issued Friday, follows a temporary restraining order and allows Harvard to maintain its international student body while the legal battle unfolds. It’s a familiar playbook for Burroughs, who’s no stranger to siding with Harvard against conservative policies.
The saga began in April when Harvard rebuffed the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul its vetting and disciplinary processes for foreign students. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded in May by trying to revoke Harvard’s eligibility to host students on foreign visas. Harvard’s defiance, cloaked in “academic freedom,” set the stage for this legal showdown.
Harvard’s refusal to comply with federal demands wasn’t just a bureaucratic spat—it was a bold stand for its progressive ideals. The university’s internal investigation revealed that over 25% of Jewish students felt “physically unsafe” on campus, with nearly 60% reporting discrimination or bias. Yet Harvard’s leadership seemed more concerned with protecting its international image than addressing these alarming findings.
In June, President Donald Trump escalated the fight with an executive order aimed at stopping new foreign students from attending Harvard. The order also directed the Secretary of State to consider revoking visas for current international students. Burroughs, predictably, slapped a temporary restraining order on this move, keeping Harvard’s doors open to its 6,793 foreign students, over a quarter of its student body.
“The Court order allows Harvard to continue enrolling international students and scholars while the case moves forward,” a university spokesman crowed to the Daily Caller News Foundation. This smug declaration ignores the broader issue: Harvard’s failure to address campus antisemitism, as exposed by a September 2024 congressional investigation. The probe found the university went easy on nearly 70 students involved in a disruptive pro-Hamas encampment last spring.
That encampment, which saw demonstrators disrupt classes and occupy a campus building, wasn’t just a protest—it was a wake-up call. Harvard’s leniency toward the culprits suggests a troubling double standard, especially when Jewish students are left feeling unsafe. The university’s claim to champion “free speech” rings hollow when it tolerates chaos while ignoring cries for safety.
Harvard’s troubles don’t end there. The university is accused of failing to report $1.1 billion in foreign donations since 2017, including $100 million from China and $1.6 million from “Palestinian territories.” This financial opacity fuels suspicions that Harvard’s priorities lie more with global cash flows than with campus security.
“Harvard will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars,” the spokesman boasted. But whose rights are truly being defended? Certainly not those of Jewish students, who face discrimination while Harvard rakes in foreign funds and shields its international enrollment.
The Trump administration didn’t take Harvard’s defiance lightly, slashing billions in federal funding as a penalty. This financial hit was meant to force accountability, but Burroughs’ rulings have consistently undermined such efforts. Her track record, including a prior decision allowing Harvard to racially discriminate in admissions, paints a picture of a judge more aligned with elite institutions than with broader public concerns.
Supporters of Palestine added fuel to the fire with a rally at Harvard on October 14, 2023, backing Palestinians in Gaza. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, the event underscored the university’s struggle to balance open discourse with campus safety. Harvard’s refusal to crack down on disruptive protests only deepens the divide.
“Harvard will not surrender” its academic freedom, the university declared. Surrendering accountability, however, seems to be no problem at all. The administration’s stubbornness risks alienating those who see a university more interested in prestige than principle.
Judge Burroughs’ repeated interventions on Harvard’s behalf—against DHS, against Trump’s executive order—suggest a pattern of favoritism. Her swift blocking of the DHS order in May and the subsequent injunctions have kept Harvard’s foreign student program intact. But at what cost to the rule of law or campus safety?
The legal fight is far from over, but Harvard’s victory lap feels premature. With antisemitism festering and foreign donations unreported, the university’s moral high ground is shaky at best. Burroughs’ rulings may protect Harvard’s global brand, but they sidestep the deeper issues plaguing its campus.
Conservatives argue that Harvard’s actions reflect a broader progressive agenda that prioritizes ideology over responsibility. While the university touts diversity and inclusion, its failure to protect Jewish students and transparency in funding tell a different story. This case isn’t just about foreign students—it’s about whether elite institutions can be held accountable in an increasingly divided nation.
