A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s latest attempt to restrict Harvard University from enrolling international students—a move that, if successful, would have affected more than 6,800 students and reshaped the broader landscape of higher education in the U.S.
The court’s ruling came just hours after Harvard filed suit against the administration, marking the latest escalation in what has become a high-stakes legal and political standoff between elite institutions and federal policymakers. The full story was featured on PBS NewsHour as part of its “Rethinking College” series, in a conversation between correspondent Amna Nawaz and Washington Post education reporter Laura Meckler. [Source: PBS.org]
According to Meckler, Harvard’s lawsuit is about more than just student enrollment—it’s about the university’s autonomy and identity.
“Harvard sees itself as a place that attracts the best and brightest from around the world,” Meckler told PBS. “If international students weren’t there, that would take away something essential from the learning environment.”
While many institutions rely on international students for full-tuition revenue, Harvard is somewhat unique in that it offers financial aid to students from abroad. The university’s vast endowment—valued at $52 billion—means it’s less dependent on tuition dollars. Still, Meckler emphasized that this conflict isn’t just about finances.
“This is less about revenue and more about whether the Trump administration can impose its philosophical and political agenda onto the university,” Meckler said.
The administration’s stance, however, has been unrelenting. In a statement, the White House accused Harvard of turning a blind eye to what it called “anti-American, antisemitic, pro-terrorist agitators” on campus. President Donald Trump echoed those claims in a press conference, criticizing the university’s wealth and its role in student lending.
“They have $52 billion in endowment,” Trump said. “And this country is paying billions and billions of dollars. Harvard’s going to have to change its ways.”
But Meckler noted that Harvard has already acknowledged the need for improvement in addressing campus antisemitism. The broader issue, she said, is the Trump administration’s increasing scrutiny of elite universities. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened to freeze or cancel grants, revoke tax-exempt status, and investigate DEI programs under claims of illegality.
According to Harvard President Alan Garber, the attempt to block international student enrollment is “unlawful and unwarranted.” In a statement, Garber warned that the decision “serves as a warning to countless other colleges and universities throughout the country.”
And indeed, Meckler emphasized that the ripple effects extend far beyond Harvard.
“This is really a war, not just on Harvard, but on higher education more broadly,” she said. “It reflects a growing rupture between the Republican Party and elite higher education, which used to be seen as a national asset.”
That shift in perception, Meckler explained, could have lasting implications for federal support of research and higher education funding—particularly in STEM fields where universities have long been engines of innovation.
The conflict underscores a growing political and cultural battle over the role of universities in American life. What was once bipartisan support for higher education is now being challenged by partisan distrust, raising questions about the future of academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and global educational access.
As the legal battle continues, this ruling stands as a temporary safeguard—but not a final resolution—for international students and the institutions that welcome them. For now, Harvard—and higher education at large—remains at the heart of a broader national debate.
