The Trump administration is looking into claims that a top-ranked high school in Northern Virginia has an admissions policy that unfairly disadvantages Asian American students. The school district is under scrutiny following complaints that the policy may be discriminatory.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about one school—it’s part of a bigger debate over fairness in elite public education. If the investigation finds bias, it could force changes in how selective schools admit students, with ripple effects nationwide. For Asian American families, it’s a high-stakes fight over equal opportunity.

Harvard is pushing back hard against the Trump administration's sudden decision to block the university from enrolling international students, calling the move "unlawful." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem framed the policy as a "warning," escalating tensions between the White House and elite institutions. Meanwhile, Israel’s foreign minister stirred a separate diplomatic spat by accusing European officials of "toxic antisemitism."

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about Harvard—it’s a flashpoint in the broader clash between the Trump administration and higher education. Blocking international students could ripple across academia, hurting research, diversity, and university finances. The combative tone suggests more political fights over education are coming. And that aside about European-Israel tensions? A reminder that global diplomacy stays messy, even when domestic drama takes center stage.

The Trump administration has abruptly revoked Harvard’s authorization to admit international students, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly sharing the official notice on social media. This move could disrupt the plans of thousands of prospective and current students, adding to the ongoing tensions between elite universities and the administration.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about Harvard—it’s another flashpoint in the broader clash over immigration and higher education. Blocking international enrollment at a top university sends a chilling signal about the U.S.’s stance on global academic exchange, potentially sidelining talent and straining institutional budgets. For students, it’s a wrenching uncertainty: visas, careers, and lives hang in the balance.

The Trump administration has pulled Harvard’s authorization to admit international students, a move the university calls "unlawful." With over a quarter of Harvard’s student body coming from abroad, this decision could hit the school’s finances hard—not to mention disrupt the lives of thousands of students.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about Harvard—it’s a signal of how shifting immigration and education policies could ripple through top U.S. universities, which rely heavily on international talent and tuition. For students, it adds another layer of uncertainty during an already chaotic time.

The Trump administration just threw a wrench into Harvard’s plans for international students, revoking the university’s ability to enroll them. This is the latest escalation in a tense back-and-forth between the government and the prestigious Ivy League school.

Editor’s Note: This move could have ripple effects far beyond Harvard—international students contribute billions to the U.S. economy and bring global talent to American campuses. It also signals a hardening stance on immigration under the current administration, with universities caught in the crossfire. For students and schools, it’s another layer of uncertainty in an already chaotic year.

The US Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on whether to allow the creation of a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma, effectively upholding a lower court’s decision to block it. The case, spearheaded by Catholic dioceses, would have been the first of its kind in the US, testing the boundaries of religious freedom in public education.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about one school—it’s a high-stakes fight over how religion intersects with public funding. The court’s split leaves the issue unresolved for now, but it signals bigger battles ahead about whether taxpayer money can support religious schools without violating constitutional separation of church and state. For supporters, it’s a missed opportunity for faith-based education; for critics, it’s a win for keeping public funds secular. Either way, the debate isn’t over.

The Supreme Court hit a deadlock on whether states can fund religious charter schools, splitting 4-4 after Justice Amy Coney Barrett sat this one out. The tie means no precedent is set, but it’s a clear blow to conservatives who’d hoped the court would greenlight taxpayer money for faith-based schools.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just a legal technicality—it’s a big deal for the ongoing fight over religion in public life. With no decisive ruling, states are left in limbo, and advocates on both sides will keep battling over whether public funds should support religious education. The deadlock also hints at how fragile the court’s balance is, especially when a single recusal can change the game.

A federal judge just put the brakes on the Trump administration’s sweeping plan to gut the Education Department, ordering the agency to rehire employees it had fired. The administration isn’t backing down—they’re likely to appeal—but for now, it’s a win for critics who argued the cuts were overreach.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just bureaucratic drama—it’s a big deal for how the U.S. handles education. The ruling pushes back against efforts to shrink the department’s role, which could’ve had ripple effects on everything from student loans to school funding. Even if it’s temporary, it shows the courts aren’t rubber-stamping these changes.

The U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t break a tie on whether Oklahoma could fund a religious charter school, leaving a state court’s decision intact. That lower ruling had said the school crossed the line by mixing government money with religion—something the Constitution tries to keep separate.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just about one school—it’s a skirmish in the bigger battle over how religion fits into public life, especially when tax dollars are involved. The deadlock means, for now, states can’t use public funds to directly back religious schools, but the split vote hints this debate is far from over. If the Court takes up a similar case later, the outcome could reshape the rules on church-state separation.