Hey, it’s Sharon. Thanks for reading today. The Preamble is a reader-supported publication. Our goal is to bring you fact-filled, useful articles with a moral compass. We don’t have corporate backers, and would be so grateful if you took a moment to subscribe.
On Saturday, Mahmoud Khalil walked into the lobby of his student house apartment building, not knowing that plainclothes officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were waiting for him. Within moments, they surrounded him, took him into custody, and led him outside. During the process, Khalil’s wife, an American citizen who is eight months pregnant, was also threatened with arrest.
Khalil was quickly transferred from New York to an immigration jail in Louisiana, a state known for its conservative federal courts.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the US and also a recent graduate of Columbia University, has not been charged with a crime. Yet he was suddenly swept into a complex legal and political battle.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the government’s effort to deport Khalil. Another hearing is scheduled for today.
Crackdown on protests
Khalil is the first known person to face deportation under President Trump’s plan to crack down on student protests, particularly pro-jihadist protests.
In perhaps what was a foreshadowing of recent events, Trump signed an executive order in January promising to “combat antisemitism,” saying in a related fact sheet, “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”
Khalil was the face of the pro-Palestinian protests on the Columbia campus that condemned Israel’s military action in Gaza. He also led negotiations after protesters occupied a university building, then refused to leave. As the standoff continued, Columbia called NYC police to arrest hundreds of protesters who wouldn’t vacate university grounds.
The student protesters wanted the university to cut ties with Israel during the war in Gaza. They called for an end to student exchange programs, the closure of Columbia's campus in Tel Aviv, and more transparency about the school’s investments.
Khalil is believed to have joined a January protest where four masked demonstrators entered a Columbia University class about the history of Israel, taught by an Israeli professor, and accused the school of "normalizing genocide."
He was also being investigated by a new Columbia group called the Office of Institutional Equity. It brought disciplinary charges against dozens of students who have criticized Israel, according to records shared with the Associated Press.
The university’s allegations against Khalil focused on his involvement in the Columbia University Apartheid Divest group. He faced sanctions for possibly helping to organize an “unauthorized marching event” where some participants glorified Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack, and for playing a “substantial role” in sharing social media posts criticizing Zionism, among other alleged acts of discrimination.
Khalil said he was accused of misconduct just weeks before his graduation in December. “I have about 13 allegations against me, and most of them are social media posts I had nothing to do with,” he told the Associated Press.
Multiple videos on social media claim to show Khalil leading pro-Palestinian demonstrations in New York. Here is one example:
Here’s another claiming to show Khalil:
The Trump administration’s focus recently expanded into threats towards universities that engaged in “illegal protests.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump said, “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on … the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
A few days later, the Trump administration canceled about $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia.
In a statement explaining the decision to cancel, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said that Columbia had not followed federal anti-discrimination laws.
“Since October 7, Jewish students have faced relentless violence, intimidation, and anti-Semitic harassment on their campuses — only to be ignored by those who are supposed to protect them,” she said. “Universities must comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”
It’s a clear message for other institutions, too. The federal government holds valuable pursestrings.
And Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights and head of the Department of Justice task to combat antisemitism, said that, “Freezing funds is one of the tools we are using to respond to this spike in anti-Semitism. This is only the beginning… it’s our strongest signal yet that the Federal Government is not going to be party to an educational institution like Columbia that does not protect Jewish students and staff.”
Khalil’s detention
Court documents filed by Khalil’s attorney say he was taken to a Manhattan holding facility before being transferred to Louisiana, more than a thousand miles away. His attorneys also allege that his detention occurred without access to counsel and that he was not given the legal justification that was being used to detain him.
Columbia says that law enforcement must have a warrant in order to make an on-campus arrest, but they declined to say whether they had been presented with one before Khalil was taken into custody.
Federal law permits ICE to detain immigrants without a warrant, but only if they have a reason to believe that the immigrant would escape before they had a chance to get a warrant.
Two people familiar with the situation said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Khalil's detention under a 1952 law that gives the Secretary of State the power to remove an immigrant if they have "reasonable grounds to believe" that the person’s presence could have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Despite its existence for over 70 years, this law had never been used before.
It’s also possible that the government could argue that Khalil’s on-campus activities violate a statute that says immigrants are inadmissible if they are the representative of “a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.”
A Department of Homeland Security statement said, “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas.” They didn’t elaborate on what this meant.
On Fox News, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, claimed that Khalil had violated his visa terms by "locking down buildings and destroying property," during the Columbia protests.
Rubio doubled down on the administration’s stance on X, saying, “Those who support designated terrorist organizations, including Hamas, threaten our national security. The United States has zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists. Violators of U.S. law – including international students – face visa denial or revocation, and deportation.”
On Monday, the White House celebrated Khalil’s arrest, shouting in call caps, “SHALOM, MAHMOUD.
‘ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come.’ –President Donald J. Trump.”
First Amendment
And then we come to perhaps what will become the heart of the matter: the First Amendment.
The First Amendment applies to Mahmoud Khalil.
And so do immigration laws.
When these two collide with each other, which one is given precedent?
It’s possible Khalil will claim the government is retaliating against him for speech it doesn’t like. And even if Khalil is able to demonstrate with strong evidence that the government is doing just that, under current Supreme Court precedent, it would not necessarily stop the Trump administration from deporting him. Even if he was engaged in Constitutionally protected speech, it would not by default grant him immunity from the government’s removal actions.
This is undoubtedly heading for a big court showdown, and perhaps may end up at the Supreme Court: must the government demonstrate a clear and present danger to foreign policy in order to remove a legal immigrant? If not, this could pave the way for the removal of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, under the guise of, “the fact that you’re here creates tension between us and the government of your country of origin, so you’re being deported.”
What standard of evidence must the government meet when saying an immigrant has ties to a foreign terror organization? Is holding a sign that says “Globalize the Intifada,” or, “From the river to the sea” sufficient, or must there be more direct links, like encrypted messages with planned actions and financial support?
All of this remains to be seen, and all of this has broad implications, not just for students, but for immigrants of all types.
Other legal claims
Another legal front that will soon play out is about the fact that Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, or green card holder.
Central to Khalil’s argument is the distinction between revoking a visa and deporting a green card holder. While the government has broad authority to revoke a student visa, green card holders have Constitutional rights similar to those of a citizen.
It’s important to note that immigration courts are separate from the federal court system, and that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over all questions related to immigration. In this case, Khalil’s attorneys are attempting to argue that as a lawful permanent resident, he is entitled to certain due process rights that are not awarded to student visa holders, and that the government’s actions are in violation of these due process rights.
Public and political reaction
Khalil’s detention has lit a match to the dry kindling of public opinion on immigration and protests.
In Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “If the federal government can disappear a legal U.S. permanent resident without reason or warrant, then they can disappear U.S. citizens too. Anyone – left, right, or center – who has highlighted the importance of constitutional rights and free speech should be sounding the alarm now.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, sees it differently. Asked by reporters, “What crime did Mahmoud Khalil commit to warrant his arrest?” he said:
“If you are on a student visa and you’re in America and you're an aspiring young terrorist who wants to prey upon your Jewish classmates, you're going home. We're gonna arrest your -- tail, and we're gonna send you home where you belong,” he said. “Look, I appreciate free speech. I used to defend it in courts, but this is far beyond the pale of that, when you are threatening your classmates and spewing anti-semitism and hatred, it’s enough.”
Conservative columnist Bethany Mandel says Khalil’s activities on campus went well beyond freedom of speech.
“He was handing out literature from [militant groups] Hamas, from Hezbollah, and he was running the encampments that violently took over school buildings," she said. “The federal government did what Columbia University should have done and removed him from campus.”
Some members of the Columbia community rallied in support of Khalil, with faculty and students calling for his release. Protests continued in New York, where organizers accused the Trump administration of suppressing political speech under the banner of national security.
At one Tuesday rally, some of Khalil's supporters wore white-and-black keffiyehs, a traditional Middle Eastern headdress, to show support for Palestinians and waved Palestinian flags while calling his detention political. Others held signs urging Columbia to cut financial ties with Israel, and some signs read "Melt ICE."
What’s next?
As Khalil’s legal battle unfolds, the broader implications become clear. The Trump administration’s strategy raised questions about the limits of executive power, the protection of immigrant rights, and the potential targeting of political dissenters. The outcome of Khalil’s case could shape how the government wields immigration law in the years to come.
Whether the courts ultimately side with Khalil or the White House, his case has already become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over immigration, civil rights, and political freedom in the United States.