Harvard student fears visa loss as Trump administration targets international enrollment
ABC News
(BOSTON) — A Harvard graduate student has described a “devastating” atmosphere of uncertainty on campus as the Trump administration appears to intensify its efforts to restrict international students at the prestigious university.
“It’s definitely been a roller-coaster ride,” said Fangzhou Jiang, who has one semester remaining in his master’s program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Over the last week, everybody was really panicking about whether they should stay in the United States or depart immediately.”
A federal judge in Boston announced Thursday she would issue a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempts to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students.
The ruling marks a temporary victory for the university in its ongoing confrontation with the White House, which has launched multiple actions against the institution.
The acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a letter Thursday giving the school 30 days to challenge the administration’s revocation of the certification to enroll international students.
The Trump administration has already frozen more than $3 billion in federal funding to Harvard and plans to cancel remaining federal contracts worth an estimated $100 million. President Donald Trump has also expressed interest in revoking the university’s tax-exempt status.
Tensions escalated further Wednesday when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced officials would begin to “aggressively revoke” the visas of some Chinese students, sparking fresh concerns among the international student community.
“Everybody is wondering about the plan for next year—whether we should take a leave of absence, whether we should go back home and finish our semester online, or wait for more guidance,” Jiang said, who serves as vice president of student government on family affairs.
For Harvard, where international students comprise more than a quarter of the student body, according to the university, the impact could be significant. Jiang emphasized that international students play crucial roles on campus, from conducting academic research to facilitating cultural exchanges.
“Removing international students from Harvard will really not make Harvard the Harvard it has been for the last 400 years,” Jiang said. “It’s going to impact the amount of perspectives Harvard has. It will definitely weaken Harvard’s international influence and reputation. It is definitely not in the best interest of American higher education or the United States as a nation.”
Jiang said that while the university has committed to protecting international students through legal actions and other means, specific guidance for the upcoming academic year is unclear. Based on experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, Jiang remains optimistic that online learning options could provide a solution if necessary.
“The school has committed to protecting international students in whatever capacity,” Jiang said. “I remain confident that the university will be able to provide measures to help us finish our education at Harvard.”
Harvard University did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
(NEW ORLEANS) — During the ongoing massive manhunt for 10 inmates who escaped from a New Orleans jail last week, authorities say the use of facial recognition cameras run by a private organization helped lead to the recapture of one of the fugitives — even as the police department has come under scrutiny by critics from civil rights organizations to conservative politicians over its use of the technology.
Earlier this week, New Orleans Police Department Superintendent Anne Kirkpatrick told ABC News that facial recognition cameras maintained by Project N.O.L.A. had been used in the New Orleans manhunt despite the fact that she recently ordered a pause in the automated alerts her officers had been receiving from the group, which operates independently of the police department.
Kirkpatrick recently told The Washington Post she ordered the alerts to officers turned off until she is “sure that the use of the app meets all the requirements of the law and policies.”
Citing the New Orleans Police Department’s partnership with Project N.O.L.A., the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement it is believed to be the first known widespread effort by a major American law enforcement agency to use artificial intelligence technology to identify suspects in an assortment of crimes across the city.
In a statement, the ACLU said the use of live facial recognition raises constitutional and privacy issues and “is a radical and dangerous escalation of the power to surveil people as we go about our daily lives.”
Critics of the New Orleans Police Department’s use of facial recognition cameras said that the average citizen should understand that they are not opting in or are being made aware that they are being scanned by the cameras.
“Facial recognition technology poses a direct threat to the fundamental rights of every individual and has no place in our cities,” Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said in a statement about the city’s partnership with Project N.O.L.A. “We call on the New Orleans Police Department and the City of New Orleans to halt this program indefinitely and terminate all use of live-feed facial recognition technology.”
Some Republicans in Congress also opposed the unchecked use of the technology, most notably Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Steve Daines of Montana.
In a March 27, 2025 letter to Kash Patel, who was then acting director of the federal Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms Explosives, Biggs, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, and Davidson raised concerns over news reports indicating the ATF utilized facial recognition technology to identify gun owners. “The Subcommittee has concerns about ATF’s use of facial recognition and Al programs and the effects that its use has upon American citizens’ Second Amendment rights and rights to privacy,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter, requesting documents on policies and training in the use of facial recognition technology.
Democrats, including Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon have also joined bipartisan efforts to curtail the use of such surveillance.
How authorities are using live facial recognition
The 10 inmates escaped from the Orleans Justice Center in New Orleans on May 16, officials said. Five of the fugitives have since been recaptured, leaving five others, including three charged with murder, still on the run as of Thursday afternoon.
Kirkpatrick told ABC News this week that one of the fugitives was caught and another narrowly got away after live facial recognition cameras operated by Project N.O.L.A. located them while scanning crowds in the French Quarter.
Bryan Lagarde, executive director of Project N.O.L.A., told ABC News that after being notified of the jailbreak on Friday, state police gave his group a list of the escapees.
“We put that into our facial recognition. It took approximately four minutes to do that and within, literally, less than a minute later we started tracking two of the escapees,” Lagarde said.
He said the information about fugitive Kendall Myles and another escaped inmate, who he said is facing attempted second-degree murder charges, was sent to state police investigators who confirmed the two men were part of the jailbreak.
“Then they immediately went out to the French Quarter, which is where we were tracking them walking down Bourbon Street,” Lagarde said.
Myles was arrested after police found him hiding under a car. The second escapee, however, managed to get away.
“I’m sure they knew there were cameras because they were walking around with their faces held down and things like that. All it takes is just a second for them to look up and then there’s facial recognition,” Lagarde said.
Citing the ongoing investigation, Lagarde declined to say if his cameras have located any of the other escapees.
Group operates 200 facial recognition cameras in New Orleans Largarde said that his organization has been using live facial recognition cameras in New Orleans for the past two years.
In response to potential privacy concerns, Lagarde said, “As far as the facial recognition is concerned, it’s scanning your face, my face, everyone’s faces. If you’re wanted and we know that you’re wanted, you’re going to be in trouble. If you are not wanted, its going to instantly disregard your face and just move on to the next person.”
He said his group maintains about 5,000 cameras in New Orleans, including 200 that have facial recognition capabilities. He said the facial recognition cameras not only scan faces, but also clothing, vehicle and license plates.
“We work a very large number of the major crimes here in New Orleans: Homicides, shootings, stabbings, home invasions, rapes, robberies all the way down to the thefts and the burglaries,” Lagarde said.
Project N.O.L.A. works with the New Orleans Police Department and the Louisiana State Police but does not have an official contract with either agency, officials said.
Before the manhunt, the New Orleans police had appeared to distance themselves from Project N.O.L.A..
The police department “does not own, rely on, manage, or condone the use by members of the department of any artificial intelligence systems associated with the vast network” of Project N.O.L.A.’s cameras, a spokesman for the police department agency said in a statement to The Washington Post.
Kirkpatrick, the New Orleans police superintendent, said her agency has operated surveillance cameras across the city, many in the entertainment districts, but none of them have facial recognition capabilities. According to the New Orleans Police & Justice Foundation, the city has about 3,600 police operated cameras across the city.
What local laws say
While the city has an ordinance on the use of facial recognition technology, Kirkpatrick said there are exceptions to the rules.
“Sometimes, people think that we have a total ban on the use of facial recognition and that is not quite accurate,” Kirkpatrick said. “There are exceptions, and I think that this one would meet the exception of those ordinances.”
According to the city ordinance, “Evidence obtained from facial recognition alone shall not be sufficient to establish probable cause for the purpose of effectuating an arrest by the NOPD or another law enforcement agency. The source of the image and the underlying reasons for the requested use of facial recognition systems as an investigative lead shall be documented in a police report.”
The ordinance says “facial-recognition technology, shall not be used as a surveillance tool.” But the ordinance also states that “nothing in this section shall prohibit NOPD from requesting the use of facial recognition technology in the investigation of the prior occurrence of the following significant crimes as defined in Louisiana Revised Statute,” including murder, manslaughter, solicitation of murder, first-degree robbery, drive-by shootings and carjackings.
“They had my permission, that’s for sure,” Kirkpatrick said of the use of facial recognition technology in the manhunt.
Three of the five escaped inmates still being sought on Friday have been have been charged with murder or attempted murder, including one who was convicted in a double homicide, authorities.
A ‘dragnet system?’
The Washington Post investigation published this week reported that New Orleans police were using Project N.O.L.A.’s network of facial recognition cameras to monitor the streets for wanted suspects over the past two years in ways that appeared “out of step” with the local ordinance.
In the interview with ABC about the manhunt, Kirkpatrick said that Project N.O.L.A. is a “useful partner” but stressed that it is not law enforcement and is not bound by the local ordinance, raising issues of accountability about Project N.O.L.A. and the data it collects on ordinary citizens who are being surveilled in this untargeted manner.
“I’m very supportive of any technology that we can use to bring violent people back in, and then we can deal with the issues later, but we actually operate within the boundaries of the law,” she said. “As long as it’s constitutional, ethical, we’re going to stay within the boundaries. But this is a bigger topic and discussion, mainly for our politicians to decide what kind of laws they want.”
Other police departments across the country have faced questions over their use of the technology.
The use of facial recognition software by U.S. businesses has also grown sharply in recent years, analysts and privacy advocates told ABC News.
The uses range from tech companies securing personal devices and retailers scanning for potential shoplifters to e-commerce giants tracking delivery drivers. Retailers are also using facial recognition scanning on shoppers to adjust pricing in stores.
Companies contend that the technology helps them achieve a safe and efficient operation, benefiting consumers and employees alike. Critics say the powerful tool encroaches on the privacy of everyday people, risking undue punishment or discrimination, the experts said.
Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project, said facial recognition cameras are an “unproven, error-prone tool.”
“This is the first documented case in the U.S. of police using untargeted facial recognition, which countries like China employ to track people across cities and surveil their Uyghur citizens,” Laperruque said in a statement to ABC News regarding New Orleans’ police use of the technology. “This kind of dragnet system belongs in a dystopian sci-fi movie, not in American cities. Average pedestrians shouldn’t have to worry that untested AI technology will set off alarm bells and send police after them.”
One of the key issues of facial recognition and AI is that studies have shown that it can be racially biased and is particularly error prone with people of color, older people and women.
“There’s been error rates between 80 and 90%. That means nine out of every ten times that the system says, ‘Hey, here’s someone from our watch list,’ it’s actually a false alarm,” Laperruque said of the use of these cameras as untargeted or real-time surveillance tools based on pilot programs run in the United Kingdom.
“Facial recognition could be used to catalog attendees at a protest or political rallies of any affiliation, individuals going to a church, people visiting a medical clinic, or an array of other sensitive activities,” Laperruque told ABCNews.
He added, “Given these risks it’s no surprise that surveillance reform in general — and placing guardrails on facial recognition in particular — has support from across the political spectrum, including some of the most progressive and conservative members of Congress — just last month at a Congressional hearing conservative members of Congress highlighted the dangers of facial recognition and other unchecked forms of surveillance.”
(DOHA, QATAR) — The recent Gaza ceasefire talks in Qatar have not led anywhere yet, the Qatari prime minister said Tuesday, citing a “fundamental gap” between the two parties, Israel and Hamas.
“One party is looking for a partial deal that might or have the possibility to lead to a comprehensive deal and the other party is looking just for a one-off deal and to end the war and to get all the hostages out,” Qatari Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said during a press briefing Tuesday. “And we couldn’t bridge this fundamental gap with whatever proposals we have provided.”
Rounds of negotiations have been ongoing in Doha over the past couple of weeks, he said.
Hamas claimed Tuesday that Israel has not been serious about the negotiations, saying in a statement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is extending his delegation’s stay in Doha on a day-to-day basis without engaging in any serious negotiations, and no real talks have taken place since last Saturday.”
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office claimed Tuesday that Hamas is refusing the American proposal for the return of the hostages.
“After approximately one week of intensive contacts in Doha, the senior members of the negotiating team will return to Israel for consultations; the working echelon will — at present — remain in Doha,” the office said.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement on Sunday that the Israeli negotiation team is working to “exhaust every chance of a deal,” including one that would include “the release of all hostages, the expulsion of Hamas terrorists [from Gaza], and the disarmament of the Strip.”
Amid the ceasefire talks, the Israel Defense Forces announced on Sunday the start of a new “extensive ground operation” throughout northern and southern Gaza.
The escalation has been met with condemnation from the leaders of the United Kingdom, France and Canada, who called on Israel in a joint statement on Monday to stop its military operations and immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, otherwise they “will take further concrete actions in response.”
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy subsequently announced Tuesday that the U.K. has suspended negotiations with Israel on a new free trade agreement and will impose sanctions on West Bank settlers, saying, “Despite our efforts, this Israeli government’s egregious actions and rhetoric have continued.”
Netanyahu had pushed back against the joint statement in a statement on X on Monday, saying that by “asking Israel to end a defensive war for our survival before Hamas terrorists on our border are destroyed,” the leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are “offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities.”
“The war can end tomorrow if the remaining hostages are released, Hamas lays down its arms, its murderous leaders are exiled and Gaza is demilitarized. No nation can be expected to accept anything less and Israel certainly won’t,” Netanyahu said.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry also brushed off the U.K.’s announcements on the free trade talks and sanctions on Tuesday, saying, “External pressure will not divert Israel from its path in defending its existence and security against enemies who seek its destruction.”
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove more than 200 alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador with little-to-no due process, a federal judge will consider whether the Trump administration defied his court order by deporting the men.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said at a hearing Thursday that he is contemplating initiating “contempt proceedings” against the government in the event he finds probable cause they deliberately defied his March 15 order that barred removals under the Alien Enemies Act and directed two flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members be returned to the United States.
Boasberg questioned DOJ attorney Drew Ensign over the best way to proceed in the case in the event he determines the government violated his verbal order that the flights be returned to the U.S.
“If I don’t agree, I don’t find your legal arguments convincing, and I believe there is probable cause to find contempt, what I’m asking is how — how should I determine who [is at fault]?” Boasberg asked.
Boasberg repeatedly pressed Ensign for more information on which parties might have been involved in potentially defying his order. Ensign cited various privileges that might apply to the specific information, but when pressed by Boasberg he said he was not prepared to give specific answers.
Judge Boasberg said he would look to issue a ruling sometime next week.
The judge began the hearing by dressing down Ensign after the DOJ lawyer insisted that the Trump administration complied with Boasberg’s court order.
“It seems to me, there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct,” Judge Boasberg said in response to the argument that the Trump administration complied with the order. “In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day. You really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge. I can’t believe you ever would have operated in the way you did.”
When the judge pressed the government about whether his oral directive to turn around the planes was communicated to the officials managing the deportation flights, DOJ attorney Drew Ensign declined to answer, citing attorney-client privilege. Regardless, Judge Boasberg suggested the Trump administration acted irresponsibly and rushed the deportation flights while the lawsuit played out.
“Why wouldn’t the prudent thing be to say, ‘Let’s slow down here. Let’s see what the judge says. He’s already enjoined the removal of five people, certainly in the realm of possibility that he would enjoin further removal. Let’s see what he says, and if he doesn’t enjoy it, we can go ahead. But surely better to be safe and risk violating the order,'” Judge Boasberg said.
Boasberg used his opening line of questioning to ensure Ensign corrected the record amid public attacks by President Trump and other senior members of the administration who have accused him of supporting terrorist gang members or singlehandedly obstructing the administration’s immigration agenda.
Ensign said it was correct to say that Boasberg’s initial temporary restraining order on March 15 never barred the administration from conducting deportations in the normal course of legal proceedings, and also said it would be incorrect to say that Boasberg ever ordered any TdA members in the administration’s custody to be released.
Thursday’s hearing could present the most consequential face-off yet between the executive and judicial branches of government since Trump took office in January, as Trump attempts to unilaterally implement parts of his agenda amid a flood of litigation.
“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” Trump said in a social media post last month after Judge Boasberg issued his order blocking the deportations.
Trump last month invoked the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process — by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.
An official with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged that “many” of the men lack criminal records in the United States — but said that “the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose” and “demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.”
Lawyers representing the class of migrants covered by the president’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation have argued that the Trump administration violated the court’s “unequivocal oral order” to return to the U.S. two flights carrying alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador.
According to flight data reviewed by ABC News, both flights carrying the migrants had not yet landed when Judge Boasberg directed the flights be turned around, and Justice Department lawyers, when questioned by Judge Boasberg, confirmed that the directive was promptly communicated to federal officials overseeing the flights.
“Defendants admit they never attempted to return the individuals on the planes to the United States, despite having both notice and the ability to do so,” the attorneys argued.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have insisted that the Trump administration “complied with the law” while questioning the legitimacy of Judge Boasberg’s order. According to the DOJ, Judge Boasberg’s oral instructions directing the flight to be returned were defective, and his subsequent written order lacked the necessary explanation to be enforced.
Lawyers with the ACLU and Democracy Forward Foundation responded that “The government’s arguments are also unsupportable on their own terms — as a matter of basic textual analysis, of common sense, and in view of foundational separation-of-powers principles.”
The Justice Department has also argued that the president acted within his authority when he removed the noncitizens — which the Trump administration has alleged are dangerous gang members — and that the government should not have to explain itself to the court because the matter concerns national security.
“Even without the challenged Proclamation, the President doubtlessly acts within his constitutional prerogative by declining to transport foreign terrorists into the country,” the Justice Department argued.
The Justice Department recently invoked the rarely-used state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further details about the flights on the grounds that it could harm national security, so it’s unclear how DOJ attorneys will respond to Boasberg’s lines of inquiry.
