The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and legal permanent resident of the United States, has ignited a broader national debate about free speech, political activism and immigration enforcement.
Despite his legal status and clean criminal record, Khalil was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on March 8, under the pretext that his green card was invalid, an accusation that has yet to be substantiated.
New developments have further escalated the situation. The Trump administration is reportedly attempting to file new charges against Khalil.
“Khalil’s deportation is justified because he did not reveal connections to two organizations in his application to become a permanent US resident,” said the Trump administration.
His arrest raises significant concerns, particularly in light of recent statements from the Trump administration regarding its stance on campus activism and the penalties that could follow for institutions that allow politically charged demonstrations.
Background: the arrest and its implications
Khalil was detained shortly after his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, where he had been a leading figure in organizing demonstrations.
His arrest came in the wake of President Donald Trump’s announcement of executive orders aimed at prohibiting anti-Semitism, which the Department of Homeland Security cited as the basis for Khalil’s detention, alleging his activities were aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.
This case unfolds against the backdrop of heightened tension over political activism on U.S. college campuses. President Trump recently declared that colleges permitting such activism would face severe penalties, including the withdrawal of federal funding and deportation or arrest of foreign students involved in protests.
President Trump’s recent statement that colleges should be penalized for allowing “illegal protests” and that students involved in such demonstrations could face expulsion has sparked intense debate.
“All federal funding will STOP for any College, School or University that allows illegal protests,” said Trump in his recent TruthSocial post. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested.”
If you cannot punish a citizen for their free speech, you cannot deport a permanent resident for their use of free speech.
The question of what exactly constitutes an “illegal” protest arises.
“I think it depends on how ‘illegal’ is being defined,” said Lileana Garza, a senior at Fresno State. “Are we talking about protests that break laws or just ones that the administration disagrees with? It seems like this could be more about controlling a narrative than enforcing actual legal boundaries.”
This rhetoric has intensified concerns that the government is increasingly using immigration enforcement to penalize political advocacy, something Khalil’s arrest seems to reflect.
Legal context: a legal permanent resident with no criminal history
Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest raises significant legal questions. As a legal permanent resident with no criminal history, Khalil had every right to reside in the U.S. and participate in political activism.
His green card was valid, and his arrest appears to be rooted in political motivations rather than any legitimate concern about national security or immigration law violations. Despite the lack of evidence for any criminal activity, the government pursued this action under vague claims of “national security risks” linked to his advocacy for Palestinian rights.
The Trump administration’s recent statements indicate a troubling shift in how the U.S. government views political activism.
With threats to cut federal funding from institutions that allow “illegal protests” and promises to deport non-citizen activists, the arrest of Khalil could be seen as part of a broader strategy to clamp down on a controlled narrative. This represents a direct challenge to the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment, particularly for immigrant activists and students.
Legal technicalities or political overreach?
They claim he failed to disclose previous work for the Syrian office of the British Embassy in Beirut and membership in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). While UNRWA has faced criticism from American and Israeli politicians who accuse it of antisemitism, it remains a UN agency dedicated to humanitarian aid and education for Palestinian refugees.
Khalil’s involvement with such organizations, rather than signaling any danger, highlights his commitment to advocacy and diplomatic work. Framing his affiliations as deceptive or dangerous is a clear misuse of immigration law to target peaceful political engagement.
While the Trump administration’s reasoning might sound more legally technical than the previous accusations, one may argue that the government is grasping at administrative technicalities to justify its targeting of a prominent activist. The failure to disclose information on immigration paperwork can indeed carry serious consequences, but in Khalil’s case, supporters say the government’s sudden focus on these omissions seem less about legal accuracy and more about political reprisal.
Khalil’s team responded to the attempted charges.
“We’re not at all surprised because it’s a recognition that the initial charges are unsustainable,” attorney Baher Azmy told CNN. “So, they’re going with a theory that they must think is more legally defensible. But I just think this doesn’t cure the obvious taint of retaliation.”
The broader implications: free speech and political activism
Khalil’s arrest is not just an isolated incident, but part of a larger, more concerning trend regarding political activism in America, especially on college campuses.
With the Trump administration signaling that campus protests could lead to severe consequences, including the loss of federal funding for universities, this arrest should be seen as a warning to both students and institutions. In his TruthSocial post, Trump emphasized that foreign students involved in protests could be deported, and American students could face expulsions or even arrests.
For universities like Fresno State, Khalil’s case serves as a reminder of the risks associated with supporting political demonstrations or allowing certain forms of activism on campus.
The arrest occurred just days after Donald Trump’s second presidential administration revoked $400 million in funding to Columbia University, citing the institution’s alleged failure to safeguard students from antisemitic harassment on campus. These developments place colleges in a difficult position, forcing them to navigate the fine line between supporting students’ rights to free speech and avoiding potential federal penalties or loss of funding.
Fresno State, which has a vibrant student activism culture, may now have to reconsider how it supports students involved in politically charged demonstrations.
However, skepticism remains about whether universities will actually protect student activists.
“Honestly, probably not,” Garza said. “When I look at the students in leadership positions, particularly in ASI [Associated Students, Inc.], I know some of them personally, and I wouldn’t trust them to represent my views or advocate for the issues I care about.”
If the federal government begins targeting universities that permit such activism, Fresno State could find itself at risk of losing critical funding.
Moreover, international students participating in protests- whether on issues related to Palestine, climate change or racial justice- could face deportation, making them hesitant to engage in activism altogether. This could have a chilling effect on free speech, leading both students and faculty to self-censor out of fear of repercussions.
Michael Maniquiz, a professor who has taught in the English Department at Fresno State for nearly 15 years, shares concerns about the broader implications of restrictions on student activism.
“I think being on campus here at Fresno State and California, there is nothing to be scared of,” Maniquiz said. “But if you’re talking about the broader implications, it is scary if you think about it. Because free speech is one of the foundations of this country- the right to say what you want to say. And I tell my students that if we have different opinions, feel free to speak out. I will defend your right to say those things, and that’s what I believe in- that intelligent people can disagree, but you shouldn’t be persecuted for it, let alone prosecuted for it.”
Fresno State’s administration may soon be forced to take a stance on how it will handle activism on campus. Will it support students’ right to protest and risk federal intervention, or will it seek to limit activism to protect its funding? This dilemma mirrors a larger national debate about the balance between free speech and political pressure from the government.
The arrest of Mahmoud Khalil represents more than just one individual’s legal battle- it is a test case for how the U.S. government will treat political activism moving forward. For Fresno State students, faculty, and administrators, it serves as a critical moment to evaluate the university’s role in upholding free speech and protecting students from political retaliation.