No charges, no evidence — So why is Mahmoud Khalil facing deportation?

The U.S. government’s move to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent resident, has sparked a national debate on immigration enforcement, freedom of speech, and the balance between civil liberties and national policy objectives. Although Khalil has not been charged with any crime, federal authorities have invoked foreign policy considerations to justify his continued detention and potential removal from the country.

Khalil, a 30-year-old Palestinian born in Syria, was arrested on March 8, 2025, in New York and transferred to a remote detention facility in Louisiana. The arrest came after his prominent role in campus activism, including acting as a spokesperson for students protesting against Israel’s actions in Gaza. While these protests were largely peaceful and legally permitted, Khalil’s political expression is now at the center of a legal battle with potentially far-reaching implications.

Rather than submitting concrete evidence to support claims that Khalil poses a security threat, the federal government has offered a two-page memo signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In it, Rubio argues that while Khalil’s actions were “otherwise lawful,” his presence in the United States undermines foreign policy objectives—specifically, the national effort to combat antisemitism and ensure the safety of Jewish students.

How is foreign policy being used to justify deportation?

The government’s legal justification for Khalil’s potential deportation relies on a lesser-known provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the executive branch to remove noncitizens whose presence is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests. This Cold War-era clause has historically been used in cases involving espionage, terrorism, or strong ties to foreign adversaries. However, in Khalil’s case, it is being applied based solely on his speech and participation in political demonstrations.

Rubio’s memo, filed shortly before a scheduled immigration hearing, claims that allowing Khalil to remain in the United States would contradict U.S. policy priorities to fight antisemitism globally and domestically. Though it references additional materials—including a subject profile and a letter from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—none of these documents were submitted to the immigration court, according to Khalil’s legal team.

The lack of supporting evidence has intensified scrutiny of the administration’s motives. Lawyers for Khalil argue that the memo confirms the government’s use of immigration powers to silence political dissent. They contend that Khalil is being punished not for any illegal conduct but for expressing support for Palestinian rights—expression protected by the First Amendment.

What has been the legal and public response?

The legal team representing Khalil, led by attorneys Marc Van Der Hout and Johnny Sinodis, has condemned the government’s handling of the case. They allege that Khalil’s arrest and detention were orchestrated without proper cause and that the administration is now scrambling to retroactively justify its actions using political arguments instead of facts.

The memo submitted to the court, they argue, amounts to an admission that the government has no substantive case. “There is not a single shred of proof that Mahmoud’s presence in America poses any threat,” they stated. They have also underscored the emotional toll of the case, noting that Khalil’s wife—an American citizen—is due to give birth imminently, and that Khalil risks missing the birth of his first child.

Civil liberties advocates have warned that the case could set a dangerous precedent for using immigration law to target political beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other rights organizations have expressed alarm that Khalil’s case could open the door to the deportation of other lawful residents engaged in peaceful protest or advocacy critical of U.S. allies.

Meanwhile, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin has maintained that “evidence was filed,” but emphasized that immigration court dockets are not publicly accessible. That lack of transparency has only heightened concern about the due process implications.

How does this case connect to broader government crackdowns on campus activism?

Khalil’s detention comes against the backdrop of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to crack down on perceived antisemitism on university campuses, particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian protests. In recent weeks, the administration has pulled federal funding from multiple universities, including affiliated hospital systems, citing concerns over antisemitism. These actions have been paired with warnings that institutions must discipline student protestors or face continued financial penalties.

Observers argue that while the administration claims to be acting against hate speech, the practical effect has been a chilling of campus free expression. Critics say that the government is conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism, a move they argue delegitimizes dissent and endangers academic freedom.

Moreover, reports have surfaced of international students losing their visas over expressions of support for Palestinians. In Khalil’s case, DHS officials initially claimed he had been involved in “activities aligned with Hamas,” referencing the October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel. Yet no concrete links to Hamas have been presented in court, and the most recent filing by the government made no mention of the group.

What’s at stake for Khalil and others in similar situations?

As the legal battle intensifies, Khalil’s case is being watched as a bellwether for how far the government is willing to go in using immigration laws to control political expression. The next immigration hearing is expected to focus on whether the government can continue to detain Khalil without formally charging him or presenting a security threat.

In a letter from detention, Khalil accused the Trump administration of targeting him as part of a broader strategy to “suppress dissent.” He expressed concern that his case could be used to justify future deportations of individuals who hold unpopular political views or engage in advocacy the government opposes.

The implications extend beyond Khalil’s individual circumstances. His lawyers have indicated that a similar deportation case has been initiated against another Columbia student, 21-year-old Yunseo Chung. Chung, who was arrested for participating in a pro-Palestinian sit-in at Barnard College, is also a lawful U.S. resident. Her attorneys have introduced the Rubio memo into their own legal proceedings, arguing that it reflects a coordinated strategy by the administration to target political speech.

For both students—and potentially many others—the outcome of these cases could determine whether free expression remains protected for noncitizens, or whether it becomes a basis for removal under the guise of foreign policy enforcement.

As legal experts and advocacy groups continue to rally around Khalil, the case is emerging as a flashpoint in the national conversation about immigration law, academic freedom, and the reach of executive power. It also raises pressing questions about how dissent is treated in a democratic society, especially when it challenges the interests of a close U.S. ally.

In the absence of evidence linking Khalil to any illegal conduct, the government’s reliance on a discretionary memo tied to foreign policy presents a test of legal norms and constitutional protections. What happens next in Khalil’s case could define the contours of political speech rights for noncitizens in the United States for years to come.