Student Protests and Trump’s Response: Encroaching Treats on Freedom of Speech

Photo via AdmissionSight

***

The First Amendment in the United States Constitution enshrines people’s right to free speech and to assemble peacefully. Yet, this right is now under fire. College students across the country protesting the war between Hamas and Israel are facing disciplinary action by their schools; others are being arrested, and in the case of international students, are facing deportation. This begs the question: what power does the government hold that enables it to punish protesters who oppose their foreign policy?  

Hamas’ deadly October 7 attack brought global attention to the historically complex relationship between Israel and Palestine. In the wake of Hamas’ attack, which killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, the global community witnessed Israel’s overwhelming retaliation. Since the beginning of this war, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip. Israel’s bombardment of hospitals, civilian residences, and limitation of aid coming into Gaza led international organizations—such as the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory—to condemn Israel for crimes against humanity and violations of international law. 

In response to global inaction, American students turned to protests. During the spring of 2024, campuses across the country saw their students organize sit-ins, vigils, and, most prominently, solidarity camps, where students set up tents on their campuses in order to bring attention to their protest and actively show their unity in supporting a cause. 

On April 17, 2024, organized by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) in coalition with Columbia’s chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), students set up a Gaza Solidarity Encampment on the South Lawn of Columbia University’s Morningside campus. Student protesters were arrested the following day after former Columbia University President Minouche Shafik allowed law enforcement to clear the encampment. Law enforcement action did not stifle student organizers, however. Instead, the Gaza Solidarity Encampment was rebuilt within 20 hours of its demolition.  

As part of their protests, students demanded that the university divest all economic and academic stakes in Israeli apartheid and call on government officials to support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. 

Although the encampments are now cleared, attention remains on the protesters who face expulsion, having their diplomas rescinded, and even deportation. 

A prominent activist of the Columbia protests is Mahmoud Khalil, who graduated in December 2024 from Columbia’s School of International and Political Affairs with a Master’s in public administration. During the protests, he served as a lead negotiator for members of CUAD, causing him to be a public-facing figure, meeting with the administration and speaking with the press. 

On March 8, 2025, Khalil was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents acting on State Department orders to revoke his student visa. Although he did hold a student visa during the protest, his attorney informed them that Khalil is now a permanent resident with a green card. Agents responded, saying they would be revoking his green card instead. 

The cause for Khalil’s arrest has been confirmed by Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to be directly connected to his role in the protests the year prior, alleging he “lead activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.” However, evidence to support these claims has yet to be presented. 

Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest is the first of many, demonstrating President Donald Trump’s effort to fulfill his promise of cracking down on students involved in the pro-Palestine protests. A message posted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s X account on March 9, 2025, states that the administration “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Later that same day, the DHS said in a post on X that the department arrested Khalil “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” These posts provide a clear picture of the Trump administration’s support of the Israeli campaign in the Gaza Strip. 

Because of his legal status within the United States, the legality of Mahmoud Khalil’s detention without being charged with a crime is unclear. Permanent Residents have rights and responsibilities attached to their status, which may be revoked if not followed, or if an immigration judge issues a final removal order against them. These procedures are outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically Section 1227(a)(4)(C)(i), under which green card holders do not need to be convicted of a crime to be deported if they are found to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” 

The case raises questions surrounding the legality of a green card holder’s deportation and their right to free speech, especially if it is opposing the current government’s policies. Mahmoud Khalil’s case has the potential to set a dangerous precedent for other protesters with green cards who face legal action by the Trump administration.

It is important to emphasize that Khalil’s actions during the spring 2024 protests at Columbia were in accordance with his right to free speech and protest under the First Amendment, which does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. Yet, because of his involvement as a negotiator during the Columbia protests and his public pro-Palestinian views, the Trump administration seems to be making Khalil an example for other protesters in the United States on visas or green cards. The message is clear: if they disagree with the administration’s policy, they risk deportation. In the weeks following Khalil’s arrest, other foreign-born academics working or studying in the U.S. have been targeted as well, having their visas revoked and being denied reentry into the country. 

Because direct action is limited to international students, the federal government has also sought retribution against the universities themselves. Following Trump’s inauguration, his administration presented Columbia with an ultimatum: either they make policy changes that align with the Trump administration, or the university’s administration loses its grants. While Columbia originally opted to resist, they caved after the government cut $400 million in federal grants from its budget.

This move by the Trump administration to silence, punish, and threaten their ‘opposition’ within the United States has an eerily dystopian (and tyrannical) feel. When reflecting on recent events, it is clear that the meaning of and possibilities granted by the right to free speech have been eroded, especially in relation to protesting government policies. The understanding of this foundational principle became distorted over time as instances of hate speech are protected while criticism of government policies are met with legal consequences. 

The Trump administration’s actions send a clear warning to activists that the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution have become increasingly meaningless for those who stand against the government. The use of such a politicized topic allowed the administration to further divide the American people, while also strengthening support from members of the public. 

The intention behind the right to freedom of speech is clear, but its legal implementation sits in a grey zone. Although its limitations are not so easily defined, it is clear that a government with unchecked power should not be the one to determine them—doing so would be directly countering the foundation of American democracy.