Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard

Trump’s announcement is a further escalation of an ongoing legal row with one of the most prestigious US universities after Harvard refused to yield to a series of White House demands in April.

Within hours, Harvard responded by filing court documents asking a judge to block the “retaliatory” order from taking effect.

The US president issued the proclamation on Wednesday, citing “national security” concerns and declaring it “detrimental” to US interests to continue allowing foreign students at the institution.

Donald Trump has suspended for an initial six months the entry of foreign students seeking to study or participate in exchange programmes at Harvard University.

Watch: Harvard president gets standing ovation as he praises international students at commencement

Wednesday’s order comes after a judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from banning international students at Harvard in a ruling last week.

Trump’s proclamation accused Harvard of developing “extensive entanglements” with foreign countries and continuing to “flout the civil rights of its students and faculty”.

“Considering these facts, I have determined that it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University,” he said.

The order also suspends visas for international students seeking exchange programmes and directs the secretary of state to consider revoking existing visas of students currently studying at the university.

The suspension can be extended beyond six months.

The White House said Harvard had failed to provide sufficient information to the DHS about “foreign students’ known illegal or dangerous activities” and reported “deficient data on only three students”.

Harvard issued a statement calling the order “yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights” to free speech.

On Thursday, the university amended an existing lawsuit against the government, arguing that the latest move by Trump is “part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard’s exercising its First Amendment rights”.

The lawsuit rejected claims that Trump is attempting to “safeguard national security”, instead accusing him of “a government vendetta against Harvard”.

University President Alan Garber also issued a statement saying that Harvard was developing contingency plans for international students, who make up around a quarter of the student population.

The world’s wealthiest university has been embroiled in a legal battle with the Trump administration after it froze billions of dollars of federal funding and accused the institution of failing to root out antisemitism on campus.

Last month, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem revoked certification Harvard needed to enrol foreign students on campus, a move that was swiftly blocked by a judge.

Another federal judge upheld that decision last Thursday, saying she would issue a longer-term hold that would allow international students to continue their studies at Harvard while the legal battle plays out.

However, Wednesday’s proclamation once again throws the futures of thousands of international students into limbo.

For the 2024-2025 school year, Harvard enrolled nearly 7,000 foreign students, who made up 27% of its population.

Last week, a Chinese Harvard student called for unity during the university’s graduation ceremony, just days after Trump vowed to “aggressively” revoke visas for Chinese students.

In the past few months, the Trump administration has ramped up its crackdown on higher education in the US, accusing universities of failing to tackle antisemitism amid protests against the war in Gaza across campuses.

Earlier on Wednesday, the White House threatened to strip Columbia University of its accreditation over claims it violated the civil rights of its Jewish students.

Trump has left the G7 early – what are his options for dealing with Iran?

17 June 2025 Share Save Tom Bateman State Department correspondent Share Save

Getty Images

President Trump’s comments on the Israel-Iran conflict have veered from full throated support for Israel’s strikes to strongly distancing himself from them, and back again. His ambiguity has added to the sense of uncertainty as the fighting itself escalates – as has his departure from the G7 in Canada. He simply said he had “big stuff” to return to in Washington. The White House said his departure was to do with “what’s going on in the Middle East”, while later on Truth Social he said it had “nothing to do with a Cease Fire”. Earlier, the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacks were “fully coordinated” with the US. So what factors are weighing on Trump and, crucially, what are his options now? Follow live updates on Israel-Iran conflict here

1. Bowing to Netanyahu pressure and escalating

As Israeli missiles hit Tehran on Thursday, Trump threatened Iran’s leaders with “even more brutal” attacks from his Israeli ally armed with American bombs. We know Trump’s ultimate objective. He says, like Netanyahu, that Iran can’t have a nuclear bomb. Crucially, he has said his preferred option (unlike Netanyahu) is via a deal between the US and Iran (this route also reflects his self-described image as a world-class dealmaker). But he has equivocated over how to get there, sometimes leaning into the threat of force, other times pushing the diplomacy. Last week he even said in the same breath that an Israeli attack on Iran would help a deal or it would “blow it”. Where is Israel’s operation heading?

His unpredictability is sometimes portrayed by his supporters after the fact as strategic – the so-called “madman” theory of foreign relations. This theory is one that has previously been used to describe Trump’s negotiating tactics and suggests that deliberate uncertainty or unpredictability about escalation works to coerce adversaries (or even allies in Trump’s case) into complying. It was famously attributed to some of the Cold War practices of President Richard Nixon. Some of Trump’s advisers and supporters back the “maximum pressure” side of the madman theory when it comes to his approach to Iran. They think the threats will in the end prevail because, they argue, Iran is not serious about negotiating (even though in 2015 the country signed an Obama-led nuclear deal that Trump later pulled out of).

Getty Images Smoke rises from explosion at state broadcasting building in Tehran

Netanyahu has applied constant pressure on Trump to go down the military not diplomatic path, and the US president – despite his oft-stated desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize – may in the end see a need to deliver on his more belligerent threats to Tehran’s leadership Israel may also push harder behind the scenes for American involvement to, as it sees it, to finish the job. The US has bunker buster bombs Israel believes can destroy Iran’s underground uranium enrichment site at Fordow. As the fighting escalates, so does the pressure on Trump from the hawkish camp of Republicans in Congress who have long called for regime change in Iran. Trump will also see the argument that it could force the Iranians into negotiating with him with a now weaker hand. But the fact remains that the Iranians already were at that table, as a sixth round of talks due with Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff had been planned in Oman on Sunday. The talks are now abandoned.

2. The middle ground – holding the course

So far, Trump has reiterated that the US is not involved in Israel’s attacks. Escalation comes with significant and potentially legacy-defining risks for Trump. American naval destroyers and ground based missile batteries are already helping in Israel’s defence against the Iranian retaliation. Some of Trump’s advisers at the National Security Council are likely to be cautioning against him doing anything that could add to the intensity of Israel’s attacks on Iran in the immediate days, especially with some Iranian missiles breaching Israeli-US defences to deadly effect. ‘Don’t let beautiful Tehran become Gaza’

Israelis in neighbourhood struck by missile back war Netanyahu is now arguing that targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would end, not escalate, the conflict. But an anonymous US official briefed to some news outlets at the weekend that Trump made clear he was against such a move.

Getty Images Iranian ballistic missiles hit buildings in Tel Aviv

3. Listening to the Maga voices and pulling back

One of the big political factors playing on Trump’s mind is his domestic support. Most Republicans in Congress still staunchly back Israel, including continued American arms supplies to the country. Many have vocally backed Israel’s attacks on Iran. But there are key voices within Trump’s Make America Great Again (Maga) movement who now outright reject this traditional “ironclad” support for Israel. Over the last few days they’ve asked why the US is risking being drawn into a Middle East war given Trump’s “America First” foreign policy promise. The pro-Trump journalist Tucker Carlson wrote a stinging criticism on Friday saying the administration’s claims not to be involved weren’t true, and that the US should “drop Israel”. He suggested Mr Netanyahu “and his war-hungry government” were acting in a way that would drag in US troops to fight on his behalf. Carlson wrote: “Engaging in it would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters who cast their ballots in hopes of creating a government that would finally put the United States first.” Similarly, the staunch Trump loyalist US representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X that: “Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA”.

Russia fears another loss in Middle East from Iran’s conflict with Israel

17 June 2025 Share Save Steve Rosenberg Russia Editor Reporting from Saint Petersburg Share Save

AFP via Getty Images While Moscow has talked up its partnership with Iran, the deal does not require Russia to come to Iran’s military aid

When Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, officials in Russia described the current escalation in the Middle East as “alarming” and “dangerous.” Still, Russian media were quick to stress the potential positives for Moscow. Among them: A rise in global oil prices which is forecast to boost Russia’s coffers

The distraction of global attention away from Russia’s war on Ukraine. “Kyiv has been forgotten” was a headline in Moskovsky Komsomolets

And if the Kremlin’s offer to mediate in the conflict was accepted, Russia could portray itself as a key player in the Middle East and as a peacemaker, despite its actions in Ukraine However, the longer Israel’s military operation goes on, the greater the realisation that Russia has much to lose from current events. “The escalation of the conflict carries serious risks and potential costs for Moscow,” wrote Russian political scientist Andrei Kortunov in business daily Kommersant on Monday.

“The fact remains that Russia was unable to prevent a mass strike by Israel on a country with which five months ago [Russia] signed a comprehensive strategic partnership. “Clearly Moscow is not prepared to go beyond political statements condemning Israel, it’s not ready to provide Iran with military assistance.” The Russian-Iranian strategic partnership deal which Vladimir Putin and President Masoud Pezeshkian signed earlier this year is not a military alliance. It does not oblige Moscow to come to Tehran’s defence. At the time, though, Moscow talked it up. In an interview with the Ria Novosti news agency, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that the agreement paid “special attention to the strengthening of co-ordination in the interests of peace and security on the regional and global levels, and the desire of Moscow and Tehran for closer co-operation on security and defence”.

Reuters Russia has relied heavily on Iran’s Shahed drones in its war in Ukraine, but now manufactures them locally

In the last six months Moscow has already lost one key ally in the Middle East, Bashar al-Assad. After the Syrian leader was deposed last December he was offered asylum in Russia. The prospect of regime change in Iran, the thought of losing another strategic partner in the region, will be of major concern to Moscow.

Trump signs sweeping tax and spending bill into law

1 day ago Share Save Bernd Debusmann Jr BBC News, at the White House Share Save

Anthony Zurcher: Passage of megabill is big win for Trump

US President Donald Trump has signed his landmark policy bill into law, a day after it was narrowly passed by Congress. The signing event at the White House on Friday afternoon enacts key parts of the Trump agenda including tax cuts, spending boosts for defence and the immigration crackdown. There was a celebratory atmosphere at the White House as Trump signed the bill ahead of Independence Day fireworks and a military picnic attended by the pilots who recently flew into Iran to strike three nuclear sites. Trump told supporters it will unleash economic growth, but he must now convince sceptical Americans as polling suggests many disapprove of parts of the bill.

Several members of his own Republican party were opposed because of the impact on rising US debt and Democrats warned the bill would reward the wealthy and punish the poor. The 870-page package includes: extending 2017 tax cuts of Trump’s first term

steep cuts to Medicaid spending, the state-provided healthcare scheme for those on low incomes and the disabled

new tax breaks on tipped income, overtime and Social Security

a budget increase of $150bn for defence

a reduction in Biden-era clean energy tax credits

$100bn to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Moments before the bill signing, there was a fly-by of a pair B-2 bombers – the same kind of aircraft that participated in the Iran operation – flanked by highly advanced F-35 and F-22 fighter aircraft. In a speech from the White House balcony facing the South Lawn, Trump thanked Republican lawmakers who helped usher the bill to his desk. He touted the tax cuts in the bill, brushing aside criticism of the impact to social programmes such as food assistance and Medicaid. “The largest spending cut, and yet, you won’t even notice it,” he said of the bill. “The people are happy.” Additionally, Trump praised additional resources being given to border and immigration enforcement and an end to taxes on tips, overtime and social security for senior citizens, which he says the bill will fulfil. The celebratory mood follows days of tense negotiations with Republican rebels in Congress and days of cajoling on Capitol Hill, sometimes by the president himself. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries delayed the final vote in the lower chamber of Congress on Thursday by speaking for nearly nine hours. He called the bill an “extraordinary assault on the healthcare of the American people” and quoted testimony from individuals anxious about its impact. But his marathon speech only postponed the inevitable. As soon as he sat down, the House moved to a vote.

Getty Images Republican lawmakers celebrated after narrowly passing Trump’s sweeping budget bill before a self-imposed deadline of 4 July

Only two Republicans went against, joining all 212 Democrats united in opposition. The bill passed by 218 votes to 214. Earlier this week, the Senate passed the bill but US Vice-President JD Vance was required to cast a tiebreaking vote after three Republicans held out. Major win now but political peril awaits

Fact-checking three key claims about the bill Hours after the House passed the bill, the president was in a triumphant mood as he took to the stage in Iowa to kick off a years long celebration of 250 years since American independence. “There could be no better birthday present for America than the phenomenal victory we achieved just hours ago,” he told supporters in Des Moines. The White House believes the various tax cuts will help stimulate economic growth, but many experts fear that will not be sufficient to prevent the budget deficit – the difference between spending and tax revenue in any year – from ballooning, adding to the national debt. Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggests the tax cuts could produce a surplus in the first year but will then cause the deficit to rise sharply.

According to the Tax Policy Center, the tax changes in the bill would benefit wealthier Americans more than those on lower incomes, About 60% of the benefits would go to those making above $217,000 (£158,000), its analysis found. The BBC spoke to Americans who may see a cut in the subsidies that help them pay for groceries. Jordan, a father of two, is one of 42 million Americans who benefits from the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) scheme targeted by the bill. Americans brace for Trump’s welfare cuts

What is in the bill? He and his wife get about $700 a month to feed their family of four and the 26-year-old said if this bill reduces what he can claim he would get a second job. “I’m going to make sure that I can do whatever I can to feed my family,” he says.

Watch: what will Trump’s tax and spending bill do to the US national debt?

By Aaron Blake, CNN

Photo: AFP /Atta Henare

Analysis: For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world’s problems are not necessarily Americans.

Iran could be about to test that.

President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel’s attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon (US time), he wrote on Truth Social that “we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.” He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an “easy target,” and said, “We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

He called for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”

These comments came as CNN reported he’s indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

Follow live updates with RNZ’s blog

Trump has sabre-rattled for effect before, so it’s possible this is him employing the “madman theory” of foreign policy again. But it’s also evident that we’re (the US) closer to a major new military confrontation than we’ve been in two decades.

So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It’s complicated.

Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions.

Photo: AFP / BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI

Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances.

A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

American voters favoured that 53 percent to 30 percent – a 23-point margin.

The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon.

But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003”.

Trump disputed Gabbard’s account on Tuesday, but it’s not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That’s particularly because America’s last major military foray, into neighbouring Iraq, became so unpopular due to how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed.

Photo: AFP /Atta Henare

Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being.

Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis:

The same Fox poll showed 57 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans called Iran a “real national security threat.”

A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least “very” concerned about Iran getting a nuke.

And Gallup polling last year showed 93 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a “critical threat” to the vital interests of the United States.

But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high.

Pew Research Centre polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64 percent) and Russia (59 percent) were major military threats than Iran (42 percent).

Pew data last year also found only 37 percent of Americans said limiting Iran’s power and influence should be a “top priority”. It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China’s power and about the same as North Korea’s – while also falling below limiting climate change.

And back in 2020, just 14 percent of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64 percent), while 17 percent said it wasn’t a threat.

All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it’s likely we’d see these numbers polarise.

But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon – in contrast to Israeli warnings – but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported on Tuesday.

Trump’s history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favour of the strike.

But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made the US less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42 percent.

All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don’t have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump’s Iran policies.

The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don’t necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear.

But it doesn’t mean you think that’s imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm’s way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today.

And there’s plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.

-CNN