U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 23, 2025, halting the Trump administration’s abrupt revocation of Harvard University’s certification to enroll international students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The order, effective for two weeks, prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from enforcing its decision, which would have forced over 6,800 international students to transfer institutions or lose legal status. Burroughs cited “immediate and irreparable harm” to Harvard and its students, noting the revocation would disrupt academic programs, research, and the university’s financial stability. Hearings to determine a longer-term injunction are scheduled for May 27 and 29.
DHS Accusations and Harvard’s Legal Response
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem justified the revocation by accusing Harvard of fostering “antisemitism,” “violence,” and collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party. She demanded extensive records of international students’ activities, including disciplinary histories and protest participation, within 72 hours—a deadline rendered moot by the TRO. Harvard’s lawsuit, filed hours after the revocation, called the action “flagrantly unconstitutional” and retaliatory for the university’s refusal to comply with federal demands to alter admissions, hiring, and curriculum policies. President Alan Garber condemned the move as an attack on academic freedom, stating, “Without international students, Harvard is not Harvard”.
Escalating Feud Over Academic Autonomy
The SEVP revocation marks the peak of a months-long conflict. Since April 2025, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, threatened its tax-exempt status, and launched investigations into alleged anti-conservative bias and insufficient action against pro-Palestinian protests. Unlike institutions like Columbia University, which acquiesced to federal pressure, Harvard has legally challenged these measures, framing them as governmental overreach. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous,” urging Harvard to address “anti-American agitators” instead.
Student Impact and Broader Consequences
The TRO provides temporary relief for students like Eduardo Vasconcelos, a Brazilian senior whose family traveled to Cambridge for graduation amidst the turmoil. However, uncertainty persists, with some students considering gap years or transfers to institutions like Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. International students contribute $44 billion annually to the U.S. economy and subsidize domestic financial aid through full tuition payments, which account for 21% of Harvard’s operating revenue. Experts warn the administration’s policies risk damaging U.S. competitiveness in education and research, as global talent seeks alternatives.
Legal and Political Context
Judge Burroughs, an Obama appointee with a history of ruling against Trump administration immigration policies, fast-tracked the TRO, emphasizing the urgency of preserving the status quo. Harvard’s legal team argued the revocation violated the First Amendment, Due Process Clause, and Administrative Procedure Act, citing retaliatory motives evident in public statements by Trump and officials. The case underscores tensions between federal authority and academic independence, with implications for universities nationwide.