One of Donald Trump’s first official actions as president was to sign an executive order designed to protect freedom of expression against government pressure. Soon after, Vice President J.D. Vance issued a vigorous challenge at the Munich Security Conference to speech restrictions in Europe. After years of government assaults on freedom of expression, people who cared about First Amendment values were cautiously optimistic.
Then came the administration’s attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil, a permanent legal resident of the United States who is married to an American citizen and who is soon to be a father, was detained by the government after he participated in protests focused on the plight of people in Gaza.
In a court filing supporting the decision to deport him, the administration maintained that his “presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Obviously, this can’t mean that he was physically impeding the formulation or implementation of foreign policy. He threatened, if he did, to bring about “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” because what he did had the potential to change people’s minds. He was targeted because of the anticipated impact of his actual (and potential) expressive activity.
He author is correct, the first amendment rights extend to everybody in the country. Khalil has the right to protest, organize a protest and say what he will, whether we agree or not. If they are attacking him for this they will lose in a just court. If they were to attack him for creating violence, that would be a different matter and a different crime, but talking is not and protesting is not criminal. It is tough isht, what the administration thinks about Khalil’s speech, just as it is tough isht what the Europeans think about our free speech. Why don’t we all quit with the hypocrisy?