March 10, 2025 - 9:48pm
During his State of the Union address during the first week of March, President Trump declared: “I’ve stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America.”
Just days later, his government decided to deport a Palestinian-American permanent resident from the country who was involved in protests against Israel’s government at Columbia University. Mahmoud Khalil, who was a graduate student at the school and a green card holder, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials over the weekend. “SHALOM, MAHMOUD,” the White House tweeted today, using the traditional Hebrew greeting and goodbye.
Already on shaky legal ground, the Trump administration is being vague about what exactly Khalil was arrested for. On his social media platform, President Trump called Khalil a “Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student” and pledged to “find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again.”
Expressing viewpoints that are critical of the government of Israel is not a crime. Even expressing rhetorical support for Hamas would not be considered a crime (although it’s unclear if Khalil actually did this, anyway).
In taking this step, the Trump administration is likely trying to rally its political constituencies. Miriam Adelson, widower of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, was one of Trump’s largest donors, spending as much as $100 million to support him. The Adelsons have long feared that America’s youth, especially young Jews, were drifting away from Israel.
In the past, this led them to fund Birthright trips for American Jews they feared had lost their connection to Israel; now, it means supporting Republican politicians who will actively suppress protests against Israel.
Defenders of the Trump administration may point to censorship from the previous administration — including leaning on major social media firms to curtail content on issues like Covid-19. And to his credit, shortly after taking office, Trump signed into law an executive order prohibiting such pressure on firms. The executive order states that “no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”
But in imposing its crackdowns on speech related to Israel — including by launching a civil rights investigation of the University of California system and withholding $400 million in federal funds from Columbia — the administration may end up doing exactly the opposite of what it promised.
The Trump administration’s moves are likely to make martyrs out of the handful of students they target for deportation. At the same time, it risks driving many Americans who ordinarily couldn’t care less about the Middle East into standing against them out of concern for due process and civil liberties. While few Americans could find Jerusalem on a map, not many more want the government to decide what we can and can’t say about the conflict over the Holy Land.
Zaid Jilani is a journalist who has worked for UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, The Intercept, and the Center for American Progress.
ZaidJilani
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeKahlil will not be chucked out of the US because of what he said, but for what he did. There’s a crucial difference Zaid, however much you try to smudge it.
And what is it that he did that make him a deportable person?
The left has used weasle words against the right for ages. IMHO, you are doing the same.
…activating the campus protests, as T Bone says.
Occupying public buildings, shutting down classroom discussions and using bullhorns to silence everyone else is not speech.
Actions like that are sometimes considered speech and in no event are they deportable crimes. And protesters who do things like that are never arrested for those acts a year after the fact.
In this case those acts don’t matter. Mahmoud Khalil was arrested for supporting Hamas. That makes the legality of his arrest a free speech issue. That’s basic constitutional law.
As with many other things, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio are making a mockery of the law just to see if they can get away with it. Sadly, they probably will. Shameful.
I guess the question is: does the right extend to people who come into your country and then proceed to attack it. The UK has, until recently, fairly consistently denied entry to open advocates of terrorism.
Mahmoud Khalil never advocated terrorism. He protested Israel’s invasion of Gaza. That’s it.
The invasion had a reason which was the massacre of more than a thousand Israelis, and you should now what Hamas did. If not read the media. Where were you than?
So he protested the response to terrorism without ever condemning the terrorism itself.
Carlos- you’re well aware that a green card is a privilege not a right.
You are not allowed to support a terrorist org that supports a 7th C death cult.
Thats not an issue of free speech. It’s common sense to avoid extremism and danger to the natives ie the electorate.
It sends the right message … We don’t want you in our western society and will remove you if you support these people.
This is right. We are not an Islamic society we are a Christian one.
If you face severe legal consequences for simply expressing a view, that surely is an issue of free speech.
Most people aren’t free speech absolutists, and don’t want to hear views expressed that are incompatible with their own. That’s fine, it’s human nature.
But don’t pretend you aren’t actually wanting to curb free speech.
Christians value truth and fairness. Please give us proof that this involves support of Hamas. There is a large difference between supporting Palestinians and what the “Jewish State” has been doing to them since before its inception until the present day and supporting Hamas.
A green card is not a privilege or a right. My wife has one, and has for decades. As a lawyer, and in particular her lawyer, I’m pretty familiar with the rights and privileges that come with a green card.
Under US immigration laws, our State Department can deport anyone who is a threat to our national security.
The 9/11 hijackers came here on student visas, and studied aviation. They left thousands of corpses behind.
Israel is our ally, and is, unlike all of her neighbors, a western democracy. They’re allowed to defend themselves against movements that want the Levant ethnically cleansed.
We’re under no obligation to host our sworn enemies, nor are they extended the same speech rights we give to our citizens.
And obviously, bullying Jewish students and professors, interfering with daily university life, obstructing the daily lives of the rest of our citizens, and advocating for violent, militant, radical political changes go well beyond criticism or opinion.
The word “insurrection” has been cheapened and degraded lately, but the term would in his case still apply.
Furthermore, he has not yet been deported, and is indisputably receiving due process.
I only wish there was a way to remove three or four of our own Congressmen, who have similarly alarming opinions about their own adopted country.
Somalia, Gaza, and parts of Latin America can be extremely unpleasant places to live. Those emigrate here to enjoy the relative peace, prosperity, opportunities, and general welfare of America should avoid trying to “destroy western civilization,” as this young man advocated, and several of our Congresswomen seem to agree.
I’ve not heard one positive comment about America come from the lips of those four or five Congresswomen, only fiery criticisms not far removed from the ideologies of Carlos the Jackal. They should hardly be surprised when they receive a negative reaction from the rest of the American public.
Why do you give green cards to nazis? You don’t give them to communists.
In the UK, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation and, as such, expressing support for Hamas is a criminal offence. Not that the authorities seem keen to prosecute many pro-Hamas protesters.
Just when I thought the left couldn’t find a worse political hill to die on: they oppose deporting professional agitators with terrorist sympathies.
“professional agitators with terrorist sympathies”.
Yes indeed, and everyone arrested for Jan 6 activites, was a professional insurrectionist, bent on destroying freedom and democracy in the US and replacing it with an authoritarian right-wing dictatorship.
The Left seized Seattle for a month and suffered no punishment. Take your Repressive Tolerance back to Europe.
Sorry TB, I’m not European. I am a right wing American Conservative Christian who has been active in pro-life since the early 90s. I have been battling media lies and left wing shenanigans for the last 30 years. I have also been aware all of that time of the deep state and the strings that it pulls.
I am also a historian and have read the Bible cover to cover many more than 10 times. I stand on the side of Truth and on the side of the teachings of Jesus. For all of these reasons, I stand against the Zionist agenda, (which is supported by all of the players who brought you BLM and Seatle).
Debate me on any of them, I am more than wiling.
I’m a Conservative Christian myself, Mark.
Israel like any free nation is full of Secular Liberals and Religious Conservatives. I don’t believe leaders like Netanyahu secretly supported BLM. I just don’t. So, I don’t know who you’re declaring a “Zionist.”
The global left wing movements that evolved out of Marxism are Gnostic in orientation from Southeast Asia to South America. In some places they’ve even melded with the Church to create heretical “Liberation Theologies.”
The question here is whether mass disuption and creating a hostage audience is speech. You have the right to stand on the sidewalk and yell at me. You don’t have the right to block my vehicle in order to yell at me.
No disagreement with you on global left wing movements. Regarding Zionism, I am saying that the entities that have supported BLM, Antifa, the Covid emergancy and other shenanigans, is also supporting the Zionist agenda to the hilt.
The question here is whether there is currently “mass disruption” and a “hostage audience”. It was somewhat funny to see the leftist students, who hithertoo have had the “powers that be”, support them, get a bloody nose when they tried 1968 style takeovers in the last year. However, just because the students have taken up the Palestinian cause does not invalidate that cause: A broken clock it right twice a day.
Regardless of whether one finds merit in the students message, (assuming one even bothers to hear it), what is currently being done is an effort to undermine free speech via selective enforcement of law. That should be chilling to everyone who has an ounce of sence. As Tolkien said via Gandalf “a treacherous weapon is ever a danger to the hand”.
Ok so your position is that they’re just engaging in ordinary protected speech and being suppressed simply for holding an unpopular viewpoint?
The problem with that is they’ve set up Encampments. They’ve broken windows and occupied buildings. They’re using bullhorns and covering their faces in ways that are clearly foreign and threatening to the western mind. If Israeli protesters were acting the same way, I would object because its objectively intimidating.
You can take any one thing they’re doing outside of vandalism and maybe make a technical case. But when you put it all together it’s hard not to see the tactics as being within the Alinsky playbook.
Compare the methods to Pro-Life protesters targeted by the Biden Administration.
Again, those who have resorted to takeovers or vandalism have been duly punished and are no longer there. The encampments were cleared by the authorities, (and they never were blocking egress). Have they reappeared?
Both sides are using Bullhorns, why aren’t the ADL bullhorn people treated the same way.
Yes, I maintain it is selective enforcement designed to shut down the message.
A bunch of masked “protesters” just recently took over Barnard College Library and wouldn’t leave until their demands were met.
How should the government respond to that? Just allow them to exclude others from the library indefinitely?
Punishment should fit the crime. Those students should be disciplined. But the punishment must fit the crime. Being thrown in the tank and charged with criminal tresspass is acceptable. Expulsion from the University is also acceptable.
However, you cannot punish those who did not take part in what those particular students did unless you can prove that they were publically “in no uncertain terms” were advocating such a takeover.
In the case of Mahmoud Khali this man did nothing illegal, he has not been charged with crimes, he is being illegally detained and has been taken to a holding facility in LA, (which in my understanding is also illegal). Considering all the illegal “legal” persecutions that happened to Trump as consequence of the patently false and manufactured Russia Gate allegations, I can say, I stood by Trump in the face of this illegal politicization of the Justice Department. I also stand against the same politicization of ICE as a means to shut down free speech.
I’m not questioning whether or not you’re a good person. I believe you are. You stand against unjust persecution. I get it. I’m questioning your assessment of the facts. You do not need to prove moral credentials to me.
I want you to explain to me why a “Protest Movement” needs a University Negotiator if all they’re doing is political speech? Who is he negotiating for? Is it just for people speaking their opinion or is it people occupying buildings?
Trump’s turning them into… whaaaat?
Have these people died? Once again, we see the use of “victim” language to try to elicit an emotive response, one of the hallmarks of the progressive playbook.
Whether or not “few Americans” could pinpoint Jerusalem on a map (such an old trope) i very much doubt anyone except those still in thrall to the failing ideology of the liberal left will care about these deportees.
They are wilting on the vine looking for clicks.
I care. To me the freedom of speech is important, no matter who is speaking.
Does freedom of speech extend to actions such as harassment and obstruction and the incitement of violence against Jewish students?
Unless they happen to be Jews ?
Of course Jews should have the right to speak freely.
Not under Islam they don’t. read the book, it’s all there in black and white.
So I guess those people who lost their jobs because they refused “the Jab” are not martyrs either, but just propagandists using the “victim” playbook.
Remember Jan 6, Remember Kyle Rittenhouse, remember all the times when the apparatus of the state and the press was used against conservatives.
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”. Matthew 7:12.
Martyr? Are you sure? I’d say that ending up back in Gaza sans les vierges looking for a pile of rubble to call home when you were enjoying a sweet deal in NYC pretty much makes you an idiot – not a martyr.
Perhaps in future professional slacktavists may be mindful that not everything they do when “protesting” is covered by free speech laws – especially actively supporting a duly registered terrorist organization and calling for the destruction of a particular racial/religious group.
The bigger picture is that radical students have spent years aggressively protesting – sometimes violently – and preventing even their most moderate opponents from being able to express themselves on campus. And not only did the universities let them act with impunity – they actively suppressed the free speech rights of others under the patently ridiculous claim that mere debate caused ‘trauma’ and ‘harm’ to others.
Given this environment has been allowed to fester for years, perhaps decades, I can’t say I’m surprised that Trump has decided to fight fire with fire. Unfair? Perhaps. A threat to free speech? Probably. But it’s not like he’s acting in a vacuum, and for all the outrage amongst the usual suspects, I’d wager that a majority of Americans are more than happy to show these people the door.
You paint with too broad of a brush. Just cause many militant groups, such as the antifas, used black shirt tactics to shut down free speech with the blessings of the universities, does not mean that these protesters are in any way shape or form alligned with them. However, when you sanction with nothing more than slogans what is happening here, you have joined the ranks of those who supported the antifas.
The anti-Israel rent-a-mob has been using violence and intimidation tactics to shut down and exclude anyone remotely pro-Israel for years. Even at its best it was the hecklers’ veto, not free speech.
Complete and utter BS. Please go after raw video of these events. Listen to what the other side and to say and then judge impartially.
I can tell you all the pro-Israel, (Zionist), talking points. Can you say the same for the other side? Are you aware that the MSM has only been telling the pro-Israeli side of things? Oh yes, they cry crockidile tears over the killing of innocents in the Gaza War, but they cover up the majority of the things that are being done, a for the most part repeat the Israeli talking points.
Oh, and BTW, many of the Right Wing outlets and some Christian ones as well cover up the truth as well. I look for unedited video and try and dig for the truth. I find, just as I found when I was in pro-life events 30 years ago and since, that most of what the media says, (and especially this rent-a-mob stuff, vis-a-vis, the palestinian stuff), to be without any foundation.
You are delusional. MSM is heavily infested with left-wingers and deep-state shills.
Left-wingers propagate anti-Israel narratives originally invented by the Soviet Union after then socialist Israel threw in its lot with the USA during the cold war.
Deep-staters are more subtle but equally nefarious. They want forever-war (the funds flow for which is a major source of deep-state power). They want active conflict between Israel and the Arabs, which suggests they would prefer Israel’s continued existence, but never to allow a decisive win which is the only way one ever gets peace in the middle east. However, if Israel were to disappear, there are plenty enough conflicts to stoke for the purposes of forever war.
As for right-wing anti-semitism: this is just the latest manifestation of age-old Christian anti-semitism. They generally buy libels about alleged Jewish conspiracies to world domination such as the Tsarist forgery: “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
For the record: Christianity and Islam are both have supremacist ideologies. That is their religions have ultimate world adherence to them as a core tenet. Modern Christianity may have toned it down a bit. Islam is still full throttle supremacist. By contrast, Judaism does not aspire to world domination by its religion, but recognises all non-idolators as good people.
In Gen. 12:3, God promises Abram to bless those who bless Abram and in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
These thugs are not martyrs and don’t belong in this country. If they protested against the Islamic regime ruling where they came from they would be killed or thrown into prison until they were old and feeble.
So freedom of speech is a good thing, but if somebody says something you disagree with then they should be deported back to countries that don’t have?
Makes sense to some I’m sure
I have very mixed feelings about this. U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to free speech (even the most vile speech is protected); doesn’t anyone legally residing in the United States (e.g., a green card holder) have free speech rights? (I don’t know, actually.) The whole point of free speech is to tolerate speech that one not only disagrees with but outright loathes. I hate this man’s speech (the content, the argument); but that’s irrelevant, U.S. Constitution-wise.?
Holding a green card is a privilege not a right. As for speech, you have to ask if public disruption is a form of speech.
If you’re running a school and someone organizes a bunch of people to disrupt your classes and prevents learning would you just sit there and take it? The point of University is to educate. You can speak all you want but you’re not entitled to a hostage audience.
“Holding a green card is a privilege not a right”. So if someone was deported by Biden for saying that 2020 was stolen you would be cool with that?
Is he saying it or are he and others physically intimidating students while they’re attempting to be educated?
Please give some proof of that assertion. Yes, I know that there are some pro-Israeli students who have “claimed” that they were intimidated. There are others on the other side who claim the same thing. I have examined many of these cases. They all boil down to he said/she said with no proof whatsoever.
Do you support the “me too” group that says any time that a woman feels that a man has intimidated her, that he should immediately be prosecuted for rape.
It’s the same damn thing. It was wrong when “me too” did it. It was wrong when BLM did it. It was wrong when antifa did it.
And it is wrong here as well.
Just watch videos on YouTube. You don’t have the right to occupy a public building and decorate it however you like. Its a public space. You can’t just make it your own.
Agreed. The students who did that got their comuppance. But that is not the issue hear. When you try and shut them down now, for what happened then, you are joining those that want to censor.
See I think this one is a bit shaky. Protesting in any meaningful form often involves disrupting the public space to some degree. I don’t think it’s a fair exercise of free speech to say yeah you can protest, but only in a closed room that you rented ahead of time, and make sure you aren’t too noisy.
I know that isn’t exactly what you are saying, but it seems like it’s way too easy to apply “disrupting a public space” to just kill a protest and start arresting people. This doesn’t seem like a good precedent to set.
Of course a line has to be drawn somewhere, and until we get all of the exact details of what this guy was doing, it’s hard to really make a judgement. With that said, I think our ability to protest is important, even if it’s something divisive (it usually is).
I hope it turns out that this guy was a real piece of work and all of this was totally deserved. Otherwise, it feels like free speech is slowly becoming this thing that is weaponized by whatever side happens to be in power.
Well the line is when you monopolize the space and block others freedom of movement. You don’t have the right to a hostage audience just like you don’t have the right to block traffic.
If this was the Klan wearing white hoods there would be no argument. You would have almost unanimous recognition of clear intimidation.
Was the line crossed by this individual? To the tune of deportation? I’m not so sure. Nothing I’ve seen reported about this fella shows any ties to Hamas. He hasn’t been charged with a crime either, as far as I know. How is this not an overreach? You mention things like blocking public spaces or traffic, was this guy accused of doing that? Is there evidence? I’m honestly asking because folks seem to be defending this rather voraciously, and without details it just looks like trump homerism. Are we truly being objective here?
Also, adding anecdotes like “if this were the klan…” does nothing to solidify an argument, and in fact makes it look worse. Let’s stick to the topic at hand.
He’s a non-citizen going around to American campuses aiding “Solidarity Encampments.” If you recall at Columbia, vandals broke windows and then occupied Hamilton Hall. That is just one out of many examples. He’s defending and negotiating on behalf of those people.
Explain to me why I as a taxpaying citizen need to support foreign nationals terrorizing American Universities? I get that you can make a bunch of technical arguments and it’s irrelevant that the so-called protesters have no respect for anyone else’s speech…but at some point, Common Sense has to apply.
As long as it is that cut and dried, then I’m with ya. I ask these questions, not for technicalities, but because it matters. A few short steps from this, and you end up with people getting arrested for tweets. Maybe I’m overreacting here, and this ends up as simple as rooting out a few bad actors with green cards. Perhaps I’m the naive one here, I can admit that.
Understood. You’re not wrong that there are technical, legal arguments that can be made. My issue is that the Left weaponizes your values against you by forcing you into technical arguments while overtly trying to silence everyone else with intimidation.
I gotcha, and they absolutely do. I’m no fan of the left, trust me. I just get nervous with first amendment stuff. Thanks for taking the time to engage.
I doubt very seriously that you voted for Trump. You present as rather naive in your comments since you overlook the deep state’s corruption that has been opened for all to see since Trump took office, even if the lame street media tries their best to cover it up or refuse to cover it. If you want a more rich description of the corruption of the Democrats and some republicans, you should try podcasts and subtack sources (Matt Tiabbi, Glen Greenwell, Yascha Mount,, to name a few). It should strike you as curious that what’s been discovered about USAID’s wasted money trails and ridiculous “investments”, not to mention monies directed to Democrat political groups, is the absence of any interest in those little corruptions by the Democrat media and by Democrats themselves. They rails against Trump primarily because he’s exposed them.
So what the media offers you are plaintive appeals expressing sympathy and outright support of Hamas– even as some claim they don’t. Mahmoud Khalil is anti-semitic, pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas and truly repulsive character who is anti-U.S as well as anti-western civilization. You know full well that he wouldn’t last a second in Gaza or any place dominated by the Jihadi death cult leaders if he uttered a single word of criticism of them. So please stop with the handwringing about a noncitizen who according to the actual video evidence and his entire history as a “student” has committed crimes in this country, and who would love to topple both the U.S and western civilization and replace it with his favorite baby killing, women raping, butchers who currently occupy a small section of Gaza. Shed no tears for this cretin who boldly reveals himself to be nothing but a monster.
There’s little question that if the judicial system was not so political this man would swiftly be freed. But Donald Trump is once again pushing boundaries, and once again he’ll likely get away with it.
I am a big fan of what Trump is doing since he got into government but we must be willing to criticise his administration if we think they’re in the wrong.
I think this is very shaky ground. While I have no doubt that I would despise Mahmoud Khalil if I had to listen to his vile nonsense, he is married to an American citizen and is a green card holder. IF he has espoused direct support for Hamas, then he is not protected by the first amendment. If he has committed crimes during the protests he has a right to a trial. If he is criticising Israel without with offering support for a terrorist organisation he should be entitled to free speech.
I am a free speech absolutist; I know it’s always tempting to cheer when it’s your side doing the silencing but censorship is censorship and I hope this is handled in a legally defensible manner.
Here is the relevant part of the DHS Memorandum for the Removal of Mahmoud Khalil:
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL
A. Material Support for a Foreign Terrorist Organization (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B))
•Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010): The Supreme Court held that even non-violent advocacy, when coordinated with an FTO’s goals, constitutes material support under U.S. law.
•United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013): Established that spreading ideological support for an FTO is legally equivalent to direct material assistance.
Khalil’s activities fall squarely within this legal definition of material support, requiring immediate intervention.
Khalil’s activities extend beyond protected speech and instead constitute material support for a terrorist organization.
B. Due Process Considerations Do Not Prevent National Security Removals
•Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953): Held that due process claims do not override national security-based removals.
•Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003): Affirmed that the government may detain and deport non-citizens without extended hearings when security concerns are at stake.
The process for Khalil’s removal fully aligns with federal law and constitutional due process requirements.
This is a national security issue, not a free speech issue.
How exactly did Mahmoud Khalil threaten national security? That’s the weak spot in your argument. He was protesting against Israel. The national security of the United States was not an issue.
I would like the SPECIFICS of how Mahmoud Khalil aided and abetted Hamas even in an “idealogical manner”.
My understanding is that he has used the term “From the River to the Sea”. Guess what Netanyahu also uses that when talking about “Greater Israel”. To advocate for Palestinians, is not to support Hamas. To say that Israel is a terroristic apartheid state and advocate for its destruction and replacement with a state in which all, have equal rights, is not supporting Hamas, nor is it calling for genocide, as the propagandists who advocate and advance Israel’s ethnic cleansing maintain.
Do you, like the ultra-zionists, want to destroy free speech, because, like them, you know that there is another side to the story of the last 75 years, and you know that when people are allowed to hear both sides of the story they might start rethinking some of their assumptions?
Back in 2020 Donald Trump made a big fuss about losing the election to Joe Biden and failed to focus on Republicans winning the two runoff Senate seats in Georgia that election. The Democrats came back to win both seats and with those victories controlled the Senate. That was a huge blow. Donald Trump made a big error.
But everyone makes mistakes. And as Peter Drucker says, strong people have strong weaknesses. You just can’t find people without flaws so you might as well not try. Instead, you must balance strengths against weaknesses.
So I voted for Donald Trump again in 2024. I like some of the things he has done since he won. But more and more, I think his weaknesses outweigh his strengths. If I had it to do over again, I would vote for Kamala Harris. (I can’t believe I am saying that. I hate Kamala Harris. But it’s true — I would vote for her over Donald Trump.)
When Donald Trump appointed Matt Gaetz, Bobby Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and Kash Patel to some of the most important offices in government, I was surprised. And when he gave Elon Musk authority to do whatever he liked, I was shocked. Donald Trump does stupid things sometimes, and needs to be protected against his worst impulses. But these people are more toady than wise delegate.
So mistakes multiply. Donald Trump now seems likely to keep the Liberals in power in Canada. He seems intent on weakening Ukraine. He spouts foolishness about Gaza and Greenland and Panama. He shuts down agencies and fires civil servants on a whim and with cruelty. And now he tries to deport a man for exercising his right to speak.
No Republicans in the House or Senate are standing up to Donald Trump. They probably don’t dare. And he gets strong support from the herd here at UnHerd. But I have had enough of the man. I can’t wait until he is gone.
If I was American I would have likely voted for Trump in the last election, but like you I’m surprised at just how poor he has been.
I’ve been very critical of “the blob” in the past, but perhaps there is a benefit to it occasionally if it can temper the worst impulses of a leader like Trump. I don’t doubt he’s a canny political operator who can connect to different sections of society, but I feel he needs some wise heads around him to rein him in occasionally. Filling the court with lapdogs like Vance (who hated him until it was politically convenient to back him) and letting a ketamine addled Musk do as he pleases is appearing to be a recipe for disaster
Recall that the magnanimous Donald J. Trump (former Democrat) nominated Tulsi Gabbard (former Democrat) and RF Kennedy, Jr. (former Democrat) and appointed Elon Musk (former Democrat) as senior advisor. Of course, 46% of Americans identified as Republicans, compared with 44% as Democrats (Gallup 2025). Besides the Electoral College landslide, could this be why Democrats are irrational and puerile?
I assume all the free speech champions will be along shortly to condemn this…..or more likely most will cheer it on because it’s their preferred side shutting it down
The downvotes would indicate it’s the second option, what a bunch of hypocrites.
No better than the woke that they claim to despise, just two sides of the same utterly depressing coin
Part of the problem is to get people to understand that this is a free speech issue. Too many want to focus on “legitimate consequences for crimes committed”. The case that need to be made EXPLICITLY here, is that when the government enforces laws differently becase of the speech/ideas expressed then this boils down to a free speech issue.
Suppose a town directs its cops enforce speed limits only on cars that have Trump stickers on them. Ones with a Biden or Kamla sticker can go 90 in a 30 zone, but a car with a Trump sticker will get nailed for 31. Not only that, the cop will take two hours performing the usual search and heaven help the person who has any blemish on their record.
Would that not constitute a free speech, rather than a “you broke the law issue”?
Jewish students and professors were actively prevented from moving around freely on their own campuses. That’s intimidation, not speech.
We are not obligated to allow our country’s enemies free reign within our borders, nor do we need to host advocates for Islamic terror.
“Anti-zionist,” which is to say antisemitic activists from overseas don’t need to spread their vile ideas to impressionable college kids in the US. If the door hits them where the good Lord split them, few of us Americans will disagree.
“Jewish students and professors were actively prevented from moving around freely on their own campuses”.
Yes, There were classroom takeovers, for which the responsible parties got their commupance.
There also was an “Insurrection” at the Captiol on Jan 6. Does that mean that every Trump supporter should be censored, jailed and or deported?
You won’t find much objectivity in online forums. We all hope that people will argue in good faith and objectivity, but the bottom line is, when people are behind computer screens hundreds or thousands of miles away, online debate is nearly pointless. Especially in a field as partisan as politics.
It’s not hard to imagine how much different this comment board would look if this was something the Biden administration tried a year ago.
Despite this, it’s good to state your opinions and be as aware of bias (including ones own) as one can. But don’t expect that same courtesy from others.
It’s a shame because the board used to much more nuanced in the comments section, and had a much broader cross section with competing ideas.
However as happens with all internet forums eventually the moderate voices get tired of being shouted down by the loud ideologues and leave, so you merely end up with an echo chamber and a few holdouts.
The board is definitely more American today than it was in the past, and much more partisan as a result. These days any comment that is vaguely critical of Trump/Israel/Russia attracts vitriol and is flagged repeatedly, spending most of its time in moderation as a result
I’d expect a serious analysis of the case to at least mention the legal justification brought by the DOJ for Khalil’s deportation, i.a. support (including advocacy) for a proscribed terrorist organization. But of course, this article is not a serious analysis of the case.
Regarding the essence: permanent residents do not enjoy the same free speech rights as citizens. They are on a probation of sorts. This is to prevent the naturalization of disruptive elements into the country.
To all of you who are wringing your hands about how Trump is not living up to your expectations: the very laxness with which the previous administrations have allowed the US to be swamped with immigrants from undemocratic countries that then promote the norms of the very countries they fled from, is a big reason of why Trump was elected. Americans see the US as being on the same path as Europe in this respect, and many don’t like it. Keep that in mind when criticizing the removal of Khalil from the country.
You are right, a serious analysis of this case would note the justification given for Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest. That serious analysis would also note that the justification was a pretext.
That some don’t like immigrants legally coming into the United States doesn’t justify deporting them illegally. The law is the law.
“…Donald Trump doesn’t like immigrants legally coming into the United States….”
You had been making a good argument through this thread, then you inserted this stupid bit of TDS fantasy.
Good point. Corrected.
A serious analysis would enable to debate whether the justification was a pretext.
Regarding this term, you would presumably contend that the jailing of Al Capone on tax evasion was just a pretext, and that therefore he didn’t belong in jail. To which one can reply: the law is the law.
Al Capone was tried by a prosecutor in a court, given the chance to defend himself, convicted by a jury, and sentenced by a judge. He had the right to appeal.
Mahmoud Khalil was arrested and ordered deported by secretary of state Marco Rubio under an extraordinary provision whereby any noncitizen can be deported for national security reasons. No evidence was given. No judge was involved. No appeal is allowed.
There was no threat to national security. What Mahmoud Khalil did–protesting the invasion of Gaza–was over and done a year ago. He had no connection to Hamas and did nothing to support it.
Let’s hope his 72 year old virgin is waiting for him.
He could find asylum in Ireland.
Anyone who supports Hamas (anyone who is free plasticine is pro Hamas) should be thrown out of the country if they’re not American.
You can support who you want (not terrorist orgs obviously) but you cannot disrupt the lives of normal people.
This is not free speech it’s far left activism.
An why is being for the people who were ethnically cleased from Green Line Israel 75 years ago being pro-Hamas?
Perhaps you should find the Book “Blood Brothers” written by the former arch-bishop of the Galilean Melkite Greek/Catholic church. It talks about his experiences up to the time he became ordained. (The Melkites claim to be descendents of the Christians who have been in the Holy Land since Jesus walked those hills). His family was ethnically cleansed in 48-49, but managed to “sneek back” to where the people in his village relocated after the the Israelis, kicked everyone out, and then destroyed it.
You only know the Zionist version of events. It would do well to know both sides of the story. But, you don’t want to do this. That is why you want those who tell the otherside to be shut up and censored. Knowing the other side might cause you to have to re-think your assumptions.
Mahmoud Khalil is yet another “80/20” gift to Trump. 80% of Americans support the deportation of known terrorists groups and sympathizers, and 20% may not. The US State Department designated HAMAS as a foreign terrorist organization in October 1997.
Unfortunately, unelected USAID apparatchiks kept the money flowing to HAMAS. The U.S. has distributed $2.1 billion in aid to Gaza since HAMAS killed 1,200 people and took 250 hostages on October 7, 2023.
Beginning on 20-Jan-25, The People are sovereign again in the USA. It’s called democracy. USAID is on the ash-heap of history.
Good for Trump! I hope he deports all of these horrible people! America will be better without them!
President Trump is not turning Hamas terrorists into martyrs; the American media is.
You have the right of free speech and peaceful assembly under the Constitution. You do not have the right too disrupt the operation of the university or to verbally or physically harass others
“America citizen he’s isn’t. So whats the point of this article. Maybe just to be anti Jewish?