
Mehdi Hasan reflects on Zeteo one year after launch: ‘We're in a very good place'
Journalism isn't what it used to be, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Especially if you're Mehdi Hasan.
Hasan, 45, is no stranger to the rising dissatisfaction around the state of the news media and the confusion over how we consume our news. He rose through the ranks of broadcast giants, including the BBC, Al Jazeera and MSNBC, and has written on subjects ranging from Trump's tariffs to Gaza for outlets such as the Guardian and the Huffington Post.
But no matter where he's been on camera or published, the British-born son of Indian immigrants asked the kind of tough questions that gained him a reputation as a fierce debater and unflinching proponent of high-impact, often adversarial journalism.
'When we talk about media organizations, it's often asked, 'Are they left or are they right?'' Hasan says. 'But I don't think that dynamic is helpful. For me, it's more like do they keep their heads down or do they keep their heads up?'
Hasan's unwillingness to soften the edges around hot-button topics could be the reason he's worked for more outlets than most public-facing folks in the media. His departure from MSNBC in January 2024, for example, came after his shows were canceled by the network for 'business reasons.' They offered to keep him on as a contributor, but he declined.
Instead, he started his own independent platform, the Washington, D.C.-based Zeteo. Now, on the one-year anniversary of his enterprise, Hasan talks about what it took to create an outlet somewhere between mainstream news and 'burn it all down' media.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
What did it take to get Zeteo up and running?
Me and the four people who set it up. And it was Ramadan. And I was fasting. I will say I never want to do a startup company again with four people during Ramadan [laughs]. We're still a small, nimble operation, but it's not insane as four people trying to do everything. We have a political correspondent, Prem Thakker, who broke the campus deportation story. We brought on Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, members of Congress, to do a YouTube show for us called 'Bowman and Bush.' [Former Washington Post columnist] Taylor Lorenz has just become a contributor for us. We have Daniel Levy, the former Israeli peace negotiator. And we're going to be announcing more in the coming days as we approach the anniversary. So we're growing on that front.
The name Zeteo comes from the ancient Greek word for 'seeking out' or 'striving.' Why not just call your startup the Mehdi Hasan Network?
It was never going to be the Mehdi Hasan network. Obviously, I'm the face of it. I'm the founder. I do the flagship shows. But it was always about being more than me. That is the goal. If I achieve nothing else, I've provided a platform for really interesting people to say the unsayable, whether it's [Egyptian political satirist] Bassem Youssef on the podcast; John Harwood [formerly of CNN], who writes amazing political pieces for us; Pakistani novelist Fatima Bhutto; Amy Klein; Owen Jones; or Greta Thunberg. They are saying things as contributors you won't see elsewhere.
You moved to the U.S. in 2015, where you hosted a weekly show on Al Jazeera English. But just five years later, you landed your own show, 'The Mehdi Hasan Show,' on Peacock. And soon after that, you were slotted into MSNBC's lineup. That's a rapid trajectory.
When I moved here, people said to me, 'Oh, you're going to end up at CNN, MSNBC because you do great interviews.' I was like, 'No one's ever going to hire me. I'm a brown, Muslim, lefty immigrant. I'm happy at Al Jazeera.' Mainstream was never going to be for me, yet Phil Griffin and MSNBC took a chance on me in 2020 and hired me to do a show. I didn't think I'd last longer than six months, but I lasted for 3½ years.
As the country has become more polarized, there's been criticism that journalism is now more about activism than news gathering. What's your take?
You don't have to define activism as changing things and journalism as not changing things. The biggest changes in our society have come from journalism. Investigative journalism, at its very best, changes things. It holds people accountable. It forces people to change structures, reform institutions. So I think the best journalism is impact journalism that drives change. Otherwise, what is the point? Horse-race journalism — who's up, who's down, who's doing well in the polls — that's never been my interest. I do it occasionally because it has its role, but that's never been what drives me. I don't think it should be what drives our industry, either. I want to make a change. That's why I do what I do. Otherwise, I'd be an accountant.
Where does Zeteo stand in the crowded field of new media startups?
One thing I was very clear about when I launched Zeteo was that I was going to be walking that tightrope between being anti-establishment and establishment, between mainstream and non-mainstream. A lot of people didn't like that. What happens to a lot of left-wing media outlets is that they get marginalized or marginalize themselves. They're seen as fringe. But there's no point in doing excellent journalism, excellent op-eds or commissioning brilliant documentaries if no one sees them.
Did you plan on becoming a journalist?
I went to Oxford University. I did PPE [Politics, Philosophy and Economics]. Most of my graduating class went off to be management consultants and investment bankers. I went off to get a 13,000-pound-a-year job, to the great disappointment of my Asian parents. But working in TV seemed important.
As kids of immigrants, our parents came from places where the media was hobbled or where there is no free press. Now you're in the U.S., and the media is facing unprecedented challenges from the Trump administration.
It's a risky time. People keep saying to me, 'Trump's good for business, right? You're going to get loads of subscribers because he talks crazy stuff and makes politics interesting.' Yeah, in theory, in the sheer generation of news stories, he's good for business. But in terms of the big picture of a free press — no, he's not. I worry about the future of my organization in a country that's going fascist very quickly. I worry about Zeteo as a small startup at a time when big media companies like ABC and CBS and some might argue the L.A. Times — their owners are rolling over for Trump. And you've got MAGA folks who are intimidating journalists. For a while I've had prominent people in the MAGA movement saying deport and denaturalize Mehdi Hasan, and in the current climate, that's not the kind of thing you take lightly. Journalists have been intimidated, threatened, harassed.
Now, having said that, we've got to put it in context. I'm still in the U.S., still protected by the 1st Amendment. I'm not in Gaza, where over 200 journalists have been killed. It's the worst conflict for journalists in history. The Civil War, WWI, WWII — none of it comes close. Yes, it's a risky time for journalists in America, but in context, we're still 10,000 times in a better place than journalists in Gaza, for example.
This month marks one year since Zeteo's official launch. How are things going?
I'm a very cautious person. I've never run a business before. I don't have that entrepreneurial streak of risk-taking. When I launched this, I was super cautious about what we could achieve. But, amazingly, the support I got after I left MSNBC and announced Zeteo blew me away. We blasted through all of our early benchmarks, metrics and targets, and by the time we hit the summer, we were well ahead of ourselves. So we're in a very good place.
Can you name some of the benchmarks?
A year in, most startups don't break even. But this year we've made a small profit, which we weren't planning on. We're at 400,000 subscribers, which is not where I thought we'd be. We're No. 6 on Substack, behind Bari Weiss, Heather Cox [Richardson] and the Bulwark folks. We have 715,000 followers on YouTube right now and we're growing by more than 1,000 a day. We've got more than 40,000 paying subscribers, which helps pay the bills. And we've got over 1,000 founding members who pay $500 a year to support us.
Is corporate media adequately covering the America we live in today?
My position is not that the corporate media's dead or that all mainstream media is bad. That would be ridiculous. I've worked in these organizations. There are great journalists doing great work there. My position is that mainstream media gets a lot wrong, and there are a lot of gaps that need to be filled, and that is what Zeteo is doing. That doesn't mean I want to burn it all down. We wouldn't be able to exist as a small media business if we weren't able to rely on great investigative scoops from certain people at the Post or Politico or the New York Times. That doesn't mean I like everything that those outlets do.
For a time, the journalistic standards in legacy newsrooms made covering MAGA conspiracy theories, lies and genuinely fake news incredibly difficult. It was like using an old dialect to describe a new language.
Even in opinion journalism, calling Trump a racist caused a debate in newsrooms for a decade. More and more people now say the R-word. But for a time, it was 'he said something racially tinged, racially divisive, racially loaded.' It's like, just say racist. It's fewer letters. Let's not insult our viewers and our readers. Let's not disrespect them. Everyone knows what's going on.
They know 'mistruth' is just a softer word for 'lie.'
My position is very simple: If you say something false more than once after you've been corrected, it's a lie. That's Trump 100 times over.
You are known for being unapologetically outspoken, and pinning your debate opponents on divisive issues. You even channeled your superpower into a book, 'Win Every Argument.'
There's always been that shadowing around me wherever I've been. It's made people uncomfortable in a lot of places. I'm not going to name an outlet, but I will say this, there have been times where an interview I've done has gone viral and people are like, 'Oh, my God, mic drop! The person's been destroyed,' to use YouTube language. That's what people know me for. Then I'll mention that to a friend or family member, and they will say, but do your bosses even want that? And it's like, 'Oh, I didn't think of that. Good question.'
Which brings us back to MSNBC…
When MSNBC canceled my shows, I knew that I didn't want to just go to another network or another paper. I've worked for a lot of places in my career: BBC, Sky News, Al Jazeera, NBC. I write a monthly column for the Guardian, but I didn't want to go work for the Guardian. I've already done stuff for the Intercept and the New Statesman. I wanted to do my own thing, so I thought if not now, when? This idea that I needed to speak freely crystallized pretty quickly, especially in the climate we're in with Gaza, the return of Trump, fascism. As far as ever being employed by anyone else again, I think that ship has sailed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Growing Fears of Massive Strikes On Iran As Nuclear Negotiations Sputter
U.S. President Donald Trump has been presented with a broad array of potential military options against Iran should ongoing nuclear negotiations with that country fail. Israel is already reportedly moving ever closer to at least being in a position to launch its own strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The direct and indirect blowback from any such operations against Iran could be immense. Fears that U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks are on the verge of collapse have been steadily growing in the past week or so amid statements from both sides outlining potentially intractable positions. Iran's ability to continue domestic enrichment of nuclear material that could be used to produce nuclear weapons has emerged as a key stumbling block to reaching a deal. 'If the President directed [it], is CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] prepared to respond with overwhelming force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran?' Congressman Mike Rogers, an Alabama Republican, asked U.S. Army Gen. Michael 'Erik' Kurilla at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee today. Kurilla is currently head of CENTCOM, making him the top officer overseeing operations across the Middle East. 'I have provided the Secretary of Defense [Pete Hegseth] and the President [Trump] a wide range of options,' Kurilla said in response. 'I take that as a yes?' Rogers, the present chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, asked in return, appearing to refer to the specific wording of his question, to include the possible use of 'overwhelming force.' 'Yes,' Kurrila said. Top U.S. military commander in the Middle East General Kurilla confirms that he has presented military options on Iran to President Trump & SecDef Hegseth in House Armed Services Committee this morning. — Brian Katulis (@Katulis) June 10, 2025 It is important to note here that U.S. presidents and defense secretaries regularly ask to be briefed on potential military options in light of crises or heightened risks of one erupting. Being presented with a full range of operational possibilities, including large-scale strikes or other significant direct action, does not mean the United States is automatically committed to pursuing any specific course of action, something we will come back to later on. Publicly, Trump has consistently advocated for reaching a deal with Iran to avoid any need to take military action, though he has also raised the possibility of military action in the event talks reach a dead end. He has separately said that he has pressed his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to hold off on striking Iranian targets while negotiations are ongoing. There have been reports of significant friction between the two world leaders, as well. Amid all this, the U.S. president is said to be facing increasingly intense pressure from a faction of domestic political allies to acquiesce to and/or join in on Israeli attacks on Iran, according to a new report just today from Politico. There have been reports for weeks already that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been actively planning and otherwise preparing to launch strikes on Iran, and the country's nuclear sites in particular. Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported yesterday that those plans continue to advance, while the country's Channel 12 television station had said that more active preparations, including the prepositioning of munitions, may now be underway. It is also worth noting that there have been persistent reports about possible Israeli strikes on Iran for some time, but that this actually came to pass on a more limited level last year. Authorities in Israel have also demonstrated a new willingness to launch overt attacks beyond the country's borders, in general. Preparations for an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities are said to be nearing completion, with the final steps, including the transfer of munitions and operational planning, currently ongoing, according to Channel 12. — OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 9, 2025 'Iran is acting much differently in negotiations than it did just days ago,' Trump said in an interview today with Fox News' Bret Baier. 'Much more aggressive. It's surprising to me. It's disappointing, but we are set to meet again tomorrow – we'll see.' Trump had told reporters that the next round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks was scheduled for Thursday during a question-and-answer session around an Invest America roundtable with multiple corporate CEOs at the White House yesterday. It is unclear whether or not this plan has changed. 'We have a meeting with Iran on Thursday. So we're going to wait till Thursday,' Trump had said. 'They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up. You know what that is. They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment. We want just the opposite.' US President Donald Trump told reporters that the next round of nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran will be held on Thursday, adding that Iran is demanding things "that you can't do." He noted that Tehran is insisting on uranium enrichment. — Rudaw English (@RudawEnglish) June 9, 2025 'And so far, they're not there. I hate to say that, because the alternative is a very, very dire one, but they're not there,' the U.S. president continued. 'They have given us their thoughts on the deal. I said, you know, it's just not acceptable.' 'We discussed a lot of things, and it went very well, very smooth. We'll see what happens. You know, we're trying to do something with a country we just spoke about, Iran,' Trump said at the same White House event yesterday in response to questions about a telephone conversation earlier in the day with Netanyahu. 'They [the Iranians] are good negotiators, but they're tough. Sometimes they can be too tough. That's the problem, we're trying to make a deal so that there's no destruction and death. And we've told them that, and I've told them that. I hope that's the way it works out, but it might not work out that way. We'll soon find out.' Trump response when he said the US officials have meeting with the Iranians on Thursday and that he discussed Lebanon with Netanyahu . — Hiba Nasr (@HibaNasr) June 9, 2025 Iran 'won't be enriching,' Trump had already told reporters this past weekend. 'If they enrich, then we're going to have to do it the other way.' Domestic Iranian capacity to enrich Uranium to a level of purity required to make effective nuclear weapons has long been a sticking point between Tehran and much of the international community. The U.S. Intelligence Community, among others, continues to assess that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program, but that the country has put itself in a position where it could build one within as little as a week if it chose to do so. The United States, Israel, and others, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have also accused Iran of lying, or at least being far less than forthcoming, about the full extent of its nuclear efforts to date. Signals from the Trump administration on the enrichment issue specifically have been mixed in recent weeks. Axios reported just last week that a proposed U.S. deal might allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to lower purity levels associated with civilian nuclear generation. A previous multi-national deal with Iran that the United States was party to, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), had also put limits on Iranian enrichment, but did not require it to be stopped outright. Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 during his first term in office. Iran announced in 2020 that it was no longer abiding by any of the agreement's stipulations. For its part, Iran has stressed repeatedly that it is not willing to completely abandon its domestic enrichment efforts. Iranian authorities have also said they want a clear, formalized plan for relief from U.S. sanctions as part of any new nuclear agreement. 'The U.S. proposal is not acceptable to us. It was not the result of previous rounds of negotiations. We will present our own proposal to the other side via Oman after it is finalized. This proposal is reasonable, logical, and balanced,' Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said early today, according to Reuters. 'We must ensure before the lifting of sanctions that Iran will effectively benefit economically and that its banking and trade relations with other countries will return to normal.' 'Uranium enrichment is the key to our nuclear program and the enemies have focused on the enrichment,' Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also said last week during a televised address, again per Reuters. 'The proposal that the Americans have presented is 100% against our interests … The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear programme. Who are you to decide whether Iran should have enrichment?' Majid Takht-e-Ravanchi, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs, also indicated yesterday that Iran could be looking to extend negotiations without necessarily outright rejecting a particular proposal. 'Our proposal is certainly not a one-sentence or one-paragraph text that can be easily dismissed,' Takht-e-Ravanchi explained in an interview with state-run IRNA. 'It contains elements that demonstrate our seriousness, show that our position has a defined framework, and indicate that we intend to work based on established principles. Our approach is logical.' 'The reality is that we are not discussing an excessively lengthy text at this stage because we do not intend to present a comprehensive, time-consuming agreement or understanding. The proposal we have submitted serves as a framework for an agreement. If there is mutual understanding regarding this framework, we can then begin more detailed negotiations on specific issues.' If U.S. negotiations with Iran do collapse, and American and/or Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities or other targets follow, it is unclear what the scale and scope of that operation might be, as already noted. The IDF has already demonstrated an ability to launch precision standoff strikes on Iran with virtual impunity in the past year, but only against targets on the surface. Israeli forces would face significantly greater challenges in neutralizing deeply buried sites tied to Iran's nuclear program. TWZ highlighted this reality after Israel announced its special operations forces had conducted a dramatic ground raid on an underground missile production facility in Syria last year. 'What member states decide to do is their prerogative,' IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told The Jerusalem Post yesterday. 'I don't advise the Israeli government. They will decide what's best.' 'But one thing is certain,' he added, 'The [Iranian nuclear] program runs wide and deep. And when I say 'deep,' I mean it. Many of these facilities are extremely well-protected. Disrupting them would require overwhelming and devastating force.' This is where questions about U.S. participation typically come into the picture. America's armed forces have a unique conventional deep-penetrating strike capability in the form of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers armed with GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster bombs. TWZ highlighted the significance of this combination in reporting around the unusually large deployment of six B-2s to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia between March and May of this year, as well as the use of those bombers in strikes on Yemen last October. In both cases, we also pointed out the clear strategic signalling aimed at Iran. The B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia represented just a portion of the additional U.S. forces and materiel that flowed into the Middle East since the beginning of the year. In addition, last week, reports began to emerge that the U.S. military had diverted counter-drone capabilities originally intended to be delivered to Ukraine to American forces in the Middle East. Like Israel, the U.S. military could also launch its own standoff strikes on Iran via other aircraft, as well as ships and submarines, but would face similar limitations in the kinds of targets it might be able to prosecute. Questions have even been raised in the past about whether some of Iran's underground nuclear facilities might be beyond the reach even of the MOP. Strikes that do not fully destroy facilities could still put them out of commission for at least a limited time. Ground raids could also be launched as part of what might be a protracted campaign. Any such operation would require a much larger force package beyond just the assets tasked with carrying out the strikes, including to suppress and destroy hostile air defenses, and would present additional risks as a result. U.S. operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen in the past year or so have highlighted how even more rudimentary air defenses can still present real threats to even advanced American aircraft, as you can read more about here. All of this would be further magnified by any need to mount a combat search and rescue effort to recover American personnel should their aircraft be downed inside Iran. The Houthis' arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as kamikaze drones, which the group has amassed with immense help from Iran, also underscores the dangers U.S. warships could face from Iranian retaliation. TWZ already explored the potential broader ramifications of a major conflict between the United States and Iran in detail earlier this year amid another spike in tensions between the two countries. Iran has long vowed to carry out a broad retaliatory response if its nuclear facilities are targeted. This could include missile and drone attacks on Israeli and U.S. interests across the Middle East on a scale and scope not seen ever before, as well as similar actions by proxy forces like the Houthis, along with terrorist attacks globally. 'We have a rule in CENTCOM: you improve your foxhole every single day,' Kurrila also said at today's hearing. Kurilla says an Israeli attack on Iran would increase the risks to safety of US troops in the region. 'We have a rule in CENTCOM: you improve your foxhole every single day.' — Jared Szuba (@JM_Szuba) June 10, 2025 Just this week, Iranian authorities explicitly threatened to strike Israeli nuclear sites if their own are targeted. This followed claims from Iran's intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, that his country is in possession of a trove of secrets about Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, which he has also threatened to publicly release. This remains largely unconfirmed, but IAEA's Grossi has indicated that the information Iran has relates primarily to Israel's publicly acknowledged Soreq nuclear research facility. It's also worth noting that Iran's general ability to threaten missile and drone attacks on targets further away from its shores has steadily grown in recent years. The U.S. Air Force's deployment in May of a contingent of F-15E Strike Eagle combat jets to provide force protection on Diego Garcia, which TWZ was first to report, highlights this fact. The island, where a force of a B-52 bombers also remains forward-deployed, has historically been seen as being less vulnerable, especially to smaller potential adversaries like Iran, simply due to its remoteness. Grossi, among others, has also warned that attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities could prompt the country to start an active nuclear weapons program. The U.S. Intelligence Community has publicly assessed that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei is already under increasing pressure from domestic hardliners to do so. There is clear potential for other second-order impacts, as well. Iranian authorities have threatened the possibility of blockading the Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, in times of heightened tensions in the past. Doing so would have major impacts on global oil and natural gas supplies. Yemen's Houthis have already massively disrupted international shipping with attacks on commercial vessels in and around the Red Sea in the past year or so. Regional and global impacts could draw in other countries and create additional complexities. Russia and China, for instance, have deep ties to Iran and interests in keeping the current regime in Tehran in place. All told, it remains to be seen whether the United States and/or Israel will launch attacks on Iran, including its nuclear sites. At the same time, that decision looks to heavily hinge on the increasingly uncertain future of ongoing U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Contact the author: joe@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump plans to punish Newsom
The Trump administration is considering cutting California's federal education funding, as a tit-for-tat battle with Gavin Newsom, the state's governor, reaches boiling point. Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested Mr Newsom should be arrested for his 'bad job' in handling a wave of anti-deportation protests, which erupted on Friday in response to immigration raids. It comes as Mr Newsom on Tuesday accused Mr Trump of a 'brazen abuse of power' when he deployed thousands of National Guard troops and 700 US marines in Los Angeles to quell the protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. The state is suing the president for sending in troops without Mr Newsom's approval, marking the first time since civil rights protests in 1965 that a president sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest without cooperation from the state's governor. Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said the administration is 'committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream'. He added: 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the administration have been made.' In the wake of the row, White House officials may stop the education department's disbursement of 'formula funds' to California, Politico reported. The state receives $8 billion a year from the education department. Some of the payouts are used towards programs for students with disabilities and from low-income homes. Mr Trump's vow to cut funding to the country's most populous state began before his latest clash with Mr Newsom and his dispatch of Marines and the National Guard. He has already cut $126.4 million in flood prevention projects, and threatened to dilute California's tough vehicle emissions standards. Last month, he said he would halt federal funding after a transgender athlete took part in a sporting event. His pause to visas for students from China would also have an outsized impact on California as it enrols more foreign students than any other state. As the state was ravaged by a series of wildfires in January, Mr Trump directly blamed Mr Newsom for LA's struggling water supply, and threatened to bar California from accepting federal disaster funds unless they changed water policies. Speaking on Tuesday, Mr Trump described the LA protesters as 'a foreign enemy' and vowed to 'liberate' Los Angeles. A curfew has been enforced between 8pm to 6am in the downtown area of central Los Angeles, in what officials say is necessary to stop vandalism and looting. Mr Newsom has urged demonstrators – who have been protesting ICE raids since Friday – to remain peaceful and said Mr Trump's actions were fulfilling 'the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial president' . Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ICE rejected Mahmoud Khalil's request to be detained closer to newborn son, emails show
After nearly three months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil made a request to move closer to his family. ICE denied it last week, according to emails reviewed Wednesday by NBC News. Khalil's legal team asked in late May that he be transferred to a detention center in New Jersey to be closer to his wife and newborn son. He has been held in a Louisiana ICE facility since March. ICE's policy requires detaining noncitizen parents or legal guardians, who are primary caretakers or have custody of minor children, in facilities close to their children The New Orleans ICE Field Office wrote that Khalil did not fall under the agency policy's criteria and denied the request without explanation, according to the emails. 'I am declining your request that Mr. Khalil be transferred from the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana to a detention center in New Jersey,' an official wrote. Nora Ahmed, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, which is part of Khalil's legal team, called the decision 'cruel.' 'ICE's directive recognizes that the government should have no role in destroying the family unit, and yet that is exactly what is happening here,' Ahmed said. Neither ICE nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to requests for comment on the emails. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, a Michigan-born dentist, gave birth to the couple's son in April. Citing the ICE policy, his legal team reached out to the New Orleans office in hope of getting him moved. The directive, issued in 2022, considers detained parents who have custody of their children as 'covered individuals' under the policy. It stipulates that covered individuals must be placed 'as close as practicable' to their minor children. It also requires ICE personnel to accommodate regular visitation between covered individuals and their minor children. 'There is no possible justification to detain Mr. Khalil at such a great distance from his minor child, in violation of ICE's own policy, when ICE maintains numerous detention facilities within driving distance of where Mr. Khalil's wife and infant son reside in New York City,' Khalil's counsel wrote in an email to the New Orleans ICE office. In an email to Khalil's legal counsel, an official at the New Orleans ICE office said he did not qualify as a covered individual. Khalil, who grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and was granted permanent U.S. resident status last year, became a widely recognized activist amid the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University last year. In March, he was abruptly arrested outside his student housing on campus and detained before being the Trump administration accused him of leading 'activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.' He has not been charged with any crime. ICE previously rejected Khalil's request to attend his son's birth, court documents show. 'The most immediate and visceral harms I have experienced directly relate to the birth of my son, Deen. Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' Khalil said in a legal filing last week. Khalil met his son for the first time last month, his attorneys said, just before an immigration hearing. This article was originally published on