Government Lawyer Says Trump Likely to Reissue Ban on Harvard’s International Students if Court Order Lifted

A Justice Department lawyer told a federal appeals court Tuesday that President Donald Trump would likely reissue a proclamation barring international students from entering the United States to study at Harvard if a federal order blocking the policy is lifted.

“I can’t reveal exact conversations or with who, but I have been told by people with the White House that it’s likely he would reissue,” the lawyer, Tiberius Davis, said.

The proclamation, which suspended the entry of international students seeking to study at Harvard, expired in December 2025. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs had blocked it from taking effect.

Davis argued Tuesday that Trump had chosen not to reissue because the judge’s order would make any enforcement of a proclamation impossible — urging the appeals court to, at minimum, vacate the order.

If the order is vacated or the government prevails on appeal, Trump would likely issue a new proclamation, he said.

The Trump administration made its first attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students in May 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security issued a letter revoking the University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. Harvard sued, and Burroughs blocked the letter and a subsequent notice of intent to withdraw the certification.

The government has since stated that it would not enforce the initial May letter. But in oral argument Tuesday, Davis said that the president would likely reissue the subsequent proclamation if the government prevails in the appeals process.

First Circuit judges Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, and Joshua D. Dunlap asked both Davis and Harvard’s lawyer, Paul D. Clement, why the court should still rule on the case now that the proclamation had expired.

Both Davis and Clement resisted the idea, pointing to the likelihood of reissue.

The judges were initially skeptical of the possibility, noting that Davis had admitted he could not “bind the president” — but in his rebuttal, Davis said people at the White House had told him a new proclamation was likely, though he declined to share details.

Davis declined to comment when reached by phone Tuesday.

In discussion with both lawyers, judges suggested that a new proclamation could constitute a new case, leaving open the possibility that the court would dismiss the current appeal.

Judges first raised the possibility of dismissing the appeal in a Sept. 23 order, pointing to the December 2025 expiration date.

In opening remarks, Davis acknowledged the court’s ability to do so but urged it not to in a tense exchange.

“We do understand what we’re free to do and not do,” Thompson said.

Lawyers also discussed whether the president could use a proclamation to effectively bar Harvard from hosting international students, or whether doing so would require the lengthier process for withdrawing a school’s SEVP certification.

Judges cast doubt on the government’s justifications for the proclamation, including allegations that Harvard fostered antisemitism on campus and collaborated with the Chinese Communist Party.

Gelpi argued that the proclamation would also bar Israeli students and Jewish students from Latin America from attending Harvard.

“Eradicating antisemitism, but also eradicating semitism,” Gelpí said.

In response to the judge’s concerns, Davis left open the possibility of reworking the proclamation to permit Israeli students to enroll at Harvard — while continuing to keep out others.

“The president could give exceptions. The secretaries could give exceptions for people from Israel or Jews who want to attend, but we didn’t have a chance to do that because we immediately got enjoined,” he said.

Clement opted to focus his arguments primarily on the administration’s other justification for revocation: Harvard’s alleged failure to turn over records the government requested.

He argued that Harvard had provided the government with all the documents it was required by law to keep.

“Their complaint to us is that we didn’t give them documents that we are not required to keep,” Clement said.

But he added that even if Harvard had failed to provide the necessary documentation, there were existing processes through which to adjudicate that, giving more opportunity for notice, response, and review than a proclamation would.

“I don’t think you can leapfrog all of that,” Clement said.

—Staff writer Sebastian B. Connolly can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at sbc.23. Follow him on X @SebastianC4784.

—Staff writer Summer E. Rose can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at ser.85. Follow her on X @summerellenrose.