��֭����

For months, the Trump administration  its targeting of prominent pro-Palestinian activists like Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Moshen Mahdawi by  that the reasons for their pending deportation went beyond mere speech. But    confirm the Trump administration’s legal basis for targeting these individuals was never unlawful conduct. Instead, the administration targeted them solely for protected speech — and expected a First Amendment fight from the start. 

The government cast these cases as responses to unlawful conduct, but they actually rest on protected speech

On March 8, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and vocal pro-Palestine advocate. Rather than charging Khalil with a crime, the Trump administration attempted to deport him based on a pair of seldom-used provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act,  and . Together, these provisions authorize the Secretary of State to render a noncitizen deportable if he “personally determines” the person’s “lawful” activities are compromising a “compelling foreign policy interest.” 

FIRE is currently challenging this provision in court on First Amendment grounds because it allows the government to turn lawful expression into a deportable offense. The INA already has  enabling immigration authorities to take action if a noncitizen actually engages in terrorism or provides material support to terrorist groups. The administration relied on none of them with Khalil, clinging only to the provision covering “lawful” activities. That speaks volumes.

Unsealed documents confirm the administration targeted Khalil for protected speech

When the administration defended its targeting of Khalil in the media, officials hinted there was something more than his pro-Palestine opinions driving their decision. For example, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin  that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.” Rubio, after Khalil’s initial arrest,  he was using his INA power to go after “Hamas supporters in America.” These comments insinuated that the administration was relying on something more than Khalil’s protected political advocacy to target his immigration status. 

It wasn’t. The unsealed records reveal that administration officials’ private assessment was that Khalil’s actions were lawful speech. He was,  Senior Officer of the Bureau of Consular Affairs John Armstrong, “involved in numerous pro-Palestinian protests, including serving as the lead negotiator of an encampment at Columbia in April 2024.” Another file  that Khalil participated in “antisemitic protests.” 

In defense of fiery words

In the wake of political violence, calls to criminalize rhetoric are growing louder. But Brandenburg v. Ohio set the bar — and it’s a high one.

Read More

Conspicuously absent from the records was any assessment Khalil engaged in conduct falling outside the First Amendment’s protection. Though the documents insinuated a tie between Khalil and the occupation of Barnard’s library, they do not actually allege Khalil was involved in the occupation. Likewise,  in one unsealed record that they “are not aware of any prior arrests or citations for Khalil regarding unlawful activity.” 

Officials also  that, aside from the provision allowing Secretary Rubio to render someone deportable for “lawful” activities, they haven’t “identified any alternative grounds for removability that would be applicable,” such as the provision allowing for the “removability for aliens who have provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity.” In other words, without anything else to justify his deportation, the administration had to hang its actions on Khalil's speech.

Officials admitted they targeted Ozturk based solely on an op-ed

Nineteen days after Khalil’s arrest, masked federal agents  pro-Palestinian Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen with an F-1 student visa, on the streets of Boston. Agents threw Ozturk into a van and  thousands of miles to a remote Louisiana detention facility. Unbeknownst to Ozturk, DHS had revoked her visa days prior without telling her. 

To revoke Ozturk’s visa, the administration relied on an  allowing the Secretary of State to “at any time, in his discretion” revoke a visa. The provision contains no language prohibiting a visa revocation from being predicated upon the holder’s protected speech. ��֭����’s lawsuit challenges this provision, too, arguing that it violates the First Amendment to the extent it authorizes a visa revocation based on protected speech.

Detaining Öztürk over an op-ed is unlawful and un-American

A Tufts international student's detention for writing an op-ed revives the ghost of the Alien Acts and puts the First Amendment at risk.

Read More

The government’s public-facing comments about Ozturk mirror those about Khalil, implying evidence of unlawful conduct but providing evidence of none. McLaughlin  that “investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans.” But the unsealed records show officials acknowledged Ozturk’s visa revocation was based solely on her co-authorship of an  in Tufts’ student newspaper. The op-ed criticized the university’s reluctance to divest from Israeli companies or call Israel’s operations in Gaza a “genocide.” 

One record, a  from Armstrong to ICE officials, suggested Ozturk was involved in “associations… that may undermine U.S. foreign policy.” The association in question? Tufts’ FIREfor Justice in Palestine chapter, which was on suspended status. But the unsealed records reveal the only connective tissue between Ozturk and SJP is the fact that an SJP representative co-signed the op-ed with an organization Ozturk belonged to. The documents reveal no membership, role, coordination, or concrete conduct linking Ozturk to the group. In fact, the records expressly acknowledge that officials had no basis to believe Ozturk was involved in any way with the events leading to SJP’s suspension.

Plus, even if the “association” were deeper than a co-signature, the First Amendment protects association just as it protects speech. So no matter how the administration slices it, they ambushed, transported, and now are attempting to deport Ozturk for protected expression. 

The unsealed records confirm the administration has no evidence Mahdawi engaged in unlawful conduct 

The Trump administration is also  Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student who has been a lawful permanent resident for over a decade. Mahdawi, like Khalil, was involved in protests at Columbia. When Mahdawi arrived at a Vermont USCIS office to complete one of the final steps in his citizenship process,  on the spot. 

As with Khalil and Ozturk, the government’s public framing implied actions beyond protected speech. In an  styled as “THE REAL STORY,” the agency attempted to style Mahdawi as a “terrorist sympathizer and national security threat.” 

But one  reveals that Mahdawi’s alleged “conduct” is that he led “pro-Palestinian protests” and “call[ed] for Israel’s destruction.” As FIREhas explained, this is expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. The records also revealed the government targeted Mahdawi because of a pro-Palestinian poem he wrote.

Protesting, chants, and poems are textbook protected speech. Tellingly, the Trump administration  in the unsealed records that a “search of interagency databases on March 14 did not reveal any record indicating that the interagency currently assesses that Mahdawi has links to terrorism.” As with Khalil, , “DHS/ICE/HSI has not identified any alternative grounds of removability applicable to Mahdawi, including any indication that Mahdawi has provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity, as defined in the INA.” Unsurprisingly, then, the administration was again forced to rely on the “foreign policy” provision to target Mahdawi, the one triggered solely by “lawful” activities that FIREis now challenging.

The administration anticipated First Amendment challenges to its unprecedented assertion of immigration power

The government’s interpretation of these two INA provisions as a blank check to target noncitizens based on protected speech is unprecedented. , a March 8, 2025 memo from Armstrong to Rubio, is illustrative. In the memo, Armstrong cautioned that “We are not aware of any prior exercises of the Secretary’s removal authority in  … [and] courts may scrutinize the basis for these determinations.” 

The administration also anticipated First Amendment risk to its theory. In a March 15, 2025  from Armstrong to Rubio, Armstrong wrote: “Given the potential that a court may consider [Mahdawi’s] actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment, it is likely that courts will closely scrutinize the basis for this determination. We understand that Khalil intends to seek an injunction… and we could anticipate Mahdawi to do the same.” 

So to Speak Podcast Transcript: On Mahmoud Khalil

First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza and immigration lawyer Jeffrey Rubin join the show to discuss the arrest, detention, and possible deportation of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil.

Read More

If the government’s decision to target Khalil, Ozturk, and Mahdawi were actually based on evidence that they were involved in terrorism, the proof would be in the pudding. They’d proceed under the INA’s settled provisions related to . Instead, they’re relying on broad, discretionless grants of power to revoke a visa for “any” reason and a statute solely confined to “lawful” activities. 

But the First Amendment stands tall in the United States and prohibits the government from retaliating against you because of what you have to say. The Supreme Court  that that protection remains intact regardless of your immigration status. It is thus unsurprising that the government anticipated First Amendment challenges from the start. 

That anticipation was prescient. In late September 2025, a federal district court  that the administration’s targeting of noncitizens for deportation based on protected speech violated the First Amendment. These unsealed records, released with the final judgment of that case, confirm that, despite the administration’s attempted winks and head-fakes to the contrary, targeting Khalil, Ozturk, and Mahdawi has always been predicated solely on their protected speech. 

And that, as ��֭���� has repeatedly explained, violates the First Amendment.