A federal judge in Massachusetts has paused the Trump administration’s attempt to strip Harvard University of its ability to host foreign students, marking the latest turn in an unfolding legal and political dispute.

The court issued a temporary restraining order after Harvard challenged the Trump move as unconstitutional retaliation for rejecting government oversight demands involving its internal operations, as Breitbart reports.

On May 22, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the revocation of Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which would effectively block the university from enrolling international students.

This action placed the status of thousands of students and a significant portion of Harvard's revenue at risk. More than 25% of Harvard’s student body comes from outside the United States, including a sizable number of students from China.

The next day, Harvard filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, arguing that the action was not only unconstitutional but also arbitrary and unlawful. The lawsuit claimed that the university was being punished by the federal government for standing firm against attempts to influence its governance and faculty. In the court filing, Harvard said the measure was part of a “retaliation” campaign for rejecting what it described as unconstitutional demands.

Later that same day, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order in favor of Harvard. “The Trump administration is hereby enjoined from implementing… the revocation of Plaintiff’s SEVP certification,” the judge stated. This means that, for now, Harvard will retain its ability to host and enroll foreign students.

Legal battle intensifies

A court hearing to consider a long-term injunction against the revocation has been scheduled for May 29. In the meantime, the government's decision is on hold until the court makes further determinations. The legal battle has sparked a wider debate about academic freedom and the relationship between higher education institutions and the federal government.

Harvard President Alan Garber condemned the federal action, describing it as “unlawful and unwarranted.” He warned that the move could leave international students in limbo and “serve as a warning” to educational institutions across the country. Garber emphasized the harmful consequences for students, faculty, and scholars.

Karl Molden, a Harvard student from Austria, expressed personal concern about the situation. He called his admission to Harvard the “greatest privilege” of his life, but now says he's applying to transfer to Oxford University, citing fears over the administration’s hostile policies. “It’s scary and it’s saddening,” Molden said.

Scope of conflict expands

The Trump administration has accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism on campus, aligning with the Chinese Communist Party, and promoting what officials describe as “woke” ideology. Homeland Security Secretary Noem said the revocation was an attempt to hold Harvard “accountable” for these alleged issues. Harvard has rejected these claims.

Beyond the visa certification revocation, the administration has also increased financial pressure on the university. A total of $9 billion in government funding is currently under review. Already, $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard have been frozen.

This is not the first time Harvard has taken legal action against the U.S. government in response to policies seen as targeting the institution. The current suit argues that the federal action violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights by punishing the university for allowing ideological diversity among its faculty and students.

Backlash ensues

The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors has spoken out strongly against the government’s actions. The group called it the latest in a pattern of “authoritarian and retaliatory moves” aimed at the university’s independence. They argue that the government is attempting to influence the academic environment through force.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry also weighed in, criticizing the U.S. decision to revoke Harvard’s ability to host international students, most notably from China. Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said the move harms the reputation of the United States internationally. She added that Beijing opposes the “politicization of educational cooperation.”

Chinese students represent more than 20 percent of Harvard's international enrollment, underscoring the major impact the revocation could have on student demographics. Many have voiced uncertainty about their ability to complete their studies or renew visas in the current climate.

Next hearing may be turning point

As the May 29 hearing approaches, both Harvard and the federal government are preparing to make their arguments before Judge Burroughs. The university is seeking a more lasting injunction that would prevent the administration from implementing the SEVP revocation.

If granted, such an order could offer legal protection not only to Harvard but potentially to other institutions that might face similar measures in the future. Observers say the outcome could set a precedent for how far the federal government can exert control over university policies.

In the meantime, Harvard’s international students remain in a state of limbo, unsure whether upcoming semesters will bring stability or continued uncertainty. The legal developments and broader policy tensions have injected fresh urgency into the national dialogue over immigration policy, academic freedom, and political influence in higher education.