I have no sympathy for Mahmoud Khalil or the movement he represents. The anti-Israel activism dominating American campuses is anti-intellectual, immoral, and riddled with antisemites who apply a blatant double standard to the Jewish state. It is a movement that routinely excuses terrorism, ignores the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorts history to fit a simplistic, ideologically driven narrative. If Khalil were merely facing public condemnation or losing institutional support, I would have no issue with it. But he is facing a backlash that looks very different, something that should concern all of us.
A Dangerous Precedent for Political Deportations
Despite being a legal permanent resident of the United States, Khalil was arrested in his apartment by immigration officers and now faces possible deportation. He has not been charged with a crime. The Trump administration has made it clear that they are not even accusing him of breaking any laws. Instead, they are relying on a Cold War-era provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, which allows the Secretary of State to deport any non-citizen whose presence is deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States.
This provision is a relic of McCarthyism, a series of authoritarian public campaigns against Americans accused of harboring communist sympathies, carried out by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. McCarthyists targeted thousands of Americans, most of the time without any proof or substantial basis, in one of the most egregious examples of political repression and persecution in US history. Many Jews were targeted because of it, with the most famous example being Julius and Ethel Rosenberg being the first Americans to be executed under charges of espionage in 1951. Trump’s invocation of laws from this era is a sign of his blatant contempt for our civil liberties.
The administration’s justification? That Khalil’s presence undermines U.S. foreign policy against antisemitism. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed he was distributing “pro-Hamas propaganda flyers,” and Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, called him a “national security threat.” Yet when pressed, they refused to provide any evidence that Khalil had distributed or produced such flyers and genuinely constituted a threat to national security. More importantly, they have not proved in court that he has any real ties to Hamas, provided material support to terrorism, or engaged in any illegal activity.
His Speech Is Protected—The Supreme Court Already Said So
Even if Khalil were vocally supporting Hamas (again, the government has provided no evidence of this), that would still be protected speech under U.S. law. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that merely advocating for or expressing support for a foreign terrorist organization does not constitute “material support” and is therefore protected under the First Amendment. The only way speech becomes illegal is if it involves direct coordination with or assistance to a terrorist group.
Khalil has not been accused of any such coordination. Let me emphasize this again — the Trump administration explicitly said they are not claiming Khalil broke the law — they are attempting to deport a legal resident for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Even if you despise what he says, allowing the government to punish him for it sets a precedent that will eventually come to harm speech you do agree with.
Would You Support This If the Shoe Were on the Other Foot?
The double standard here is glaring. Let’s say the Biden administration decided to deport a legal permanent resident for expressing support for Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish extremist who massacred 29 Palestinians in 1994. Would conservatives defend that? What if a future Democratic president used this law to go after outspoken pro-Israel activists, arguing that their rhetoric inflames tensions in the Middle East and damages U.S. foreign policy?
The precedent set here will be used against people you agree with. That’s how government power works. If you cheer it on when it’s used against your enemies, don’t act surprised when it’s later turned against your allies.
Freedom Means Defending Even Those You Despise
Let me be clear: I would never defend Mahmoud Khalil’s worldview. The anti-Israel movement in the U.S. has become a breeding ground for hypocrites who denounce Israel while excusing or ignoring far worse human rights abuses across the world. The same people who claim to stand for human rights are often the first to cheer when Hamas commits atrocities. I have no respect for that.
But none of that justifies an arbitrary, politically motivated deportation. If Khalil were actually providing material support to Hamas, charge him. If he were inciting violence, prosecute him. But what the government is doing here is detaining and threatening to deport a legal resident without evidence of criminal activity, purely based on speech.
This should alarm every American. If the government can strip permanent residents of their rights because their political views are inconvenient, then who’s next? I despise Mahmoud Khalil and everything he stands for. But if we actually care about American values, we have to defend his right to stay.
