Arrest of pro-Palestinian students sparks alarms over free speech: ‘It reeks of McCarthyism’

Three cases concerning the limits of freedom of expression in the United States illustrate the inconsistent standards applied to the realm of ideas since Donald Trump’s return to power.

The first is the arrest of Palestinian student Mahmud Khalil, a Columbia University activist and spokesperson for campus protests against the Gaza war, who was accused by the White House of “aligning himself with Hamas terrorists.”

The second is the macabre joke made by former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett during a talk at Harvard, in which he suggested sending pagers to those who interrupted his speech, referencing the explosives Israel used against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, which caused numerous deaths.

The third example comes from the world of social media: the reinstatement of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee who had resigned after making racist comments on an X account, including advocating “eugenic immigration” (the Nazi theory of a perfect race) and proudly declaring, “I was racist before it was cool.” Elon Musk welcomed him back after Vice President J.D. Vance dismissed his comments as youthful indiscretions.

The last two cases have largely been reduced to anecdotes — little more than footnotes in the chaotic start of Trump’s second term. However, the case of student Mahmud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident who remains detained while awaiting a decision on his deportation, is particularly explosive. It represents a political detention that intertwines fundamental rights — namely, freedom of expression, protected by the Constitution — with his status as a foreigner amid an ongoing assault on immigration policies. Adding to the complexity is Trump’s crusade against antisemitism. Together, these factors have made Khalil — and others in his situation — a target due to their triple identity as Palestinian, activist, and foreigner.

Social media has become a court, if not a pillory, and artificial intelligence has become a tool for sparking dissent. While Khalil remains imprisoned in a detention center for foreigners in Louisiana, news broke of the dismissal of a Yale scholar after an AI-powered website allegedly found her ties to a group said to be a benefactor of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which Washington considers a terrorist organization. Helyeh Doutaghi, an Arab researcher who wears a headscarf — another image easily turned into a target — was immediately dismissed as deputy director of a Law School project she had worked on since 2023.

On Friday, a second Palestinian student was detained at Columbia University for overstaying his visa, and a third student, an Indian national, decided to self-deport after having her visa revoked. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is investigating whether student protests on the Columbia campus against the Gaza war violated federal terrorism laws, Assistant Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Friday.

Is freedom of expression — a right enshrined in the First Amendment — at stake in the U.S.? Or is it only at risk when people say things the powers that be don’t like? Khalil’s case turns Trump’s threat to expel foreign students involved in “illegal” protests into a reality. The president declared that his arrest would be “the first of many.”

Federal agents who typically target drug trafficking or financial crime networks are now combing social media for posts supportive of Hamas. They are using AI to make the tracking faster and more comprehensive, as seen with the website that led to Doutaghi’s dismissal at Yale.

The accusatory finger of the White House, wielding a presidential decree to combat antisemitism, now turns anyone who has demonstrated in support of Palestinians in Gaza or called for a ceasefire into a suspected terrorist. And that suspicion, without the need for a formal charge — as in Khalil’s case —makes them subject to deportation under an old statute: the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision targets any “alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S., particularly its close relationship with Israel.

“An arrest that reeks of McCarthyism”

The harassment raises serious concerns about the violation of fundamental rights and revives dark episodes from history, like the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.

“The detention of Khalil, a green card holder legally studying in this country, is selective, retaliatory, and an extreme attack on his First Amendment rights,” says Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The unlawful arrest reeks of McCarthyism. It’s clear that the administration is selectively punishing him for expressing dissenting views, which is a terrifying escalation of the repression of pro-Palestinian speech and an aggressive abuse of immigration law.”

In addition to fostering denunciation and harassment, McCarthyism also undermined due process rights for those suspected of communist sympathies, a period that became known as the Second Red Scare.

The repression of dissent also dangerously encroaches on the First Amendment, which constitutionally guarantees the freedom of expression.

“In the US, the First Amendment guarantees everyone freedom of expression. Targeting a student activist is an affront, a manifestly unconstitutional act that sends the deplorable message that freedom of expression is no longer protected,” says Murad Awawdeh, head of the New York Immigration Coalition. “A green card can only be revoked by an immigration judge, demonstrating once again that the Trump administration is willing to ignore the law to instill fear and promote its racist agenda.”

Far from achieving its goals — silencing all pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses, which have remained largely dormant since last year’s massive mobilizations — Khalil’s arrest has done the opposite. Sit-ins, rallies, and both spontaneous and organized protests, many of them led by progressive Jewish groups, have brought many of the protesters supposedly neutralized a year ago back into the streets. On Thursday, around 100 people were arrested inside Trump Tower, where they were protesting under the leadership of a Jewish group. The small schism this case has sparked within the large American Jewish community is evident, revealing a sharp imbalance between its support for Israel and its commitment to civil liberties.

Economic blackmail of Columbia University

Meanwhile, disciplinary actions against students continue — last week, Columbia University expelled several students for occupying a building a year ago — while immigration agents conduct new raids on campus residence halls. The institution is facing $400 million in cuts to federal fund, a measure imposed by the Trump administration as punishment for its perceived weak response to alleged displays of antisemitism. To recover the funds, the White House has demanded “discipline” and changes to the university’s admissions policies.

Columbia is one of 60 universities currently under investigation for allegations of “antisemitic harassment and discrimination.” Additionally, 50 universities are in the federal spotlight for their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies, which have been attacked by Trump.

“Columbia is a private university, and the First Amendment only protects us from government censorship, not from private entities,” says Jay Clavert, a law professor at the University of Florida. “But nonetheless, this is really designed, in my opinion, to send a loud and clear message to students who want to protest in support of Palestine or in support of Hamas, or whatever, that that kind of speech is not going to be tolerated under the Trump administration. So [Khalil’s arrest] has what we would call a chilling effect. And by that, I mean it will lead to self-censorship.”

Khalil has been condemned without evidence by the White House; in fact, no charges have been filed against him, and his case lacks legal grounds.

“In my opinion, two different things are happening. One is the power of the federal government to try to strip a person of their [legal resident] status, which is possible in the interest of national security if they were to support or advocate terrorist activity or try to persuade others to do so,” Clavert continues. “But more importantly, all of this is happening in retaliation for having exercised their right to free speech. If they hadn’t spoken out, why would they come after them? We can call it retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech.”

Defense of violence?

The case against Khalil also exposes the limitations of immigration laws: can a legal resident be deported for exercising their right to free speech? While awaiting a decision from an immigration judge, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the University of California, is firm in his stance: “The Supreme Court has never made clear whether the First Amendment prohibits the government from deporting non-U.S. citizens for their speech.”

Volokh emphasizes that “after all, the First Amendment generally protects support for or advocacy of violence. Americans are perfectly free, for example, to say that it would be a good thing if Putin were assassinated [whether in Russia or when he visits, say, Belarus]; that Israel should start taking Palestinians hostage [even if doing so would be illegal under U.S. law]; or that the Palestinians were right to take Israeli hostages. The list of speech generally protected by the Constitution would be very long.”

The heated situation offers disoriented Democrats an opportunity to rearm. Senator Chris Murphy shared a video on social media that is as educational as it is passionate, comparing the cases of Khalil and the employee reinstated by Musk.

Of Khalil’s situation, he says: “You can disagree with his views or his politics, but there is no evidence he has broken any law [...] He’s in jail because of his political speech. And here’s why everybody should care. In America, your political speech is protected, whether or not the president likes what you say. But today, if you’re loyal to Donald Trump, your speech is going to be protected. Even if it’s hate speech. You can be Marko Elez, an employee of DOGE, who said he ‘was racist before it was cool.’ [...] But if you’re disloyal to Trump or you are organizing against Trump’s political agenda, your speech could be criminalized.”

Murphy argues that there will be no turning back if an individual “can be locked away with no charges against them simply because they protested.”

Continuing Murphy’s comparison between the arrest of the Palestinian and the rehabilitation of the young racist, a final example underscores the flexibility of the yardstick. In November 2023, Elon Musk expressed support for an antisemitic post on X, calling it “the actual truth.” It was his response to a post by a user who claimed that Jews ““have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” After all, a Nazi salute, like the one made by the demiurge — or sorcerer’s apprentice — of the second Trump administration, doesn’t come out of nowhere.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition