A powerful coalition of collegiate newspapers, spearheaded by Harvard’s esteemed Crimson, has stepped forward to challenge the Trump administration. Forty-three university publications have collectively filed an amicus brief, signaling their support for Stanford University’s lawsuit. At the heart of this legal battle is the administration’s policy of scrutinizing and potentially penalizing international students for their political speech. Stanford’s student newspaper, The Daily, initiated the lawsuit, contending that actions like visa revocations and deportations for expressing pro-Palestine views infringe upon First Amendment rights, thereby silencing crucial voices in campus discussions and journalism.
The Chilling Effect on Campus Journalism
The core of Stanford’s August 2025 complaint reveals a worrying trend: numerous non-citizen students felt compelled to request the removal of their names, quotes, and photos from articles published in The Daily. Many ceased engaging with the paper altogether, and even current and former staff writers asked for their opinion pieces to be retracted. The Student Press Law Center (SPLC), in its detailed amicus brief, underscores how these federal policies have effectively stifled diverse international student voices and undermined the ability of student newspapers to report comprehensively on political matters.
SPLC lawyer Matthew S.L. Cate highlighted in his 25-page filing that ‘Student journalists—especially noncitizen students—report declining participation, self-censorship, and withdrawal from public discourse.’ He emphasized that these consequences ‘inflict harm not only on individual students but also on the broader educational and democratic mission of the student press.’ This sentiment is echoed across campuses, with the brief citing instances at universities like Michigan and North Carolina where content or author names were removed due to fears of governmental reprisal. The Harvard Crimson itself observed a significant increase in such takedown requests this spring, underscoring the far-reaching impact of these federal interventions.
Harvard Crimson Underscores the Gravity of the Situation
McKenna E. McKrell ’26, President of The Crimson, articulated the critical need to safeguard the involvement of international students in campus journalism. She stated, ‘Freedom of speech is vital to The Crimson’s work as a student newspaper. Our international staff members are essential contributors to this work, and deserve the very same speech protections their peers are afforded.’
This legal challenge comes amidst an escalating campaign by the Trump administration against international students. By August, the State Department had revoked over 6,000 visas, including 12 from Harvard, which were subsequently reinstated after intervention. The Department of Homeland Security also tried to prevent Harvard from admitting international students by withdrawing its sponsorship via the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. However, Harvard successfully countered this action in federal court, achieving a temporary injunction against the administration’s ban on international students holding Harvard-sponsored visas.
High-Profile Incidents Intensify Fears
The amicus brief didn’t stop at institutional impacts; it also highlighted specific, alarming incidents that exacerbated the climate of fear. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestine activist, was detained in March. Similarly, Tufts University graduate student Rumesya Ozturk faced arrest near campus after co-authoring a pro-Palestine opinion piece in The Tufts Daily. Both individuals are still facing the looming threat of deportation.
According to the SPLC, these cases have plunged student newsrooms nationwide into ‘a crisis of unprecedented scale.’ They report a noticeable decline in international students submitting opinion pieces on sensitive subjects and a growing hesitancy to speak on the record. Cate further elaborated, ‘Current policies that drive international students away or compel them to self-censor have stripped campus media of the diverse voices necessary to provide the public with a full and accurate understanding of their communities.’
The Legal Battle Ahead
In response, the federal government asserts that The Daily lacks legal standing, dismissing its claims as based on ‘speculative injuries’ to its staff and interviewees. They argue that presidential authority over immigration matters should take precedence over First Amendment considerations. Stanford, meanwhile, is pushing for a summary judgment, aiming for a court decision without the need for a full trial.
As this pivotal case progresses, the collective involvement of The Harvard Crimson and numerous other student newspapers underscores a united front in defending both campus journalism and the fundamental rights of international students. The final ruling in this case is poised to establish a significant precedent, influencing how universities, student journalists, and non-citizen contributors navigate the complex interplay of free speech and immigration law moving forward.