 |
| Pix credit here |
President Trump has issued his Proclamation: Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University. It makes for interesting reading and is set forth in full below.
The actions the President directs his subordinates to take are neither unexpected now particularly beyond the scope of the actions taken in a variety of related contexts since late January 2025--though they are worth a read. More interesting perhaps are the premises and explanations given as justification for the actions taken.
1. "Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation’s institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee." The State does indeed control its borders in accordance with law. And indeed, that control through law can affect not just those attempting to enter the Republic but also those who believe that it is value to them to receive these entrants. Mr. Trump suggests here that host institution suitability is a function of legal compliance. In the field of business and human rights, those advancing notions of corporate responsibility for negative human rights impacts of economic activity, that connection rings true. It just sounds a bit tinny when the polarities of compliance are reversed (that is when compliance includes law and interpretation that does not match ideology--in which case a politics of resistance sometimes kicks in).
2. In this case, President Trump seeks to make out the case that Harvard--the targeted institution--has failed to meet its compliance obligations. In the language of business and human rights--its (in)actions have produced negative impacts on the state through its failure to comply with law as interpreted by officials. Yet that enterprise sounds like a quasi judicial, rather than a quasi-executive or quasi-legislative function. But all good--the courts have been comfortable with vesting administrative organs (one would assume that includes with the apparatus of the Office of the President) with quasi executive, legislative and judicial authority for almost a century). But if that is the case it is not clear what sort of process of followed in order to arrive at and support the result other than the President's conclusory assertions. Perhaps they are enough. But it is likely that this will be an issue that Harvard will find irresistibly tempting to try to the courts. And, indeed, it was an issue that resonated as Harvard filed a suit to challenge this action, producing a belated recognition that process requires some time for response before a decision, even one that is already in works (academic institutions might understand the way this works certainly in its own internal operations) ("Ahead of a federal hearing over Harvard University's ability to enroll international students, the acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a letter Thursday giving the school 30 days to challenge the administration's revocation of that certification." HERE)
3. Taken as a whole the allegations might be said to read like the sort of thing one might put into a complaint. The "pleadings" in the proclamation are enhanced by its brief in support of its conclusions (Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restricts Foreign Student Visas at Harvard University, the text of which follows below). That is a pity for the President, because it is likely that the courts will treat the language that was as well. The President might have done better by crafting and holding some sort of hearing, suitable to its object, from out of which it might have found facts sufficient to justify the actions undertaken. Still, that is a lesson that might be usefully reinforced through the courts--even ones indulgent of the President's objectives though perhaps not his methods. Still the President can make the assertion that whatever passed between Harvard and the President's apparatus suffices. That is certainly a position worth taking, though given the judicial turn of mind at the moment, not one that is likely to produce success, except perhaps at the margin.
4. On the other hand, compliance issues under The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) may be processed without a substantially complicated procedure (other than to provide Harvard with notice and an opportunity to respond). SEVP, according to its website " collects, maintains, analyzes and provides information so only legitimate foreign students or exchange visitors gain entry to the United States. SEVP also ensures that the institutions accepting nonimmigrant students are certified and follow the federal rules and regulations that govern them. SEVP manages the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a web-based information system that maintains and allows monitoring of the following records." The records might well speak for themselves--though their interpretation in context requires some sort of even de minius elaboration. The links to relevant SEVP regulations follow below. A further complication are the host of measures that serve as the compliance universe for the program (Evidence Guidelines; SEVIS Reporting Requirements for Academic Institutions at the Start of Each Term or Session; and the recertification process). Again, the President might have put process before proclamation to secure the objective of the Proclamation.
5. Having worked through all of that on the Harvard side, the issue of the authority of the President o manage borders and deny entry may pose different questions subject to more permissive standards--even if otherwise constrained to some extent by law. But here again, the courts appear to be moving to a more vigorous intensification of a doctrine of intent. Intent., it seems, has become a form of equity that will just keep on giving (and in the case of a President who is perhaps not as careful as he might be with sharing thoughts, ideas, whims, etc. in ways that remain around forever in cyberspheric realities, one that keeps on taking). Intent becomes an more potent block to Presidential desire where it can be transformed into a plausible narrative of retaliation. There is irony here of course. Institutions--educational and others--have managed to make a sport of retaliation, making it quite difficult for employees, for example, to show retaliation in the face of the application of doctrines of plausibility justifying administrative exercises of discretion. Not so, it seems with the President. One can quibble about whether this is politically or ideologically motivated, or perhaps motivated by a dislike of Presidential style (a slicker President might be able to justify more or resist challenges of retaliatory intent more successfully--but we hardly in a position ever to know). But there it is. In the challenge that will inevitably follow, Harvard will likely (and they would be crazy not to) draw on a tough full of tact and image from out of which they might cleverly construct a compelling story of retaliation only thinly covered by legality--something, again, that the courts worry less about in other contexts. Still, analogy matters (discussed in another context here).
6. And sure enough, Harvard almost immediately resorted to the courts for protection against the executive. Judge halts Trump’s proclamation to suspend new international student visas at Harvard hours after university filed amended lawsuit. The field of action is the interpretation of law and regulation; the context is the scope of permitted administrative discretion (something that appears to irritate Harvard's administrators, like those of other institutions, only when it is not them exercising discretion); and the likely object is to toss this to a legislature that all sides understand is incapable of the speed and flexibility necessary to respond in any sort of relevant time frame. And with the courts appearing almost willing to grant any injunction against any action by the Trump Administration now, there is every incentive to find a facially neutral judge somewhere (anywhere) to do that. But that is the system, one that people delight in complaining about but no one believes is worth the political and social capital necessary to reform it to accord more with their tastes. In the meantime there will be lots of narrative whining all around and oozing from the discursive orifices of privileged institutions and officials who might better use their time to reflect on their own sins rather than treating the rest of us to their efforts to recast themselves from anti-heroic elements of excruciating melodrama to the heroes, not of their stories but of ours.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation’s institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee. That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution’s compliance and commitment to following Federal law. Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others.
The Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) depends fundamentally on academic institutions’ good faith, transparency, and full adherence to the relevant regulatory frameworks. This is for crucial national-security reasons. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries and competitors take advantage of easy access to American higher education to, among other things, steal technical information and products, exploit expensive research and development to advance their own ambitions, and spread false information for political or other reasons. Our adversaries, including the People’s Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States.
Protecting our national security requires host institutions of foreign students to provide sufficient information, when asked, to enable the Federal Government to identify and address misconduct by those foreign students. In my judgment, it presents an unacceptable risk to our Nation’s security for an academic institution to refuse to provide sufficient information, when asked, about known instances of misconduct and criminality committed by its foreign students. This principle is one reason why SEVP regulations require foreign students to obey Federal and State criminal laws and require universities to keep records about foreign students’ studies in the United States — including records relating to criminal activity by foreign students and resulting disciplinary proceedings — and furnish them to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on request.
Crime rates at Harvard University — including violent crime rates — have drastically risen in recent years. Harvard has failed to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus. Given these facts, it is imperative, in my judgment, that the Federal Government be able to assess and, if necessary, address misconduct and crimes committed by foreign students at Harvard.
Despite the risks described above, Harvard University has refused the recent requests of the DHS for information about foreign students’ “known illegal activity,” “known dangerous and violent activity,” “known threats to other students or university personnel,” “known deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel,” and whether those activities “occurred on campus,” and other related data. Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, and the data it provided was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions. Harvard’s actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students. In my judgment, these actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government’s ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law.
These concerns have compelled the Federal Government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs. When a university refuses to uphold its legal obligations, including its recordkeeping and reporting obligations, the consequences ripple far beyond the campus. They jeopardize the integrity of the entire United States student and exchange visitor visa system, compromise national security, and embolden other institutions to similarly disregard the rule of law.
Harvard University has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign countries, including our adversaries. According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has received more than $150 million in total contributions from foreign governments over the last 5 years, and over $1 billion from foreign sources. Over the last 10 years, Harvard has received more than $150 million from China alone. In exchange, Harvard has, among other things, “repeatedly hosted and trained members of a Chinese Communist Party paramilitary organization,” according to a probe by the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Harvard researchers have also partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China’s military modernization, according to the same probe.
Finally, Harvard University continues to flout the civil rights of its students and faculty, triggering multiple Federal investigations. Harvard’s discrimination against disfavored races in admissions was so blatant that the Supreme Court decision ending the practice nationwide bears Harvard’s name. Yet even after that Supreme Court decision, Harvard and its affiliated organizations on campus continue to deny hardworking Americans equal opportunities. Instead of those Americans, Harvard admits students from non-egalitarian nations, including nations that seek the destruction of the United States and its allies, or the extermination of entire peoples. It is not in the interest of the United States to further compound Harvard’s discrimination against non-preferred races, national origins, shared ancestries, or religions by further reducing opportunities for American students through excessive foreign student enrollment.
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 or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University. Such restrictions are authorized under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), which authorize the President to suspend entry of any class of aliens whose entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers. Until such time as the university shares the information that the Federal Government requires to safeguard national security and the American public, it is in the national interest to deny foreign nationals access to Harvard under the auspices of educational exchange.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that, absent the measures set forth in this proclamation, the entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I hereby proclaim as follows:
Section 1. Suspension of Entry. The entry of any alien into the United States as a nonimmigrant to pursue a course of study at Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(F) or section 101(a)(15)(M) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F) or 1101(a)(15)(M), or to participate in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J), is suspended and limited, subject to section 2 of this proclamation. That suspension and limitation shall expire, absent extension, 6 months after the date of this proclamation.
Sec. 2. Scope and Implementation of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall apply to aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States to begin attending Harvard University through the SEVP after the date of this proclamation.
(b) The Secretary of State shall consider, in the Secretary’s discretion, whether foreign nationals who currently attend Harvard University and are in the United States pursuant to F, M, or J visas and who otherwise meet the criteria described in section 1 of this proclamation should have their visas revoked pursuant to section 221(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(i).
(c) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien who enters the United States to attend other universities through the SEVP.
(d) The suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
(e) No later than 90 days after the date of this proclamation, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on whether an extension or renewal of the suspension and limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation is in the interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. Operational Action to Implement this Order. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate to take all necessary and appropriate action to implement this proclamation. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall also consider using their respective authorities under the INA to impose limitations on Harvard University’s ability to participate in the SEVP and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. Any such actions should include an exception for any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Regulations
- 8 CFR 214.1 Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status
- 8 CFR 214.2 (f) Academic and Language Students
- 8 CFR 214.2 (j) Exchange aliens
- 8 CFR 214.2 (m) Vocational Students
- 8 CFR 214.3 Petitions for Approval of Schools
- 8 CFR 214.4 Denial of certification, denial of recertification or withdrawal of SEVP certification
- 8 CFR 214.5 Libyan and third country nationals acting on behalf of Libyan entities
- 8 CFR 214.13 SEVIS fee for certain F, J, and M nonimmigrants
- 8 CFR 248 Change of Nonimmigrant Classification
RESTRICTING FOREIGN STUDENT VISAS AT HARVARD: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation to safeguard national security by suspending the entry of foreign nationals seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University.
- The Proclamation suspends the entry into the United States of any new Harvard student as a nonimmigrant under F, M, or J visas.
- It directs the Secretary of State to consider revoking existing F, M, or J visas for current Harvard students who meet the Proclamation’s criteria.
- The Proclamation does not apply to aliens attending other U.S. universities through the Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) and exempts aliens whose entry is deemed in the national interest.
HARVARD HAS A DEMONSTRATED HISTORY OF CONCERNING FOREIGN TIES AND RADICALISM:
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has long warned that foreign adversaries take advantage of easy access to American higher education to steal information, exploit research and development, and spread false information.
- The University has seen a drastic rise in crime in recent years, while failing to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus.
- Harvard has failed to provide sufficient information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about foreign students’ known illegal or dangerous activities, reporting deficient data on only three students.
- Harvard is either not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.
- Harvard has also developed extensive entanglements with foreign
adversaries, receiving more than $150 million from China alone. In
exchange, Harvard has, among other things, hosted Chinese Communist
Party paramilitary members and partnered with China-based individuals on
research that could advance China’s military modernization.
- The Chinese Communist Party has sent thousands of mid-career and senior bureaucrats to study at U.S. institutions, with Harvard University considered the top “party school” outside the country. Xi Jinping’s own daughter attended Harvard as an undergraduate in the early 2010s.
- Harvard has failed to adequately address violent anti-Semitic incidents on campus, with many of these agitators found to be foreign students.
- Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.
- These concerns have compelled the Federal government to conclude that Harvard University is no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs.
HOLDING HARVARD ACCOUNTABLE: President Trump wants our institutions to have foreign students, but believes that the foreign students should be people that can love our country.
- President Trump: “The students? Well, we want to have great students here. We just don’t want students that are causing trouble. We want to have students. I want to have foreign students.”
- President Trump: “We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can’t get in because we have foreign students there. But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country.”
- President Trump: “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country. Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason!”
No comments:
Post a Comment