Edited by: TJVNews.com

A federal judge has intervened to temporarily block a controversial Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directive that would have stripped Harvard University of its ability to enroll foreign students, in a decision that throws the ongoing clash between the Ivy League institution and the Trump administration into even sharper relief. As The Epoch Times has reported, the DHS action was perceived by Harvard officials as politically motivated retaliation for the university’s refusal to comply with federal demands related to campus ideology and governance.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted the injunction late Friday, just hours after Harvard filed an emergency lawsuit challenging DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s order revoking the university’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)—a federal framework that allows U.S. schools to host international students.

Harvard’s legal team argued that DHS’s actions amounted to a “deliberate act of retaliation” in violation of the First Amendment. “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 complaint stated, according to the report in The Epoch Times.

The ruling grants Harvard a temporary reprieve as the case proceeds, but it has also opened a new chapter in a prolonged and increasingly acrimonious standoff between one of America’s most prestigious academic institutions and the current presidential administration.

The dispute began in earnest on Thursday, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued an unprecedented directive removing Harvard from the SEVP program, effectively terminating the legal presence of nearly 6,800 international students enrolled at the university.

In her statement, Noem cited mounting concerns over anti-Israel violence, campus radicalization, and foreign interference, most notably alleged links between Harvard programs and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). “This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Noem said, as quoted by The Epoch Times.

She emphasized that enrolling foreign students is “a privilege, not a right” and accused the university of leveraging high international tuition fees to boost its “multibillion-dollar endowment.”

The DHS demanded that Harvard provide a detailed account of foreign student involvement in campus protests and unrest—particularly those tied to the Israel-Hamas war that erupted in October 2023. According to the new order, the university had 72 hours to produce audio, video, and written records of foreign students engaging in what the administration described as “dangerous or violent activity.”

Harvard responded with sharp resistance, filing a lawsuit the same day and seeking an immediate injunction to halt what it characterized as a “vindictive and unconstitutional overreach.” The school’s leadership alleged that the Trump administration’s actions were politically motivated and legally indefensible.

“It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students,” Harvard’s legal brief argued, according to The Epoch Times.

The suit named multiple federal agencies and officials as defendants, including Secretary Noem, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the SEVP, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the Department of State.

Harvard President Alan Garber, who has been leading the university during an especially volatile period, issued a pointed statement in April warning that the Trump administration was demanding an ideological audit of the university’s personnel and curriculum.

“We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said, echoing themes of academic sovereignty that have become central to Harvard’s defense, as reported by The Epoch Times.

This lawsuit is just the latest development in an intensifying feud between Harvard and the federal government. As The Epoch Times previously reported, the Trump administration had already rescinded nearly $3 billion in federal funding to Harvard, citing failures in campus safety, transparency, and accountability following waves of anti-Israel protests.

The decision to target international student enrollment strikes at the heart of Harvard’s global academic identity. The university hosts thousands of students from more than 100 countries, with the majority enrolled in graduate and professional programs. Many international students, faculty, and alumni have voiced concerns that the administration’s order could deter global talent from attending U.S. institutions altogether.

“This is an attack not just on Harvard, but on American higher education’s international reputation,” one unnamed faculty member told The Epoch Times.

While Harvard has repeatedly defended its autonomy, critics—including Jewish alumni, watchdog groups, and members of Congress—have accused the university of turning a blind eye to antisemitic incidents on campus, particularly in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas massacre.

The administration has reportedly linked its actions in part to alleged failures by Harvard to discipline or report foreign students involved in violent or extremist protests. The growing influence of far-left ideologies on elite campuses, the administration argues, poses a national security concern, especially when foreign nationals are involved.

As The Epoch Times highlighted, the decision to cut Harvard from the SEVP program followed months of pressure from conservative lawmakers who demanded greater scrutiny over how elite universities manage foreign student populations, ideological indoctrination, and potential CCP-affiliated funding.

Judge Burroughs’ temporary injunction does not resolve the underlying legal battle, but it offers Harvard a critical lifeline to protect the immigration status of its international students, many of whom would have been forced to transfer or leave the country altogether.

Legal experts interviewed by The Epoch Times suggest that the outcome of this case could set a powerful precedent for how much leverage the federal government can exert over university admissions policies and ideological governance.

If the court ultimately sides with Harvard, it may severely limit the administration’s ability to police ideological conduct on campuses through immigration or funding levers. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of DHS could empower the federal government to take similar actions against other institutions accused of harboring extremism or failing to cooperate with federal oversight.

The temporary injunction may cool tensions temporarily, but the political and legal implications of this clash are far from over. As The Epoch Times continues to report, the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration has become a flashpoint in a larger national debate over free speech, academic freedom, national security, and the proper limits of government power.

For now, the future of thousands of international students—and the reputation of one of America’s oldest universities—hangs in the balance.