News
Trump administration continues to target international students. What to know and what could be next.
Lawsuits, next-day countersuits, backtracking and mass confusion. International students find themselves at the center of a dizzying legal landscape as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration.
Here’s what to know as the Trump administration keeps attempting to put up legal barriers to international students’ ability to study in the U.S.
What’s the latest?
Just Wednesday, a judge granted Harvard an extension on an injunction that blocked the administration’s attempt last week to stop the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign-born students.
An estimated 4,700 or more foreign-born students have been impacted since the Trump administration began revoking visas and terminating legal statuses in March. A few have also been detained in high-profile cases.
In just the past two weeks, students across the country were granted a nationwide injunction against the administration. Some scholars have been released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well. Meanwhile the State Department announced that it is “aggressively” targeting an additional group of Chinese scholars out of national security concerns.
But in spite of its legal losses, the federal government has doubled down on its efforts to target international students. On Tuesday, the Trump administration stopped scheduling new student visa interviews for those looking to study in the U.S., according to an internal cable seen by NBC News. Meanwhile, the State Department is preparing to expand its social media screening of applicants, the cable said.
The next day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the government would be looking to revoke the visas of Chinese students “with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”
It’s still unclear what “critical fields” the administration will be looking into and what types of connections to the CCP are under scrutiny. The State Department referred NBC News to comments by spokesperson Tammy Bruce during a news briefing Thursday in which Bruce said the department does not discuss the details of its visa process due to privacy concerns.
“We use every tool that we have to vet and to make sure we know who’s coming in,” Bruce said. “In this particular case, the United States is putting America first by beginning to revoke visas of Chinese students as warranted.”
How did the Trump administration revoke the visas and statuses of international students?
For months, there was mass confusion among schools and international students about the criteria the government used to abruptly terminate visas and statuses, with little to no notice to students. But in late April, the Department of Homeland Security revealed at a hearing that it used the National Crime Information Center, an FBI-run computerized index that includes criminal history information.
The agency said fewer than two dozen employees ran the names of 1.3 million foreign-born students through the index, populating 6,400 “hits.” And from there, many students experienced terminations of their records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), which maintains information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors.
The method was sharply criticized by legal and policy experts, who pointed out that the database relies on cities, counties, states and other sources to voluntarily report their data. This means that it may not have the final dispositions of cases, potentially leading to errors in identifying students.
At another hearing in April, Elizabeth D. Kurlan, an attorney for the Justice Department, said that going forward, Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not be terminating statuses based solely on findings in the crime information center. She also told the court that ICE would be restoring the legal status of international students who had their records terminated until the agency developed a new framework for revocations.
Shortly afterward, an internal memo to all Student and Exchange Visitor Program personnel, which is under ICE jurisdiction, showed an expanded list of criteria for the agency to terminate foreign-born students’ legal status in the U.S., including a “U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation (Effective Immediately).” Though students would typically have the right to due process and defend themselves before their status is terminated, visa revocation itself is now grounds for the termination of status, according to the memo.
The administration has also taken aim at students who have been active in pro-Palestine protests, including Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who were both detained in March. Öztürk has since been released from ICE custody.
“Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio said at a news conference in March.
Has anyone been successful in challenging the Trump administration?
Students across the U.S. from Georgia to South Dakota have been winning their lawsuits against the Trump administration, with judges siding with plaintiffs and allowing them to stay in the U.S.
Last week, a judge issued an injunction blocking the Trump administration from terminating the legal statuses of international students at universities across the U.S. It’s the first to provide relief to students nationwide.
The day after the Trump administration terminated Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification — a move that would force the university’s foreign students, roughly a fourth of its student body, to either transfer or lose their legal status — the Ivy League school sued the administration. And hours later, a judge issued an injunction.
In addition to Öztürk, others who were detained are no longer in ICE custody, including Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri and Mohsen Mahdawi, a U.S. permanent resident who was born and raised in a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank.
The judge in Khan Suri’s case ruled that his detention was in violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to free speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects the right to due process.
What might be next for international students?
Though the recent nationwide injunction provides some relief, students can still be vulnerable to visa revocation. Legal experts say the temporary restraining order blocks the government from arresting or detaining students, or terminating their legal statuses. But it’s possible that visas can still be revoked. And many expect the Trump administration to hit back.
“This is a federal district court decision. It is not a final decision, and it seems likely that the executive branch will appeal this decision,” Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School.
Mukherjee also added that the Chinese international students referred to in Rubio’s new statement are likely not protected by the injunction either.
“What they’re likely to claim in court in defense of this policy is that the secretary of state and the executive branch deserves deference with regard to quote, unquote, foreign affairs,” Mukherjee said.
However, with backlash already brewing, Mukherjee said she expects that the policy will be challenged legally, with immigration attorneys and activists arguing that it is unconstitutional.
Legal experts said that with many decisions surrounding international students’ fate far from decided, foreign-born scholars should first and foremost remain in the country. She also said it’s important to seek legal counsel in the event that students are also eligible for other forms of relief, including asylum or other humanitarian visas.
Razeen Zaman, director of immigrant rights at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said it’s particularly important for American citizens to speak out against the immigration policies on behalf of foreign-born students, as many of these students may not be able to push back themselves.
“You have to have a certain amount of resources to be able to do that. You have to have a certain amount of connections. There’s even some people who are too afraid to seek counsel,” Zaman said. “U.S. citizens have the most protections. … And the reality is, even if you’re stopped at the border, they do have to still let you in as a U.S. citizen.”
And given how the Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants from four Latin American countries, Zaman said, it’s likely that even more groups will be targeted without fierce advocacy and protest.
“This is about the First Amendment today. It’s Chinese people, the CCP, whoever they decide is tied to the Chinese government,” Zaman said.
News
Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.
In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.
The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.
Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

The disclosures also report gifts, travel, food and lodging that the justices received in 2025. Jackson and Sotomayor were the only two to report gifts. Jackson was given a painting for her chambers valued at $2,500, and Sotomayor reported a trip to Kansas City to watch the opening of a musical based on her children’s book, Just Ask.
In addition, she reported receiving free tickets worth $4,333 while on “a private trip to Puerto Rico.” The tickets were from the record label that represents Bad Bunny, and her trip coincided with the artist’s months-long concert series in San Juan. Sotomayor’s parents were from Puerto Rico, and she has spent much time there over the years.
The justices also disclosed significant reimbursements for travel throughout 2025. Thomas’ travel, food and lodging expenses were paid for by the Hoover Institution for speaking at a celebration of conservative economist Thomas Sowell.
Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson were reimbursed for international travel, where they gave speeches, spoke about their books or taught. Roberts was the only sitting member of the court not to report any gifts or travel reimbursements.
The annual filings also shed some light on the justices’ activities off the bench. Kavanaugh reported that in addition to his duties as a Supreme Court justice, he serves as a coach to multiple D.C.-area Catholic Youth Organization girls’ basketball teams. Coach K, as he is known by his players, wrote the court’s June decision declaring that states can ban transgender women and girl athletes from playing on women’s and girls’ sports teams.

The justices’ salaries are established by law. The chief justice earns the most, at $320,700 per year. The eight associate justices earn $306,600 per year. While that is a lot of money to most Americans, the justices and even their law clerks could earn more the minute they leave their Supreme Court jobs for large law firms.
Roberts was the only member of the court to report investing in individual stocks. Alito in the past has also owned shares of individual stocks, but his report is not due for three months when his extension runs out. For the most part, the justices do not own individual stocks, but do invest in index funds, mutual funds and other such investment programs in order to both make money and limit potential conflicts of interest that would require their recusal from certain cases.
However — and this is a big however — the financial reporting forms the justices are required to fill out are so unspecific and the reporting ranges for investment earnings are so broad that it is impossible to determine any justice’s overall wealth. In addition, the current value of the justices’ homes isn’t reported. Neither is their spouses’ income, which in the case of the chief justice, for instance, likely far exceeds his take-home pay.
News
Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show
At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.
A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.
City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”
Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.
Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.
“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.
Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.
Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.
“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.
The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.
Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.
“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.
Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”
He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.
Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.
On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.
News
DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote
The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.
The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”
“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.
Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.
The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.
“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.
Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”
“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”
The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.
While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.
-
Sports4 minutes agoJustin Verlander announces he will retire after this season: ‘I’ve realized that time has come’
-
Technology7 minutes agoApple AI security update proves hackers move fast
-
Business12 minutes agoFire-damaged Pacific Palisades shopping center sets reopening date
-
Entertainment19 minutes agoRhea Seehorn celebrates her ‘Pluribus’ Emmy nomination as she waits to hear about Carol and the atom bomb
-
Lifestyle22 minutes agoUrban Jürgensen: Introducing Elite Watchmaking to New Audiences
-
Politics27 minutes agoCommentary: On Skid Row, it’s been decades of frustration. Will the next mayor have a plan?
-
Science34 minutes agoWhat’s the deal with … coffee enemas?
-
Sports37 minutes agoLAPD weighs canceling academy classes to get more cops on streets for Olympics