Lawyers for Columbia U’s Mahmoud Khalil Demand Rubio Testify in Explosive Deportation Case

Edited by: Fern Sidman

As antisemitism rises across the United States — often masked as political activism — the federal government’s case against Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-born Columbia University graduate and organizer of last year’s radical anti-Israel campus protests, marks a decisive moment in America’s confrontation with hate-fueled extremism. According to a report that appeared on Thursday in The New York Times, Khalil has been detained for over a month and faces deportation under a federal statute that permits the expulsion of individuals deemed to threaten U.S. foreign policy — in this case, America’s longstanding commitment to combating antisemitism.

Khalil, who holds legal permanent residency and is married to an American citizen, gained notoriety for his leadership role in inflammatory campus demonstrations at Columbia, which featured anti-Zionist rhetoric indistinguishable from classic antisemitic tropes. Now, the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are taking a firm stand — asserting that Khalil’s activities, affiliations, and public statements bolster antisemitic narratives and align with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization responsible for countless murders of Israeli civilians.

“Though Mr. Khalil committed no crimes, his very presence in the United States enables antisemitism,” Rubio wrote in a memo cited by The New York Times.

Khalil’s lawyers have requested to depose Secretary Rubio in an upcoming immigration court hearing in Louisiana — a request that is widely expected to be denied. Still, their effort reveals what many see as a desperate attempt to reframe the issue as a civil liberties case rather than what it truly is: a matter of national security and moral clarity.

As was reported in The New York Times, the Trump administration is utilizing a seldom-used provision in immigration law that empowers the Secretary of State to trigger deportation for individuals whose presence in the U.S. contradicts the country’s foreign policy interests. This provision is now being applied to Khalil — not because he committed a crime, but because his ideological activism echoes the propaganda of a genocidal terrorist regime.

Homeland Security officials have described Khalil as “aligned to Hamas,” while the White House has gone even further, stating that he is “siding with terrorists,” The New York Times reported. Though public evidence remains limited — due in part to the confidential nature of immigration dockets — the administration’s reliance on the anti-terrorism statute is itself a clear indicator of the gravity of the threat his presence poses.

Critics, including Khalil’s attorney Marc Van Der Hout, have attempted to dismiss the allegations as “bogus,” focusing instead on procedural issues like alleged omissions on Khalil’s green card application. But the central issue is not paperwork — it is ideological proximity to terror-supporting entities and the threat posed by figures who normalize Jew-hatred under the guise of campus protest.

Khalil’s involvement at Columbia, where he led a coalition of student groups in negotiations with university officials, reflects a broader crisis in American academia, where pro-Hamas and anti-Israel sentiment has increasingly blurred the line between protest and persecution, as was noted in The New York Times report.  The campus protests in question were not merely calls for Palestinian rights — they included chants, symbols, and language that glorify terrorist violence and demonize Jews worldwide.

Hamas, the group whose ideology Khalil’s rhetoric reportedly echoes, is not merely a political faction — it is a brutal, antisemitic terrorist organization that has murdered Israelis in suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and kidnappings. By echoing Hamas’s narratives in the heart of New York City, Khalil is, whether deliberately or not, serving the propaganda objectives of America’s enemies.

That this case has sparked concerns among free speech advocates is troubling but not surprising. Once again, civil liberties groups are rallying behind an individual whose activism empowers those who openly call for Israel’s destruction. The selective outrage on display — so quick to defend speech that endangers Jews, yet slow to condemn terrorism and antisemitism — is symptomatic of a dangerous moral inversion.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Khalil is not being silenced — he is being held accountable under a legitimate and narrowly tailored legal provision designed to protect the United States from ideologically motivated threats. No one has a constitutional right to permanent residency, particularly when their presence is used to amplify the objectives of a terrorist movement.

While Khalil remains detained in Louisiana, The New York Times report noted that his attorneys have simultaneously filed a federal lawsuit in New Jersey challenging the constitutionality of his detention. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz has temporarily blocked Khalil’s removal from the country, but the final ruling is still pending.

In the meantime, Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans, who is presiding over the Louisiana proceedings, has stated that her role is not to assess the constitutionality of the statute Rubio invoked. The New York Times report said that her task on Friday will be to determine whether the evidence presented meets the statutory requirements for deportation under the rarely used foreign policy clause.

At a time when Jewish communities in the United States face an alarming resurgence of antisemitic threats, the case of Mahmoud Khalil is a test of the government’s resolve. Will America defend its Jewish citizens from ideological threats masquerading as protest? Or will it allow individuals who echo the rhetoric of violent extremists to remain under the false flag of civil liberties?

The Trump administration, backed by Secretary Rubio and Homeland Security, has taken a decisive stance: combating antisemitism is not just a diplomatic posture — it is a national imperative.

This case is not about silencing dissent. It is about making clear that the glorification of terrorist ideologies and the endangerment of Jewish Americans will not be tolerated in a nation built on the rule of law and the protection of human dignity.

Hamas sympathizers do not belong in the United States. And those who amplify their cause — whether in government, media, or academia — must be held to account.