The US has detained Mahmoud Khalil, and intends to deport him. Khalil has a provisional green card and is married to a US citizen, but (importantly!) isn’t a US citizen himself. There are numerous documented instances in which he or the organization he leads, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) have supported the actions of Hamas and even called for the overthrow of Western civilization. Here are some facts about the case.

  1. On October 9, 2024, the New York Times reported that CUAD said “We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance.” This was part of a statement that withdrew an apology for a CUAD member who said that “Zionists don’t deserve to live”. CUAD praised Al-Aqsa Flood, the Hamas invasion of Israel that killed over 1200 Israelis. None of this is in dispute.
  2. During a March 2025 protest at Barnard co-organized by CUAD, protesters handed out Hamas brochures justifying the October 7th massacre.
  3. Mahmoud Khalil is a leader (officer or representative) of CUAD. CNN reported “Instead, he [Khalil] gave speeches and was one of the students selected to lead discussions with university administrators on behalf of Columbia University Apartheid Divest...” Similarly, the New York Post reported “He served as CUAD’s lead negotiator with the schools’ administration on numerous occasions…”. It’s clear from these reports that Khalil is a representative of CUAD.
  4. Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and has been since 1997.

Given all of these facts, can the US deport Khalil? What about free speech?

Many organizations, including FIRE, which I support, have said that this is a free speech issue. It isn’t. There are two separate statements that are both simultaneously true:

  1. All persons in the United States, regardless of citizenship status, are entitled to First Amendment rights, including the right of freedom of speech.
  2. Foreigners do not have the right to be in the United States. Rather, they may be granted the privilege of visiting the US.

Statement (1) means that the US may not jail anyone for what they say, with very few exceptions. This applies to foreigners such as Khalil as well as to citizens. So the US may not imprison Khalil for anything he said.

However, statement (2) also applies: Khalil is allowed to visit the US as long as he abides by the terms of his visa or (in his case) green card. If he violates those terms, he can’t be imprisoned, but he can (and should!) be deported for the violation. 8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens is a federal law that lists conditions under which foreigners may be deported. It’s important to note that several of the conditions that allow for deportation are not, of themselves, crimes. Section (a)(5) specifies that a foreigner who becomes a public charge may be deported under some conditions, even though becoming a public charge isn’t a crime. Section (a)(4) lists security and related grounds as reasons for deportation. In particular, Section (a)(4)(B) says that “[a]ny alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.” So what does Section 1182(a)(3)(B) say?

Section 1182(a)(3)(B) lists terrorist activities that, while they may not all be criminal, are sufficient to make an alien deportable. (a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) specifically lists “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”(a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb) states “is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity.” Given that Khalil has both explicitly supported the actions of October 7th and has served as a representative of CUAD, which, as an organization, supported the actions of October 7th, and that both Khalil and CUAD continue to endorse the actions of Hamas, a US-designated terror organization, it’s clear that Khalil meets the requirements for deportation.

Constitutionality

The question is whether this law is constitutional, or whether it violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. There’s a great Free Press article on the subject, but I’ll add my own 2 cents.

First, the law doesn’t violate the First Amendment. The government doesn’t restrict what anyone can say, regardless of their citizenship. Nobody is jailed for what they say, and the government makes no attempt to limit speech. Khalil isn’t being threatened with jail for his speech, though he could face jail time or other penalties for the crimes of trespass, vandalism, or assault during the protests. The potential issue is that deporting foreigners for what they say could chill foreigners’ speech, but it should have no impact on what citizens say.

More importantly, the law exists for a reason. The United States, like most sovereign nations, wants to ensure that those who visit will contribute positively to the country. That can mean spending their money as they experience the land and culture, or it can mean studying at one of our world-class universities. But the US also wants to ensure that foreign governments can’t send agitators to our country to influence our politics.

Of course, citizens have the right to influence our politics: they can vote, contribute resources, and speak their minds about whatever they want. Foreigners can become citizens, but until they’ve taken an oath of loyalty to the United States, they (officially) remain loyal to their home countries. That is why the US Constitution doesn’t prevent the deportation of foreigners for speech.

We, as a country, have a right to decide which foreigners we allow to visit. We can deport foreigners (or deny entry) for any reason. For example, it’s legal to require foreigners to show evidence of a return ticket before granting a visa. It’s legal to require evidence of sufficient funds during the visit, something that can’t be asked of a citizen. And it’s legal to ask a foreigner to assert that they won’t support terrorism during their visit as a condition of granting a visa or green card, something we already do. Khalil has violated those terms of his residency permit, and thus should be deported.