U.S. Targets Columbia Activist Over Views on Israel

10 Apr at 3:39 pm

2761 posts

U.S. Targets Columbia Activist Over Views on Israel \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Trump administration submitted a memo justifying the deportation of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, claiming his presence undermines U.S. foreign policy. The memo, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, cites Khalil’s advocacy against Israel but alleges no criminal wrongdoing. Khalil’s attorneys argue the case is an attack on protected political speech.

Quick Looks

A memo signed by Secretary Marco Rubio seeks Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation.
Khalil, a U.S. permanent resident, is accused of harming U.S. foreign policy.
No criminal charges or Hamas ties were presented in the memo.
The government claims his activism undermines U.S. anti-antisemitism efforts.
Memo was submitted after a judge ordered evidence disclosure.
Khalil’s lawyers say the case is about silencing dissent on Palestine.
He was arrested March 8 and remains detained in Louisiana.
Rubio’s memo mentions other unnamed residents targeted for removal.
DHS has revoked visas of students critical of Israel.
Critics warn this marks a crackdown on free speech in academia.

Deep Look

The Trump administration has taken a bold and controversial step in its efforts to suppress pro-Palestinian activism on U.S. college campuses, filing a memo to justify the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-born Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent resident. But the memo, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, does not accuse Khalil of any crime, nor does it provide evidence linking him to terrorism. Instead, it cites a Trump-era executive authority to remove noncitizens whose presence is deemed damaging to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The memo, obtained by The Associated Press and submitted ahead of a Friday court hearing, portrays Khalil not as a threat in the traditional national security sense but as someone whose ideas and speech alone constitute grounds for removal from the United States.

“While Khalil’s activities were otherwise lawful,” Rubio wrote, “allowing him to remain in the country would undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism… and efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence.”

The document marks a potentially precedent-setting moment — one in which immigration law is being used to suppress speech, rather than address criminal behavior, terrorism, or immigration violations.

A Political Case Cloaked in Policy

Khalil, a 30-year-old Palestinian man born in Syria, is a U.S. green card holder and recently completed his master’s degree at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. He came into public view in 2023 when he served as a spokesperson for student activists protesting Israeli military actions in Gaza, which followed the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. The demonstrations at Columbia were some of the largest in the country and drew criticism from pro-Israel groups and some political leaders, including Trump.

According to immigration attorneys and civil rights advocates, this case represents a stark escalation in how the Trump administration is treating political speech as a matter of immigration enforcement.

“There is not a single shred of proof that Mahmoud’s presence in America poses any threat,” said attorneys Marc Van Der Hout and Johnny Sinodis, who represent Khalil.
“This is about punishing a young man for his political beliefs and for speaking up against injustice.”

They added that the administration “finally admitted they have no case” after withholding any justification for Khalil’s detention for over a month.

A Widening Crackdown on Dissent

Khalil’s case is not an isolated incident. Over recent weeks, the Trump administration has:

Revoked student visas of foreign nationals who have participated in or promoted protests critical of Israel;
Pulled federal funding from universities accused of tolerating antisemitic rhetoric or protest activity;
Pressured colleges to discipline or expel students engaged in pro-Palestinian demonstrations;
Imposed new conditions on funding for university-affiliated hospitals and research programs, requiring institutions to adopt new codes of conduct addressing antisemitism as defined by the White House.

Civil rights groups and free speech advocates say these measures amount to a sweeping political purge of dissenters, disguised as national security and civil rights protections.

“This case is about more than one student,” said a representative from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
“It’s a clear message: if you criticize U.S. allies or oppose official policy, you’re not safe — even if you’re here legally.”

Rubio’s Memo: Free Speech as a Foreign Threat

The memo filed by Secretary Rubio does not accuse Khalil of supporting terrorism, nor does it refer to Hamas, the group that launched the October 7 attack on Israel. Although DHS previously claimed that Khalil led activities “aligned to Hamas,” no evidence supporting that allegation has been submitted to court, and the accusation has vanished from the latest filing.

Instead, Rubio’s memo argues that Khalil’s public advocacy and protests—though peaceful and lawful—threaten to erode U.S. foreign policy efforts to combat antisemitism both domestically and abroad. The memo contends that allowing Khalil to remain in the U.S. would undermine trust in U.S. policy among allies and embolden hostile actors.

Critics argue that the logic is dangerously broad, potentially allowing the deportation of any noncitizen who publicly disagrees with U.S. diplomatic or military policy.

Rubio’s memo also references a “subject profile” and a letter from DHS but fails to include them in the court filing, raising further questions about the transparency and legal foundation of the government’s case.

A Family in Limbo

Since his arrest on March 8, Khalil has been held in a remote detention facility in Louisiana. He was removed from New York in a surprise late-night operation, leaving his American wife, who is due to give birth this month, unable to reach him easily. His family says they have had limited contact with him since his arrest.

In a handwritten letter from jail, Khalil expressed anguish over the situation but vowed not to remain silent.

“Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances,” he wrote, “I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.”

The deeply personal note underscores the human toll of the administration’s policy, which legal scholars say is as much about political messaging as national security.

The Legal Road Ahead

Immigration Judge Jamee Comans had previously ordered DHS to produce any evidence justifying Khalil’s continued detention, leading to the filing of Rubio’s memo. Friday’s hearing will determine whether Khalil can remain in the U.S. while his deportation proceedings continue, or whether he must be deported immediately.

Khalil’s attorneys argue that the memo, lacking evidence of criminal behavior or national security risk, violates his constitutional rights, especially as a legal permanent resident with long-standing ties to the U.S.

If the court upholds the deportation based solely on policy objections to lawful speech, it could create a dangerous precedent for expanding the use of immigration law as a tool for ideological enforcement.

A Test Case with Global Implications

The Khalil case is being watched closely by academics, legal analysts, human rights organizations, and university leaders — many of whom fear that the Trump administration’s actions will chill not only campus free speech, but also research and international collaboration.

“If speaking out for Palestinian rights is treated as a deportable offense, then what stops the government from targeting climate activists, journalists, or political dissidents next?” asked one Columbia faculty member.

As the war in Gaza continues and global activism intensifies, the U.S. government’s actions at home are sending a powerful message: Foreign nationals, even those here legally, may pay a steep price for speaking out.