The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and anti-Israel activist, tests President Donald Trump’s new policy to deport foreign nationals backing terrorist groups. The first case of its kind, it has ignited media frenzy and protests. How it unfolds could significantly influence the political climate during the initial phase of Trump’s second term.
Khalil, a green card holder, was highly visible in his role as lead negotiator during the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” protests on behalf of the activist group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. This group has made numerous statements of support for Hamas’s terrorist attack in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, at one point calling it a “political, military, and moral victory.” This would appear to provide Secretary of State Marco Rubio with “reasonable grounds to believe” Khalil’s presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” which is the standard under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Legally, the Trump administration’s case against Khalil appears robust. Yet, certain aspects make the situation politically hazardous, including his marriage to a pregnant U.S. citizen. The legacy media’s effort to frame Khalil as a victim and Immigration and Customs Enforcement as an aggressor is well underway. The Trump administration will need to proceed with the type of calculation and messaging discipline often lacking during his first term.
The law backs deportation
On the legal front, the facts of the case make green card revocation and deportation highly likely. Under the INA, Rubio needs only “reasonable grounds to believe” that Khalil’s presence or activities in the U.S. will have an adverse effect on U.S. foreign policy. The administration does not need to prove that Khalil gave material support to Hamas, which the U.S. designated a terrorist organization in 1997, nor a criminal conviction to win in court, but only a credible foreign policy risk. The available evidence — that Khalil served as the public face of a group that openly supports Hamas — already makes that case well, and it is likely that not all evidence has been made public yet.
There is also abundant legal precedent bolstering the administration’s case. This includes Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), which found that the attorney general’s decision to deny entry to a Belgian journalist based on his advocacy of communism was not a violation of his First Amendment rights. Though Khalil’s permanent resident status, unlike a visa holder’s, strengthens his legal position, precedent still favors the executive having a wide latitude in immigration matters tied to foreign policy. Other cases, such as Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1967) and Fiallo v. Bell (1977), bolster the administration’s contention that the executive can interpret the INA in broad terms.
Khalil’s best shot at retaining his green card is arguing that his speech during the protests was constitutionally protected and that his activities did not amount to deportable offenses. He will doubtless lean on his clean criminal record, his permanent resident status, and his personal story — Khalil is a graduate student in applied mathematics with a baby on the way — to convince a judge, whether in federal or immigration court, that he does not pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy.
Given the established precedent of the government’s wide latitude in such cases, Khalil is perceived as the underdog in court.
Rubio’s reasonable approach
The court of public opinion, however, is another matter. As yet, the Trump administration and its media surrogates have struggled to craft a clear, compelling, and consistent public narrative regarding the Khalil case. The tone has ranged from matter-of-fact to zealous, while the details different officials have chosen to emphasize have ranged widely. If the Democratic Party has suffered from overly uniform messaging in recent weeks — before Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress earlier this month, various high-ranking Democrats released a video reading the exact same, curse-laden script — the GOP is suffering from messaging chaos regarding Khalil.
The discrepancy appears to begin at the very top of the party’s food chain, between the president and his most senior Cabinet member.
On one hand, Rubio has opted to emphasize the common sense inherent in the administration’s decision to identify and deport foreign nationals who openly support long-designated terrorist organizations. This approach orients the public away from the broader, emotionally charged ideological struggle and toward the unassailable specifics of the administration’s case.
“If you tell us, when you apply, ‘Hi, I’m trying to get into the United States on a student visa. I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in captivity … and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities’ … we would deny your visa,” Rubio told reporters Wednesday.
“This is about people who don’t have the right to be in the United States to begin with,” he added. “No one has the right to a student visa. No one has the right to a green card, by the way.”
Rubio’s approach wins on two counts. First, it underscores the preposterous idea that noncitizens who brazenly engage in behavior that runs contrary to the interests of the U.S. have a right to reside within the U.S., which is precisely the notion Khalil and his numerous allies in the Democratic Party are attempting to defend.
This isn’t legal or political jujitsu, it is simply common sense. Of course, a sovereign nation should deport foreign nationals working for its sworn enemy. It isn’t a difficult case to make, it merely requires discipline.
Second, the commonsense approach opens the door to point out a number of hypocritical positions Khalil’s backers have taken. For instance, following a decade of speech policing, it is the height of hypocrisy for the academic Left to suddenly embrace the First Amendment. A professor who accidentally misgendered students might lose his tenure, but a pro-Hamas foreign national who creates a “Zionist-free zone” is just exercising his free speech? As a purely political matter, Khalil’s backers don’t have a leg to stand on here.
Trump’s bombast
Trump’s approach, by contrast, threads none of these needles and opens numerous doors for the public to sympathize with Khalil. Here is his Truth Social post on the subject, issued immediately following the announcement of the arrest:
“Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University. … We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. … We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country.”
The problems with this approach are numerous.
From the very beginning, Trump frames the Khalil arrest as a special action he has taken, making it about him. Whereas Rubio’s focus on the law and common sense disarms the opposition, Trump’s focus on himself galvanizes the opposition and fuels the public perception that something new and unsettling is happening, as opposed to a well-established law finally being enforced.
Trump’s bombast turns a winnable case into a personal crusade, handing the Left a martyr it doesn’t deserve.
Additionally, Trump’s lack of specificity regarding the kind of student his executive order is meant to target, namely noncitizen students, could make Khalil appear persecuted for his views and Trump appear tyrannical. Trump’s Truth Social post was widely shared among progressives who made exactly this point.
Indeed, making Khalil out to be a victim of persecution is the only card the Left has to play in this case. And they haven’t been shy about playing it. Columbia faculty members have begun labeling Khalil as a “political prisoner,” and the hashtag #FreeKhalil has over 100,000 posts on X.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S CHRIS MURPHY PROBLEM
But Khalil is not a victim. He’s a calculated agitator who understands the risks involved. The public should be reminded of this regularly.
The fate of Khalil’s case could cement Trump’s immigration crackdown — or unravel it. A clean win in both the legal and political arenas keeps his agenda on track.