This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Indoor air pollution has especially powerful effects on babies and young children, not only due to more time spent indoors but because they breathe more rapidly and inhale more air relative to their body size than adults, according to a working paper by the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.
Most spend more than 90% of their time in enclosed buildings, where air pollutants can be two to five times higher than outdoor levels due to poor ventilation, say the researchers, citing estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
During early childhood, the amount of time spent inside is also due to the additional time spent in childcare facilities, schools, community centers, summer camp buildings, offices and homes, according to the paper. Elevated levels occur for those during pregnancy as well, the researchers say.
One example of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, commonly found inside children-focused locations stems from the frequent use of cleaning products — particularly scented spray products — that result in a higher risk of wheezing in early childhood and the development of asthma and lower respiratory tract infections in childhood, the researchers say.
The paper notes that actionable solutions to improve indoor air quality exist. These range from policy and regulation to pollutant-free cleaners, healthier housing and furniture materials, new building technologies and “simply maintaining and using ventilation systems with high-quality filters.”
The EPA defines indoor air quality management as the control of airborne pollutants, introduction and distribution of adequate outdoor air and the maintenance of acceptable temperature and relative humidity. Key pollutants present in children’s environments that can cause serious harm when exposure occurs include VOCs; pesticides, phthalates, forever chemicals and flame retardants; particulate matter; wildfire smoke; germs, viruses, bacteria and allergens; gases; and heat, according to the Harvard research paper.
A balanced approach to cleaner indoor air means three approaches: protection, adaptation and prevention, the paper says. Facility managers can protect occupants by monitoring indoor air quality, switching to safer cleaning products, using hooded kitchen exhaust fans that vent to the outside, and utilizing portable, room-based air purifiers with HEPA filters, according to the paper.
Adaptation includes the reduction and absorption of emissions by creating vegetation barriers, transitioning to less polluting appliances and by making buildings healthier. According to the Healthy Buildings Program at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, an approach to improving air quality includes the use of ventilation that controls indoor sources of pollutants, providing regulation maintenance of ventilation systems and implementing an integrated pest management plan. This plan should focus on preventative measures, such as sealing entry points, preventing moisture buildup and removing trash, according to the paper.
Operators should also install and maintain adequate ventilation and filtration systems in schools located in low-income neighborhoods and verify that building systems are operating as designed. The researchers noted that proper maintenance and use of these systems is “surprisingly rare,” citing a California study of schools with recently retrofitted HVAC systems that found only 5% of classrooms met minimum ventilation rates due to improperly selected equipment, incorrect fan control settings and maintenance issues.
Prevention measures include policy interventions and the development of health-based regulatory standards for indoor air quality, researchers say.
The EPA’s IAQ Tools for Schools program is one resource that operators can use to implement these strategies, including a framework for effective school IAQ management, guidance documents and an IAQ assessment mobile app that can be used to address critical building-related environmental health issues.
The Trump administration still won’t be able to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students after a federal judge decided Thursday to keep a temporary restraining order in place.
The hearing before Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts District Court came a week after the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students and required those currently at the university to transfer. Harvard quickly sued to block that decision, and Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order May 23.
Harvard argued in the lawsuit that the administration violated the First Amendment and the university’s due process rights with the abrupt revocation. In an apparent effort to address Harvard’s concerns, the administration said ahead of the hearing that it would go through a more formal administrative process to decertify Harvard from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. According to the notice filed in court Thursday morning, Harvard has 30 days to respond to the claims that it failed to comply with certain reporting requirements and to maintain a campus free from discrimination as well as “practices with foreign entities raising national security concerns.”
But while that process continues, Burroughs wants to maintain the status quo for Harvard, which means that international students can remain at the university. She plans to eventually issue a preliminary injunction, the next step after a temporary restraining order.
Burroughs said an order would give “some protection to international students who might be anxious about coming here or anxious about remaining here once they are here,” The Boston Globe reported.
The government lawyers argued in the hearing that an order wasn’t necessary because of the new notice. But Harvard’s lawyer Ian Heath Gershengorn countered that “we want to make sure there are no shenanigans” while Harvard challenges the Trump administration’s action.
And despite Burroughs’s quick restraining order, current and prospective international students at Harvard have faced disruptions.
Maureen Martin, director of immigration services in the Harvard International Office, wrote in a court filing that students scheduled to travel to the United States in the fall found out by the morning of May 23 that their visa applications were denied. (The administration revoked Harvard’s certification May 22.)
“I am personally aware of at least ten international students or scholars whose visa applications were refused for ‘administrative processing’ immediately following the Revocation Notice,” Martin wrote, adding that none of the visa applications that were refused or revoked following the revocation have been approved or reinstated.
For example, when a visiting research scholar at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine tried to obtain a J-1 visa at the U.S. embassy in Prague on May 23, her visa application was rejected.
“The officer gave the scholar a slip that stated she had ‘been found ineligible for a nonimmigrant visa based on section 221(g) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).’ The slip said, ‘In your case the following is required,’ and the consular officer checked the box marked ‘Other’ and handwrote, ‘SEVP Revocation / Harvard,’” Martin wrote.
Martin wrote that the Trump administration has caused “significant emotional distress” for current international students and raised a number of questions for either incoming or prospective students who are trying to assess their options. At least one student deferred admission for a year for visa-related reasons.
US higher education is exposed both to presidential and to state interference. Government powers to intervene in US HE reside in presidential control of federal funding, which may come with conditions. Trump cannot simply shut down the Department of Education by executive order but it seems he can direct that the Department’s grant- and loan-giving functions are taken on by another government department.
A letter to Harvard dated 11 April signed on behalf of the Department of Education and other federal agencies asserted that the United States had ‘invested in Harvard University’s operations’ because of ‘the value to the country’ of its work, but warned that ‘an investment is not an entitlement.’ This letter, if accepted, was to constitute ‘an agreement in principle’. Governance was to be ‘exclusively’ in the hands of those ‘tenured professors’ and ‘senior leadership’ who were ‘committed to the ‘changes indicated in this letter’. Its ‘hiring and related data’ and its student ‘admissions data’ were to be ‘shared with the federal Government’. International students ‘hostile to American values’ were not to be admitted and those already admitted were to be reported to federal authorities. Policies on diversity, equity and inclusion were to end and student protest restricted.
Harvard and other Ivy League Universities were indignant. Harvard in particular rode the headlines for some days, objecting to the Government demand that it immediately agree:
to implement the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul the University’s governance and leadership, academic programs, admissions system, hiring process, and discipline system—with the promise of more demands to come
and thus ‘overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech’. There were reports that US academics were seeking to escape to employment in Canada, the UK or Europe.
American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom
and that such ‘American institutions of higher learning’ were ‘essential to American prosperity’.
It stressed a ‘longstanding collaboration between universities such as Harvard and the federal government dating back to the Second World War’. It pointed to Harvard’s success in using federal funding to achieving significant research outcomes. The recent ‘broad attack of Government’ on ‘universities across America’, not only on Harvard and the other Ivy League Universities listed, had affected the ‘critical funding partnerships’ that made this invaluable research possible.
This case was being brought because, it was argued, the Government had been using ‘the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard’. Harvard cited the Government’s letter of 11 April as demanding governance reform and a ‘third-party’ audit ‘of the viewpoints of Harvard’s student body, faculty, and staff’, followed by the hiring of new Faculty and admission of students whose views were satisfactory to the Government. It had asserted that teaching should be ‘to the Government’s satisfaction as determined in the Government’s sole discretion’ and to that end Harvard should ‘terminate or reform its academic “programs” to the Government’s liking’. The Government had since ‘launched multiple investigations and other actions against Harvard’.
The Government had ‘within hours of the Freeze Order ‘ended ‘$2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60M in multiyear contract value to Harvard University’ and Harvard began receiving ‘stop work orders’. In order to bring a case against the Government it was essential for Harvard to establish that the Government’s action constituted a breach of public law. To that end it stated that the ‘Court has jurisdiction over Harvard’s claims’ because the University did not ‘seek money damages or an order mandating specific performance of any contract’, but:
an order declaring unlawful and setting aside sweeping agency action taken in violation of Harvard’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment and its rights guaranteed by statute and regulation.
Harvard stressed that even though it is a private university its research is federally funded ‘through a grant process administered by federal agencies’. It cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires ‘a detailed and mandatory statutory framework’ of procedures to be followed. Harvard had its own procedures, added to or created in August, September and November 2024. Specifically in March 2025, Harvard released updated “Frequently Asked Questions” clarifying that both Jewish and Israeli identities are covered by the University’s Non-Discrimination Policy.
Harvard explained that it had attempted ‘collaboration’ in the weeks following the government letter and the Federal Task Force’s press release announcing campus visits. It had sought to arrange a meeting on the campus and that was scheduled for late April 2025, yet on April 20 it was reported that the ‘Trump administration has grown so furious with Harvard University’ that ‘it is planning to pull an additional $1 billion of the school’s funding for health research.’
Trump’s threatened sanctions concerned the future of Harvard’s funding. Harvard has endowments of c$53 billion so any threat from Trump to reduce federal funding posed a limited risk to its future. However he made a further proposal on 18 April to remove Harvard’s exemption from Government tax on its income, which could have hit its normal operation harder.
The US counterpart to HMRC is its Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS may grant tax-exempt status to a charitable, religious, scientific or literary organization, on condition that it refrains from campaigning or seeking to modify legislation. However, the President is not permitted to direct the IRS to conduct an investigation or audit. To that extent the counterbalancing of executive, legislative and judicial powers in the US seems to be holding.
Harvard was making its challenge at a time when the balance between the executive and the judiciary in the US had come into question in a number of cases where Trump’s executive orders sought to override the courts. It claimed that ‘the Freeze Order is part of a broader effort by the Government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights. … multiple news outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is considering revoking its recognition of Harvard’s tax exempt status’. Representing 86 universities, the Presidents’ Alliance has filed an Amicus brief supporting the litigation.
Harvard sought in its litigation to have the Freeze Order declared unconstitutional and also the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ sought to be imposed in the April 3 and April 11 and any action taken under it so far, also banning any future orders in the same vein. It pleaded six Counts, first a violation of the First Amendment in that the letters had targeted the ‘academic content that Harvard professors “teach students”’. Count 2 was that ‘even if the prerequisites of review under the Administrative Procedure Act were not satisfied, federal courts have the “equitable power” to “enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers.”’ Count 3 was that Title VI does not permit wholesale freezing of a recipient’s federal financial assistance. Instead, it requires that a “refusal to grant or to continue assistance” be “limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which . . . noncompliance has been so found.” Count 4 was the Government’s failure to ‘comply with their own regulations before freezing Harvard’s federal financial assistance’. Count 5 alleged that the action had been arbitrary and capricious and Count 6 that it had been ultra vires.
At Indiana University a professor of Germanic studies was recently investigated under a state law after a student accused him of speech in support of Palestine.
Could this happen in the UK?
English higher education providers have their autonomy protected by the Higher Education and Research Act (2017)s.2 [HERA]. This legislation created the Office for Students, a non-departmental public body, whose nearest US counterpart is the Higher Learning Commission, an independent agency founded in 1895 which accredits higher education institutions. The University of Michigan, for example seeks, renewal of its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission every ten years.
The Office for Students is both regulator and funder, and distributes Government funding to higher education providers. This may take into account ‘particular policy areas and government priorities. Yet HERA outlaws any attempt by the OfS to impose the restrictions Trump sought to impose on the universities of the USA. English higher education providers must be free:
(i) to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed,
(ii) to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of academic staff and apply those criteria in particular cases, and
(iii) to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases.
Academic staff in England also enjoy ‘freedom within the law’:
(i) to question and test received wisdom, and
(ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions,
without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the providers.
There is some Government oversight. In protecting ‘the institutional autonomy of English higher e providers’, the Office for Students is subject to the ‘guidance’ of the Secretary of State, though Government requirements are held off by the legislative fencing. The guidance of a higher education provider by the Office for Students:
must not relate to—
(a) particular parts of courses of study,
(b) the content of such courses,
(c) the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed,
(d) the criteria for the selection, appointment or dismissal of academic staff, or how they are applied, or
(e) the criteria for the admission of students, or how they are applied.
The legislation adds that:
guidance framed by reference to a particular course of study must not guide the OfS to perform a function in a way which prohibits or requires the provision of a particular course of study.
This seems to place universities safely out of reach of the kind of restrictions Trump sought to impose on Harvard and other Ivy League Universities, but the Office for Students is potentially able not only to set its Government funding levels but also affect its students’ access to loans from the Student Loans Company. That can certainly be at risk, for example in the case of the Oxford Business College, whose funding (via franchise arrangements) was blocked in April 2025 when it was found to have abused the student loan system by admitting unqualified students.(US accreditors do hold a lot of power, because universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid.)
Access to Government funding through the OfS requires listing by the Office for Students on its Register as an approved provider. The Office for Students did not impose its Conditions of Registration on pre-existing universities before including them in 2018 on its first Register under HERA. It simply treated them as proven acceptable providers of higher education. Each university duly publishes an account of its compliance (eg at Oxford) with the requirements which enable it to remain on the Office for Students Register. What might happen if they were found not to have done so? Short of removal from its Register the OfS has been known to impose fines, notably of more than £500,000 in the recent case of the University of Sussex when it was alleged to have failed to follow its own procedures designed to protect academic freedom.
Government oversight of the work of HE providers may overlap with or sit uneasily beside forms of ‘accreditation’ and ’qualification’. The accreditation of qualifications in the UK may be the responsibility of a number of ‘agencies’ external to HE providers, some of which are bodies offering professional qualifications. For example the Solicitors Regulation Authority keeps its own register of qualified solicitors. A university degree may not constitute a ‘qualification’ without the completion of further recognised study, some of which may be provided by the university itself, for example the Postgraduate Certificate in Education.
An area of ‘accreditation’ undergoing significant reform and expansion in the UK covers ‘skills’, including apprenticeships. Not all universities offer their own apprenticeships, though they may recognise some of those available from other providers at Levels 4 and 5. Nevertheless ‘skills’ are potentially at risk of Government intervention. At the beginning of March 2025, the House of Lords was debating whether ‘skills’ might benefit from the establishment of a ‘new executive agency’.
It was recognised that there would need to be a report from the Secretary of State ‘containing draft proposals’ for an agency, ‘to be known as “Skills England”. Ian Sollom MPobjected that that that would represent ‘a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability.’ A ‘statutory, departmental body would have more clout’, he argued.
It looks as though some universities, at least, are safe from any initiative to interfere from above with the right to self-government and to determine what to teach and research. Harvard records a ‘revenue base’ of $65billion, with ‘federal funding ‘ as its largest source of support for research. The research income of Oxford, for example, is £778m, with commercial research income of £148m. That cannot compare with Harvard, but at least Oxford and some others will remain free to choose how to use that income for its academic purposes.
This is a modified version of an article first published by the Oxford Magazine No 477 in May 2025, republished with the permission of the editor and author.
SRHE member GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.
In the latest move in the government’s dramatic feud with the US’s oldest university – and a major victory for international education sector – district judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order yesterday, halting the directive stripping Harvard of its eligibility to enrol students from overseas.
It follows the institution’s swift decision to mount a legal challenge against the administration’s demands that it hand over all disciplinary records for international students from the last five years if it wanted to regain its SEVP status.
In its lawsuit, Harvard said: “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission.” The next hearing in the case will be held in Boston on May 29.
If it comes to pass, the ban on international student enrolments would significantly harm Harvard’s financial situation – with last year’s 6,793 overseas students making up a sizeable 27% of the student body.
With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission Harvard University
Orders from the Trump administration would not only prevent Harvard from enrolling any F-1 or J-1 students for the 2025/26 academic year, but also force current international students to transfer to another university if they want to stay in the country.
The move cause widespread panic among international students – especially given that some are set to graduate in just one week.
Students told The PIE News that they were worried about what was happening, but trusted Harvard to “have our backs”.
The institution’s row with Harvard stems from the stand it took – one of the only US institutions to do so – against the administrations raft of demands, including that it reform its admissions and hiring practices to combat antisemitism on campus, end DEI initiatives and hand over reports on international students.
When the institution refused to do so, the government froze $2.2 billion in the university’s funding, threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, and demanded international students’ records if it didn’t want to lose its SEVP certification.
Although Harvard did send over some student information on April 30, and maintained that it had provided the information it was legally bound to supply, this seems to have been insufficient for the Trump administration.
In US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem’s letter to Harvard, she said: “This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements”.
As per a statement released by Kristi Noem, US homeland security secretary, Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification has been revoked because of their “failure to adhere to the law.”
“As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies, you have lost this privilege,” read the letter by Noem to Harvard University, shared on X, formerly Twitter.
“The revocation of your Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification means that Harvard is prohibited from having any aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status for the 2025-2026 academic school year.”
Students set to join Harvard this year are now relying on the institution to take urgent action to keep their dreams of studying at the Ivy League institution alive.
“I already had to defer my intake from last year to this year due to lack of funds. Deferring again just isn’t an option for me,” stated Pravin Deshmukh, an incoming student at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.
“We’re hoping the university can find some form of solution and keep us updated on what’s happening. Harvard has been very proactive over the past few weeks. They’ve reassured incoming students like me of their commitment through emails, provided details on continuing classes online, and shared ways to stay in touch with the International Office.”
Currently, over 6,800 international students are enrolled at the university, making up 27% of this year’s student body, with a significant portion hailing from countries such as China, India, Canada, South Korea, and the UK.
WhatsApp groups are on fire – everyone’s panicking, wondering what’s going to happen next. Some parents were planning to attend graduation ceremonies, but now students are telling them, ‘Don’t say you’re coming to visit us.’
Harvard GSE student
The vast international student cohort at the campus will also have to transfer to another US university or risk losing their legal immigration status, according to Noem, which puts the current students in jeopardy.
“For graduating students, it feels like our degrees could be rendered useless and we might even be labeled as illegal immigrants,” a student at Harvard’s GSE, who requested anonymity, told The PIE.
“Some students are considering staying in the U.S. by transferring their SEVIS to community colleges if Harvard can’t find a solution.”
“WhatsApp groups are on fire – everyone’s panicking, wondering what’s going to happen next. Some parents were planning to attend graduation ceremonies, but now students are telling them, ‘Don’t say you’re coming to visit us,’” the student added.
While Noem has issued a 72-hour ultimatum to Harvard, demanding the university hand over all disciplinary records from the past five years related to international students involved in illegal activities and protests on and off campus, students across Harvard’s schools told The PIE that professors and deans have arranged meetings with them to address any questions or concerns.
“We received an email from the Harvard University president regarding available support, information about Zoom sessions hosted by Harvard’s international offices, and a text-message service for ICE-related threats. Today, a session is being held in person at our school with professors and the Dean,” the Harvard student stated.
“This is Harvard — they will take a stand, unlike Columbia University or MIT. They have our backs.”
Some students have voiced concerns about their parents traveling to the US for their graduation ceremonies, but feel reassured by Harvard’s stand that commencement will proceed as planned on May 29th.
“The Harvard website is being updated regularly, and we have been asked to keep an eye on it, but there’s still a lot of uncertainty. Since yesterday, many of us have been wondering whether we will graduate and the next steps. The morning email confirmed that commencement will continue as planned,” stated another Harvard student, who didn’t wish to be named.
“There’s a shift in the atmosphere, making it very difficult to plan the next steps. We couldn’t have imagined something like this happening six months ago, but you have to be prepared for anything.”
In the meantime Harvard has a released a statement, doubling down on its commitment towards international students.
“We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably,” stated the University.
“We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”
Furthermore, the institution’s swift lawsuit against the Trump administration over the international student ban resulted in a major victory, as US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order against the government’s plan to strip Harvard of its ability to recruit international students.
According to Sameer Kamat, founder, MBA Crystal Ball, a leading MBA admissions consultancy in India, the Trump administration could choose to extend the deadline for Harvard to comply with its requirements, similar to its approach on trade tariffs in recent weeks.
“For all we know, Trump may ease off the pressure and give Harvard more time to comply, like he did with the tariff deadlines on his trade partners. But for now, it puts all international students in a limbo. They’ve become collateral damage in a fight that they never wanted to be part of,” stated Kamat.
“He had played a similar move on Canada and Mexico by giving them a very tight deadline to bring down their tariffs for American goods. This was to push them into action. And then on the final day, he pushed the deadline by a month. Which is why I am thinking, we can’t rule out the possibility of that happening this time. Considering he put a 72-hour deadline, which runs into the weekend.”
According to Namita Mehta, president, The Red Pen, consultancies like hers are actively supporting affected students by providing guidance, clarifying policy updates, and connecting them with legal or immigration experts as needed.
“While the announcement has understandably caused concern, it’s essential to recognise that such decisions are often part of broader political narratives and may be temporary,” stated Mehta.
“While students and families should stay engaged, informed, and proactive, it is equally important to remain hopeful. The strength of institutions like Harvard lies in their academic excellence and capacity to navigate complex challenges with integrity and vision.”
Maybe you’re sick of hearing news about Harvard. We can’t blame you.
But as free speech defenders, we go where the censorship is. The government picks the targets, not us. And — once again — the government is unconstitutionally targeting Harvard.
You don’t have to like Harvard to oppose the government’s recent demands of the university.
FIRE has plenty of problems with that “small school outside of Boston.” It has been at the bottom of our College Free Speech Rankings for the last two years. We’ve defended students and faculty rights at the university since our founding in 1999, and we know better than anyone that there’s plenty of work to do.
But you can’t fight censorship with censorship.
Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students.
In doing so, DHS conditioned future international enrollment on Harvard turning over a slew of information within 72 hours, including “all audio or video footage…of any protest activity involving a nonimmigrant student on a Harvard University campus in the last five years.” [emphasis added]
That’s shocking.
The feds are demanding more than just information involving illegal activity or violations of the student code of conduct. They want footage of “protest activity” — including speech protected by the First Amendment.
And unless those protests involve only international students, American citizens will also find their constitutionally protected speech in the hands of America’s national security apparatus.
Fortunately, a federal judge quickly issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the government’s action from taking effect — for now. But as Harvard alleges in its lawsuit, the federal government’s shakedown isn’t limited to these demands. DHS’s decision is part of a broader bullying campaign by the administration to undermine the First Amendment and due process in the name of enforcing federal civil rights law.
Make no mistake: The federal government has a duty to enforce civil rights law. But it must do so in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and guarantees of due process.
The feds can’t force Harvard to eviscerate academic freedom in order to maintain federal funding. They can’t revoke the university’s tax-exempt status because they don’t like what it teaches. And they can’t enlist the university in a surveillance program of constitutionally protected speech.
FIRE has long opposed the weaponization of civil rights law to undermine free speech and due process protections. Indeed we spent more than a decade opposing — successfully — the Obama and Biden administrations’ efforts to do just that. And because we stand for principle, not partisanship, we’ll fight the good fight no matter who’s in the White House.
Attacks on our rights often begin with unpopular targets. We know Harvard isn’t popular in many quarters, and we know many strongly believe it violated civil rights law. But the government has to follow the law. Free speech rights aren’t contingent on a popularity contest. Nothing justifies the government taking shortcuts that themselves violate the law — and the Constitution.
Our rights are not divisible. We must protect free speech and due process for all — or we don’t protect them at all.
International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.
APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images
Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.”
However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.
On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer.
Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)
“It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.
He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”
Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.
“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.
Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.
Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.
“This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.
Another Legal Setback
A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.
In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing.
A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.
The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.
On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.
The federal government has already appealed that decision.
‘Do This Everywhere’
The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.
“The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”
Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.
Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.
Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.
“We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.
International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.
APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images
Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.”
However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.
On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer.
Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)
“It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.
He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”
Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.
“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.
Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.
Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.
“This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.
Another Legal Setback
A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.
In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing.
A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.
The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.
On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.
The federal government has already appealed that decision.
‘Do This Everywhere’
The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.
“The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”
Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.
Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.
Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.
“We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.
Today, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered her department to end Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, citing the university’s failure to hand over the behavioral records of student visa holders.
The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to escalate its assault against Harvard University by revoking its ability to enroll international students is retaliatory and unlawful.
Secretary Noem’s letter warns that the Trump administration seeks to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.” But little is more un-American than a federal bureaucrat demanding that a private university demonstrate its ideological fealty to the government under pain of punishment.
The Department’s demand that Harvard produce audio and video footage of all protest activity involving international students over the last five years is gravely alarming. This sweeping fishing expedition reaches protected expression and must be flatly rejected.
The Department is already arresting and seeking to deport students for engaging in protected political activity it disfavors. Were Harvard to capitulate to Secretary Noem’s unlawful demands, more students could face such consequences. The administration’s demand for a surveillance state at Harvard is anathema to American freedom.
The administration seems hellbent on employing every means at its disposal — no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional — to retaliate against Harvard and other colleges and universities for speech it doesn’t like. This has to stop.
Since 1999, FIRE has fought for free speech and academic freedom at Harvard and campuses nationwide, and we will continue to do so. We know there is work to do. Whatever Harvard’s past failings, core campus rights cannot and will not be secured by surveillance, retaliation, and censorship.
No American should accept the federal government punishing its political opponents by demanding ideological conformity, surveilling and retaliating against protected speech, and violating the First Amendment.
The Trump administration has ended $60 million in federal grant funding for Harvard University amid an ongoing fight with the private institution over concerns about alleged campus antisemitism.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced the move late Monday night.
“HHS is taking decisive action to uphold civil rights in higher education,” the agency posted on social media. “Due to Harvard University’s continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards—totaling approximately $60 million over their full duration. In the Trump Administration, discrimination will not be tolerated on campus. Federal funds must support institutions that protect all students.”
HHS also linked to a report from The Daily Caller, a right-wing website, which noted that the $60 million in grants came from funding via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A CDC official, according to The Daily Caller, told the university that funding an institution that the Trump administration perceives as discriminatory would be inconsistent with the CDC’s mission. The CDC official concluded that “no corrective action is possible here.”
Harvard did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
The latest move comes as the Trump administration has already pulled other grants and federal contracts and frozen more than $2.7 billion in federal funding—about a third of Harvard’s federal funds.
Harvard is also facing several investigations from the Trump administration.
The university has been locked in conflict with the federal government for months since it spurned Trump’s demands to overhaul governance, hiring, admissions and more, which prompted retaliation in the form of a funding freeze. Harvard sued the Trump administration last month, arguing that it sought to “impose unprecedented and improper control over the university.”
