Mahmoud Khalil’s Arrest Has Nothing to do With Free Speech

The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and a key figure in last year’s campus anti-Israel protests, has sparked intense debate. Is his deportation a necessary move to protect national security, or does it set a dangerous precedent for free speech?

On Saturday, March 15, more than 700 protesters marched from Times Square to Columbus Circle, demanding his release from a Louisiana detention facility, where he awaits deportation. On Columbia’s campus, anti-Israel demonstrators vandalized the home of interim president Katrina Armstrong, stormed the dining area of Trump Tower and gathered outside Federal Plaza Immigration Court. Masked protesters waved Hamas flags and hurled antisemitic slogans at pro-Israel counterprotesters.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has rushed to Khalil’s defense. The New York Times has published multiple articles warning of an impending crackdown on civil liberties, while CNN has worked to rebrand Khalil as a champion of equality for Israelis and Palestinians — conveniently ignoring his open support for Hamas, the terrorist organization responsible for the Oct. 7 massacre of more than 1,200 Israeli civilians.

Progressives and Palestinian activists alike claim Khalil’s detention is an unconstitutional assault on free speech and argue that, without criminal charges, he cannot be deported. Neither claim holds up. This case is about immigration law and national security, not the freedom to express a controversial ideology. Khalil, a Syrian-born green card holder of Palestinian descent, violated the terms of his residency by endorsing Hamas — a U.S.-designated terrorist organization — a deportable offense under federal law.

Green card holders are not U.S. citizens and do not have the same free speech protections as full citizens. They must comply with strict legal requirements to retain their residency status, a fact supported by over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent. 

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3), noncitizens can be deemed ineligible for entry or residency based on security-related grounds, even without criminal charges. Khalil is being prosecuted under subsection (VII), which states: “Any alien who — (I) has engaged in a terrorist activity; … [or] (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization; … is inadmissible.”

Khalil has repeatedly violated this provision and has therefore been deemed by the Department of Homeland Security as subject to deportation under 8 U.S. Code § 1182. Remember, using his endorsement or promotion of terrorist activity as grounds for deportation is not a violation of the First Amendment.

Even if this case warranted a deeper examination of Khalil’s free speech rights, the grounds for his deportation still hold up. Beyond his frequent dissemination of antisemitic rhetoric during protests that left many of my friends traumatized and afraid to go to class, Khalil is also a leader and spokesman of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a coalition formed in 2016 by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). 

SJP/CUAD affiliates have been credibly accused in federal court of providing material support to Hamas and exercising actionable support for the U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. For example, on Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas called for its “resistance abroad” to “join this battle any way they can.” Just hours later, SJP responded by distributing a manifesto aligning itself with Hamas’s “unified command” and calling for “armed struggle” and “confrontation by any means necessary.” 

They kept to their word as well. SJP/CUAD affiliates have engaged in numerous acts of violence on behalf of their terrorist role models, including assault, vandalism, robbery, destruction of property, arson, criminal possession of weapons, burglary, false imprisonment and intimidation. One recent incident saw CUAD members storm Hamilton Hall, leading to 46 arrests for criminal trespassing. Some members have publicly admitted their desire to kill Jews and openly campaign for Hamas.

“You can have all the detestable beliefs you want, but the moment you start acting on them by violently breaking the law, it ceases being a free speech issue,” David Litman, Senior Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) said. “You’re not being punished for your speech, you’re being punished for your conduct, for which your speech was merely incidental.” 

In September, Khalil’s group directly violated 8 U.S. Code § 1182 when they distributed recruitment flyers for Hamas, which included Hamas messaging and identified as “part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the Thawabit and the Palestinian Resistance movement overall.” Additionally, the group recently circulated pro-Hamas propaganda flyers that called on students to “Crush Zionism,” depicted a boot stomping on the Jewish Star of David, praised Operation Al-Aqsa Flood (the Oct. 7 massacre) and displayed the official Hamas Media Office logo. 

Again, this is not about free speech. Khalil and his fellow CUAD members did not simply voice opposition against Israel or U.S. policy — they directly aided and abetted a terrorist organization. In fact, the “help” they provided by distributing Hamas-produced materials, hosting terror-affiliated speakers and promoting Hamas’s ideology under the guise of student activism is distinctly outlined in Hamas’s charter as a crucial aspect of the “resistance movement.” Hamas has even thanked CUAD for their devotion to the cause of wiping Israel and its people from the map. 

Why so many think the U.S. government should overlook this is truly beyond my comprehension. Would the same media outlets be defending Khalil if he were an ISIS supporter? If a student was caught distributing ISIS recruitment materials, would journalists rush to portray him as a victimized, misunderstood activist? Would members of Congress demand his release?

Of course not. But since Israel’s war against Hamas began, the media has consistently been more concerned with the consequences for Israel’s enemies than with the actions that warranted those consequences in the first place. 

The media’s rush to portray Khalil as the victim of an unlawful administration rather than an arch-terrorist who violated the terms of his residency reveals a deep institutional failure that even a federal band-aid like this can’t fix. This narrative manipulation, where a student who openly aligned himself with Hamas is reduced to a “political activist,” is exactly why anti-Israel protests continue unfettered. The government is stepping in because universities like Columbia refuse to enforce their own rules. But federal intervention is not a substitute for institutional change. 

I don’t know how the courts will rule on Khalil’s deportation — legally, he can only be removed after a federal court hearing. What I do know is this: Holding one antisemite accountable for his actions is a step in the right direction, but it does not solve the problem. If the deep-seated culture of permissibility surrounding attacks on Israel remains unchecked, another Jew-hating “activist” will soon rise in Khalil’s place, emboldened and protected by the same institutions that allowed him to thrive.

The author of this article is a fellow at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).

---

Photo Caption: Protests in Thomas Paine Park against the detention of Palestinian activist and Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons