Earlier this month, Mahmoud Khalil, an American resident and Palestinian student at Columbia University known for his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests, was abruptly arrested while heading to his apartment. In a confusing, dystopian video taken by Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, four United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are seen handcuffing the student, refusing to answer Abdalla’s questions even though she was clearly distressed, and taking Khalil away to immigration custody. This arrest is a violation of the first amendment, and a danger to every American’s right to free speech.
President Donald Trump’s administration has highlighted their plans to deport illegal immigrants with the intention to protect the country, but Khalil’s arrest is too out of the ordinary to be part of immigration policy. He has been a green-card holder ever since he got married, so why was he arrested by ICE?
It became clear when the Trump administration posted on Instagram, with bolded letters and graphics made to insinuate that the student was a war criminal, that they used ICE to detain Khalil because of his alleged leadership of activities aligned with Hamas. Trump was quoted as stating that this arrest is, “the first of many to come.”
That answer came with more questions. What did Khalil do? Was there an investigation into activities that the public wasn’t aware about? And if Khalil was truly involved in activities aligned with Hamas, why was he detained by ICE and not charged with a crime? Any involvement in an American-labeled terrorist organization would absolutely call for a criminal charge, or at least an investigation.
A few days later, those answers were given. Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, stated that, “under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who serve or are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America … this is an individual who organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda fliers with the logo of Hamas.”
Contrary to Leavitt’s claims, there is no evidence that Khalil was ever involved in any violent protest with antisemitic rhetoric. And further, the claims about pro-Hamas fliers are shockingly weak. A few days before this arrest, Khalil attended and spoke at a protest for the expulsion of two pro-Palestine protestors at Barnard College. At the protest, videos were taken of fliers on tables credited to the “Hamas Media Office.” There was never a video of Khalil with the fliers in hand, no testimony by any witnesses that he handed one to them and no public or traceable investigation into his alleged association with these materials by any department of the Federal government.
This case harkens back to the National Socialist Party’s 1977 protest in Skokie, Illinois. A group of 25 to 50 neo-Nazis planned to hold a protest in the largely Jewish populated village of Skokie until, in an attempt to stop the march, the village sued them. The Supreme Court upheld that this group had the right to peacefully march throughout Skokie. While controversial, this case is foundational to the American understanding of our right to free speech. It meant that no matter how deplorable, crude or appalling your views may be, you have a right to express them peacefully.
Khalil’s support for Palestine and criticism of Israel’s policies are views that President Trump and his associates disagree with. In response, the Trump administration has weaponized ICE to silence a student opposing their views. They couldn’t charge Khalil with a crime on his alleged “activities aligned with Hamas” because there was no evidence. A criminal case would require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict Khalil, while an immigration case would only require a “clear and convincing standard” to deport him. The only way the Trump administration could shut down a student who was expressing their right to free speech was by attempting to deport him.
Whether you agree or disagree with what Khalil had been protesting, his arrest threatens every American’s right to free speech. If actions like this are “the first of many to come” by the Trump administration, don’t expect this to stop at just pro-Palestine protestors, any voice can be silenced.
Eric • Apr 9, 2025 at 5:58 pm
The Hofstra Chronicle staff continues to show its bias against Jews, no matter where they live, in this column. During the SJP protests on campus they barely mentioned that Jewish students were harassed and intimidated by SJP supporters. But in this column they have chosen to rewrite history.
National Socialist Party’s 1977 protest in Skokie, Illinois was the American and Skokie, IL was not just a city with a “ largely Jewish populated village”. In 1977 the population of Skokie was 60,000, 50% were Jewish, and 7000 of the jews were Holocaust survivors. Making them 11% of the total population of Skokie. The message that the NAzi’s delivered was on of hate and violence. They were aided and abetted by a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU. The same ACLU that aided and abetted White Supremacists in Charlottesville. In the aftermath of Charlottesville the ACLU announced that they would no longer help groups that espoused violence and hate.
If the Chronicle is going to tell the story of Skokie, IL they need to tell the whole story instead of alternate facts.
Peter Massarrone • Apr 15, 2025 at 3:54 pm
Thanks for contributing your feedback Eric. To my understading, there is no bias against Jews or attempt to rewrite history in this article.
This article focuses on the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, and the right to free speech it challenges. This article does not comment on the the column’s response to alleged antisemtism at protests. The issue of antisemitism at college protests is important and deserves its own conversation outside of what’s being talked about here.
Regarding Skokie, IL, my description of the villiage as being “largely Jewish,” speaks as to why the National Socialist Party chose to protest in this area. The message by the Nazi’s that this protest drew at this time was not ruled to be hate speech by the Illnois Supreme Court, despite the use of swastikas. It is a controversial ruling and a case that can be argued extensively.
The difference between Charlottesville and Skokie was the level of violence that occurred at the Unite the Right Rally. The neo-Nazi’s never marched in Skokie, despite their legal victory. They instead went to peacefully march in Chicago to little attention by news publications and supporters of their cause. The way the ACLU handled both these cases is important, notably denouncing their support of the white supremacists in Charlottesville after seeing the reports of violence from the event.
These specfic issues surrounding protests are important, but turn away from the core of the article. Free speech is being challenged in America, and it’s up to us to make sure it is held up, no matter what a person believes.