Free Speech, Consequences, and the Extraordinary Case of Mahmoud Khalil

(Essay)

Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil

The uproar over the recent arrest and pending deportation of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil has begun. Like an unruly guest who has spilled one too many glasses of wine on my rug, I welcome his timely removal from our country.

Yes, his deportation is extraordinary and should give any American pause. It is not every day that the U.S. government takes such decisive action against a university student for their so-called “political speech.” But should Khalil’s advocacy for Hamas—along with his support for the hordes of zealous Palestinian “civilians” who gleefully and grotesquely committed the atrocities of October 7—not be regarded as even more extraordinary?

The real question is: Which should shock us more—Khalil’s likely removal, or the reality that a guest in our country, within one of our major American universities no less, was not only permitted—but actively aided in fomenting hatred for Jews and publicly supporting Hamas, a designated terrorist organization responsible for some of the most brutal atrocities in modern history?

Free speech is, of course, a central issue here. The First Amendment guarantees the right to express even the most offensive opinions. Yet, even in the freest societies, there are limits.

To refresh your memory:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The government has long drawn a line between free speech and incitement. According to reports Mahmoud Khalil crossed that line—from 'peaceable' protest to incitement to the manifestation of actual violence.

The Limits of Free Speech

Khalil, an international student on a green card, allegedly engaged in activities that not only glorified Hamas but also actively disseminated its propaganda and facilitated campus demonstrations that escalated into outright intimidation of Jewish students.

This isn’t a simple case of a student voicing unpopular views. It’s about whether a person residing in this country should be permitted to openly advocate for a terrorist organization that has tortured, raped, and murdered civilians, including Americans, in cold blood. And as of this writing, Hamas is still holding 59 hostages in Gaza. This includes 24 individuals presumed to be alive—22 Israelis, one Thai national, and one Nepali national. Additionally, the bodies of 35 hostages who were confirmed dead remain in Hamas’s custody.

Imagine the Double Standard

Consider for a moment if a student had led massive rallies praising the Ku Klux Klan and calling for violence against Black students. Or if a campus group openly cheered attacks against LGBTQ+ people. Or imagine a university allowing a student to distribute materials praising the murder of Latinos and calling for the destruction of Mexico, El Salvador, or Colombia.

Would anyone hesitate to remove that student?

Of course not. The university would act swiftly, and so would the government if that individual were here on a visa or green card. Yet, when it comes to calls for the death of Jews and the eradication of Israel—home to seven million Jewish citizens—we see hesitation, deliberation, and intellectual acrobatics.

Since October 7, 2023, these protests have gone far beyond criticism of Israeli policy. They have included outright calls for violence and the erasure of an entire people. More disturbingly, they have resulted in actual violence: Jewish students being spat on, pushed, punched, blocked from entering classes, and seeing their education disrupted by anti-Jewish mobs.

That is not an intellectual debate. That is not free speech. That is violence.

The Role of Universities

Columbia University, like many other institutions, has long claimed to be a bastion of tolerance and inclusivity. Yet, it has allowed an environment where mobs have harassed Jewish students and created a climate of fear. Would the university permit the same treatment toward any other minority group?

(A larger question looms: Why are Jews so uniquely maligned? Why, throughout history, have they been subject to such extraordinary levels of hatred? I have thoughts on the matter, which I hope to share in a subsequent essay.)

The idea that a student can publicly align themselves with a recognized terrorist organization—one that openly seeks the destruction of Jews worldwide—without consequence is not just absurd; it is dangerous. Universities must decide whether they are places of genuine academic discourse or breeding grounds for extremism masquerading as free expression.

Consequences for Non-Citizens

Mahmoud Khalil is not a U.S. citizen. He is in the U.S. on a green card, which comes with privileges but also responsibilities. No country is obligated to allow a non-citizen to remain if they engage in activities that promote violence. The U.S. government’s actions in this case may be rare, but they are not unprecedented, nor are they unjustified.

If someone holding a green card were advocating for the destruction of America, we wouldn’t blink at their removal. If a foreign student openly created materials praising and calling for support of ISIS, they wouldn’t remain in the country for long. Why should it be any different when it comes to Hamas?

Is it because Hamas has specifically called for the death of Jews and carried out their threats? And is it, as I suspect, because there exists a latent or manifest denigration of Jews—especially when they become either too numerous or too successful?

Students of history are all too aware that history does, indeed, repeat itself.

The Path Forward

Mahmoud Khalil’s case is a harbinger, a warning, a wake-up call. It is a reminder that while free speech is a cherished right, it is not a shield for those who incite violence or pledge allegiance to terror.

It is also a wake-up call for universities, for the government, and for all of us. There is nothing normal or right-minded about allowing advocacy for terrorism to flourish in institutions meant to foster learning and dialogue.

If Khalil is deported, it will not be for exercising free speech—it will be for inciting violence.

The line has been drawn. It is long past time to enforce it.

For additional information on this essay:

The following is Memorandum sent by @ShirionOrg to the DHS, outlining what they contend, is the constitutional basis for Khalil’s removal from the U.S.

As a green card holder, Mahmoud Khalil's removal from the United States must be approved by an immigration judge within the U.S. Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review. As a lawful permanent resident, Khalil is entitled to due process, including a hearing before an immigration judge, to contest his deportation.

For Internal DHS & State Department Review)

MEMORANDUM

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

FROM: [Da**** L*****

DATE: January 27th 2025

RE: Legal MEM for the Removal of Mahmoud Khalil

⸻

I. INTRODUCTION

This memorandum presents the legal and national security basis for the immediate detention and removal of Mahmoud Khalil, a non-citizen whose activities within the United States constitute material support for a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Khalil’s involvement in radicalization efforts, leadership in organizing activities, and public advocacy in alignment with FTO objectives violate 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(B) and 1227(a)(4)(B), which render non-citizens removable if they engage in terrorist activity or provide support to an FTO.

Khalil’s documented actions, statements, and direct participation in movements that align with FTO recruitment and propaganda tactics establish a clear and immediate threat to U.S. national security.

This memorandum demonstrates that his continued presence within the United States facilitates the spread of extremist narratives, presents a risk of further radicalization, and constitutes a violation of federal terrorism-related statutes.

This memorandum also anticipates and refutes potential legal challenges, including claims of First Amendment protection, due process violations, and selective enforcement, ensuring that Khalil’s removal aligns with Supreme Court precedent, federal law, and DHS counterterrorism objectives.

⸻

II. DESIGNATION OF HAMAS AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

A. Legal Classification of Hamas Under U.S. Law

Hamas has been officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. Department of State since October 8, 1997, under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1189.

This designation has been reaffirmed multiple times, including under Executive Order 13224, which classifies Hamas as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity under 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (International Emergency Economic Powers Act).

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), any form of material support to an FTO—including financial contributions, advocacy, or organizational assistance—is grounds for immediate removal. The Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) reaffirmed that even non-violent support of an FTO constitutes unlawful material support under federal law.

⸻

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: KHALIL’S ESCALATING NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT

A. Khalil’s Use of Public Platforms to Disseminate Extremist Messaging

•On April 27, 2024, Khalil was quoted in an interview with Quds News Network, stating:

“We have been negotiating since last night for more than 11 hours with the university to meet our demands regarding the cutting of economic and academic ties with institutions involved in slaughtering our people.”

•His statements directly align with extremist propaganda tactics, which seek to delegitimize U.S. institutions and frame them as complicit in acts that justify militant action.

B. Organizing Efforts That Align with FTO Recruitment Strategies

•Khalil has played a central role in organizing domestic mobilization efforts that mirror radicalization tactics identified in U.S. counterterrorism reports.

•His leadership in coordinating public demonstrations, pressure campaigns, and messaging aligned with an FTO’s objectives indicates a broader strategy to recruit sympathizers and expand anti-U.S. extremist narratives.

C. Evidence of Ongoing National Security Threat

•Khalil’s actions, rhetoric, and organizational leadership demonstrate a growing alignment with extremist objectives.

•His continued presence within the United States creates opportunities for further mobilization, radicalization of others, and the potential facilitation of material support to an FTO

IV. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL

A. Material Support for a Foreign Terrorist Organization (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B))

•Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010): The Supreme Court held that even non-violent advocacy, when coordinated with an FTO’s goals, constitutes material support under U.S. law.

•United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013): Established that spreading ideological support for an FTO is legally equivalent to direct material assistance.

Khalil’s activities fall squarely within this legal definition of material support, requiring immediate intervention.

B. Limited Judicial Review in National Security Immigration Cases

•Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972): Confirmed that the executive branch has broad discretion to exclude or remove non-citizens for national security reasons.

•Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977): Reaffirmed that courts defer to the executive branch’s plenary power over national security-based immigration decisions.

Given the clear national security implications of Khalil’s activities, judicial review should not impede his removal.

⸻

V. REFUTATION OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CHALLENGES

A. First Amendment Limitations on Speech That Supports Terrorism

•Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018): Confirmed that national security concerns override constitutional claims in immigration enforcement cases.

•United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999): The Court held that speech that aids or advances terrorist causes is not protected by the First Amendment.

Khalil’s activities extend beyond protected speech and instead constitute material support for a terrorist organization.

B. Due Process Considerations Do Not Prevent National Security Removals

•Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953): Held that due process claims do not override national security-based removals.

•Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003): Affirmed that the government may detain and deport non-citizens without extended hearings when security concerns are at stake.

The process for Khalil’s removal fully aligns with federal law and constitutional due process requirements.

⸻

VI. CONCLUSION: DETENTION AND REMOVAL ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

Mahmoud Khalil’s activities present an escalating national security threat. His statements, organizational leadership, and mobilization efforts constitute material support for a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, in direct violation of U.S. counterterrorism and immigration statutes.

His continued presence within the United States facilitates extremist propaganda, presents a risk of further radicalization, and creates a security vulnerability that must be addressed immediately.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the detention and removal of Khalil as a national security imperative. His case sets a precedent for ensuring that individuals who engage in similar activities face immediate enforcement action under federal law.

Given the clear and convincing evidence of Khalil’s alignment with an FTO, his detention and removal are not only legally justified but critical to maintaining U.S. security and preventing future radicalization efforts within U.S. borders.