'I am not afraid': Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi freed from federal custody
Mahdawi, who was born and raised in a refugee camp in the West Bank, was arrested by federal authorities back on April 14 while he was arriving to a naturalization interview. Since then, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been holding him at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.
"I am saying it clear and loud to President Trump and his Cabinet: I am not afraid of you," Mahdawi said told a crowd of supporters after his release. What appeared to be hundreds of people cheered him on as he emerged from a courthouse and cheered, "No fear!"
Mahdawi's release, which came after an order from U.S. District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, comes as other college students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk continue to fight for their freedom after being detained by federal agents in recent months.
"You might think I am free, but my freedom is interlinked to the freedom of many other students," he said. "What is happening now is a light of hope. Justice Crawford, who ruled to release me against all of the heinous accusations, horrible attacks, chills of speech, First Amendment violations, he has made a very brave decision to let me out and this is what justice is."
In a statement to USA TODAY, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that the judge's ruling would not stop the Trump administration from "restoring the rule of law to our immigration system."
'It is a privilege to be granted a visa or green card to live and study in the United States of America. When you advocate for violence, glorify and support terrorists that relish the killing of Americans, or harass Jews, that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country," she said.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment on Wednesday.
According to court records, Mahdawi was detained by federal agents back on April 14 as he was showing up to an appointment to become a citizen of the United States.
A friend of Mahdawi's posted a video online of him being taken from the immigration office by Department of Homeland Security officers and placed in an official vehicle. Mahdawi flashed a pair of peace signs with his hands cuffed in front. He flashed peace signs again after his release on Wednesday.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and others from Vermont's congressional delegation labeled the detention "immoral, inhumane, and illegal," saying the legal U.S. resident should be afforded due process and released immediately.
Mahdawi "walked into an immigration office for what was supposed to be the final step in his citizenship process. Instead, he was arrested and removed in handcuffs by plainclothes, armed individuals with their faces covered," they said.
According to court records, Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Mahdawi's detention by saying that his 'presence and activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
Rubio did not elaborate.
This story was updated to fix an inaccuracy.
Contributing: Reuters
Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at fernando.cervantes@gannett.com and follow him on X @fern_cerv_.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi freed from federal custody
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Trump says he will fire BLS commissioner after July jobs report disappoints
President Trump said in a social media post Friday afternoon that he directed members of his administration to fire Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after the BLS on Friday published a July jobs report that contained what it called "larger than normal" revisions to data from May and June. The July jobs report published Friday morning showed the US economy added 73,000 jobs last month, fewer than expected, while the unemployment rate rose to 4.2%. The most notable numbers to emerge from the report, however, were downward revisions to job gains in May and June which that saw 258,000 jobs taken away from what had been initially reported. May's job gains were revised down to 19,000 from 144,000, while June's additions were cut to just 14,000 from the 147,000 initially reported. In its release on Friday, the BLS said these revisions, "result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors." Economists on Friday were near-unanimous in their view that July's jobs data and the revisions to May and June reflect a labor market that is far weaker than had been suggested by recent data and characterizations by some officials, notably Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. "The 'solid' state of the labor market described by the FOMC earlier this week looks more questionable after the July employment report," Wells Fargo senior economist Sarah House wrote in a note Friday. Job gains over the last three months have now averaged just 35,000 after Friday's revisions. In his post on Friday, Trump accused McEntarfer and the BLS of reporting "faked" jobs numbers in the run-up to last year's election, and noted February's benchmark revision to 2024 jobs data that showed payroll growth last year was overstated by some 818,000 jobs. "Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes," Trump said in his post on Truth Social. "The Economy is BOOMING under 'TRUMP' despite a Fed that also plays games, this time with Interest Rates, where they lowered them twice, and substantially, just before the Presidential Election, I assume in the hopes of getting 'Kamala' elected - How did that work out? Jerome 'Too Late' Powell should also be put 'out to pasture,'" Trump added. On Wednesday, the Fed voted to keep interest rates unchanged in a range of 4.25%-4.5%. Trump has for some time called on the central bank to lower interest rates. This is breaking news, more to come... Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Want to challenge yourself with the Presidential Fitness Test? Here's what you've got to do.
President Trump is bringing back the tough — and, for some children, traumatic — collection of physical challenges. President Trump signed an executive order Thursday reviving the Presidential Fitness Test, a series of physical challenges that was once something of a rite of passage for generations of American schoolchildren. 'This is a wonderful tradition, and we're bringing it back,' Trump said during a press conference in which he was flanked by several famous athletes, including pro golfer Bryson DeChambeau and former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor. Bringing back the test, which was scrapped by the Obama administration more than a decade ago, is part of the Trump administration's broader campaign to 'restore the urgency of improving the health of Americans,' according to the executive order. The Presidential Fitness Test was born in the early stages of the Cold War at a time when U.S. leaders had begun to view the perceived athletic ineptitude of the average American child as a genuine national security threat. 'The harsh fact of the matter is that there is also an increasingly large number of young Americans who are neglecting their bodies — whose physical fitness is not what it should be — who are getting soft. And such softness on the part of the individual citizen can help to strip and destroy the vitality of a nation,' incoming President John F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in a 1960 magazine article titled The Soft American. The specifics of the test changed quite a bit over the years. A softball throw that was part of the original framework — as a way to judge one's grenade-tossing prowess — was eliminated. The sit-ups were changed from straight-leg to bent-knee posture to relieve strain on children's backs. The runs were made longer as cardiovascular endurance became a bigger priority. Why did the test end? Though the test had become a routine part of the school calendar for millions of students across the country, questions about both its effectiveness and potential negative outcomes ultimately compelled the Obama administration to retire it. For years, health experts had argued that testing kids on a limited set of specific skills is not a productive way to gauge the overall fitness of a child — let alone the general fitness of America's youth as a whole. There were also concerns that forcing children to do these challenges in front of their peers could be a major source of shame, ridicule and bullying. In 2012, the government announced it would replace the test with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, a more holistic health initiative that prioritized individualized goals for children over uniform, competitive testing. Take the test yourself The Trump administration hasn't outlined what the exact makeup of the revived test will be, but you can measure your adult self against children of decades past by using an older version of the test. Here's what you'll need to do and how well you'll need to perform to beat the average 12-year-old in 1985 or score high enough to reach the 85th percentile and earn the coveted Presidential Physical Fitness Award. Sit-ups What it measures: Core strength How to do it: Lie flat on your back with knees bent and your hands on opposite shoulders. Lift your torso until your elbows touch your thighs, then lower back down until your shoulders touch the floor. Repeat as many times as possible in one minute. 50th percentile: 40 reps (boys), 35 reps (girls) 85th percentile: 50 reps (boys), 45 reps (girls) Shuttle run What it measures: Agility How to do it: Mark two parallel lines 30 feet apart and place two small objects behind one of the lines. Starting at the other line, run as quickly as possible to grab one of the objects and place it on the ground back where you started. Repeat this a second time to retrieve the second object. The timer stops when you cross the starting line with the second object in your hand. 50th percentile: 10.6 seconds (boys), 11.3 seconds (girls) 85th percentile: 9.8 seconds (boys), 10.4 seconds (girls) 1-mile run What it measures: Physical endurance How to do it: Run, for one mile. 50th percentile: 8:40 minutes (boys), 11:05 minutes (girls) 85th percentile: 7:11 minutes (boys), 8:23 minutes (girls) V-sit & reach What it measures: Flexibility How to do it: Place a measuring tape stretched out at least two feet on the floor. Sit with the soles of your feet level with the 12-inch mark of the tape measure; this is your baseline. With straight legs and knees firmly on the ground, bend forward as far as possible and hold for three seconds. Every inch beyond the baseline receives a plus value (reaching the 17-inch mark on the tape measure would be a +5 score, for example), and every inch short of the 12-inch mark gets a negative value. A version of this test can also be done with a box if one is available. 50th percentile: +1 (boys), +3.5 (girls) 85th percentile: +4 (boys), +7 (girls) Pull-ups What it tests: Upper body strength How to do it: Hang from a horizontal bar with your feet off the ground. Hands can be in either an overhand or underhand position. Pull yourself up until your chin clears the bar, then lower yourself until your arms are straight for one repetition. Do as many as you can with no time limit. Swinging or kicking is not permitted, so CrossFit-style 'kipping' pull-ups will not be counted. 50th percentile: 2 (boys), 1 (girls) 85th percentile: 7 (boys), 2 (girls) Solve the daily Crossword
Vox
10 minutes ago
- Vox
Brett Kavanaugh says he doesn't owe the public an explanation
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh defended the Supreme Court's recent practice of handing victories to President Donald Trump without explaining those decisions, while speaking at a judicial conference on Thursday. For most of its history, the Supreme Court was very cautious about weighing in on any legal dispute before it arrived on its doorstep through the (often very slow) process of lawyers appealing lower court decisions. There are many reasons for this caution, but one of the biggest ones is that, if the justices race to decide matters, they may get them wrong. And, on many legal questions, no one can overrule the Court if the justices make a mistake. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Beginning in Trump's first term, however, the Republican justices started throwing caution to the wind. When Trump loses a case in a lower court, his lawyers often run to the Court's 'shadow docket,' a once-obscure process that allows litigants to skip in line and receive an immediate order from the justices, but only if the justices agree. Unlike in ordinary Supreme Court cases — argued on the 'merits docket' — the justices do not often explain why they ruled a particular way in shadow docket cases. Before Trump, the Court was hypercautious about granting relief on the shadow docket, because doing so often required them to decide high-stakes matters without much deliberation, full briefing, or an oral argument. Now, the Supreme Court hands down 'emergency' orders benefiting the Trump administration so often that it's just a regular part of the justices' work. (The Court was much more reluctant to grant similar relief to former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.) As law professor Steve Vladeck pointed out in late June, the Court granted, at least in part, 'each of the last 14 [shadow docket] applications filed by the Department of Justice.' Since then, the Court handed Trump two more victories on its shadow docket, including a major decision permitting the Trump administration to fire close to half of the Department of Education's workforce. Though the Democratic justices frequently dissent from these shadow docket decisions, the Court's Republican majority rarely explains why they cast their lot with Trump. At a judicial conference last week, Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said that these silent decisions are a mistake. 'Courts are supposed to explain things,' Kagan argued. 'They're supposed to explain things to litigants. They're supposed to explain things to the public, generally.' And that brings us back to Kavanaugh's remarks on Thursday, which seemed to be a direct response to Kagan and others who've offered a similar criticism of the Court's unexplained pro-Trump decisions. Kavanaugh's argument for silence is pretty good — but only if you assume that the Court needs to fast-track every request from Trump Kavanaugh's case for deciding Trump cases without an explanation is fairly straightforward. The shadow docket is often the Court's first opportunity to weigh in on a particular lawsuit, but it will not be the last. Typically, when the Court grants shadow docket relief, that relief is only temporary — lasting while the case is being litigated to a final decision. Once a federal appeals court reaches its final decision on the matter, the losing party can seek Supreme Court review of that final decision. And, if the justices decide to take up the case at this later stage, it will receive the full deliberation, briefing, and oral argument that Supreme Court cases have traditionally received. Kavanaugh warned that there is a 'risk,' if the Court releases a majority opinion when the case reaches them on the shadow docket, 'of a lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that's not going to reflect the final view.' If the majority explains itself, the argument goes, then the justices may become entrenched in a position that is incorrect — and that they would not have reached if they had considered the case for the first time after full briefing and argument. Lower courts, meanwhile, are bound by Supreme Court opinions, even when those opinions are handed down on the shadow docket. So if a majority of the justices hand down a half-baked opinion that is riddled with errors and unworkable legal standards, every other court in the country will have to apply those standards to similar future cases. Viewed through a narrow lens, Kavanaugh makes a pretty good argument. If you assume that the Supreme Court cannot simply tell Trump to wait until after the lower courts are done considering his cases before the justices get involved, as it did for nearly all litigants for most of its modern history, then Kavanaugh is right that these hastily decided cases should often be decided without an opinion. The justices should, at the very least, be briefed on all the downside risks of deciding a case in a particular way before they issue a binding opinion that makes those risks a reality. But the justices do not need to drop everything and race to hand down a decision every time that Trump's lawyers ask them to do so. The Court used to have a way of screening shadow docket petitions to ensure that only the ones that required their immediate attention received it. It could go back to doing things the way they were done before Trump's rise to power. Nken v. Holder, briefly explained The Supreme Court explained how the shadow docket is supposed to work in Nken v. Holder (2009), which was handed down roughly a decade before the Court turned its shadow docket into a fast-track complaints department for Donald Trump. Nken explained that, when a litigant asks an appellate court to block a lower court's decision while the case is still ongoing, it is not enough for that litigant to demonstrate that they are likely to prevail on appeal. Someone seeking shadow docket relief (or its equivalent in a lower appeals court) must also show that they 'will be irreparably injured absent a stay.' Often, appeals courts must also ask whether blocking the lower court's decision would 'substantially injure' any third parties, or otherwise harm 'the public interest.' Think of it this way: Imagine that Pepsi sues Coke, wrongly claiming that it is illegal to sell Coke products in the state of Indiana. Now imagine that a trial judge issues an injunction prohibiting Coke from selling anything in that state. This injunction is illegal, and an appeals court should eventually reverse the trial court. But, under Nken, Coke may not be entitled to immediate relief before the appeals court reaches its final decision. The ban on Coke sales in Indiana, while illegal, probably won't cause any irreparable harm to Coke. When it wins on appeal, Coke can calculate how much money it would have earned if it had been allowed to do business in Indiana while the injunction was in place. And a court can potentially order Pepsi to reimburse Coke for this amount of money. Now imagine a different version of Pepsi v. Coke, where Pepsi convinces a trial judge to force Coke to reveal its secret formula for Coca-Cola syrup. Once a secret is out, it is out. So, under Nken, Coke should be entitled to an immediate appeals court decision allowing it to keep its most precious trade secret confidential. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in a pair of dissents earlier this year, however, the Republican justices appear to have abandoned Nken, at least when the Trump administration asks for shadow docket relief. In Social Security Administration v. AFSCME (2025), for example, the Republican justices ruled that DOGE, the enigmatic White House office that was once led by billionaire Elon Musk, may have immediate access to sensitive information kept by the Social Security Administration. Notably, however, when a judge asked one of Trump's lawyers what harm the government would experience if DOGE's access to this information were delayed, the lawyer did not answer — saying instead that the Trump administration would 'stand on the record in its current form.' Similarly, in the Trump administration's brief to the justices in AFSCME, Trump's lawyers did not even attempt to argue that it faced irreparable injury without shadow docket relief. That brief devoted only one paragraph to the question of irreparable harm, and it did not identify any injury to the government that could not be unraveled by a future court order. Instead, it merely complained that the lower court order blocking DOGE's access 'impinges on the President's broad authority.' And yet the Republican justices voted with Trump, violating Nken in the process. Restoring Nken would not mean that shadow docket relief was never available, or even that it would not be available to the federal government in particularly pressing cases. To understand why, consider Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's infamous decision attempting to ban the abortion drug mifepristone by rescinding the Food and Drug Administration's approval of this medication. The Supreme Court blocked Kacsmaryk's decision on the shadow docket, and it was right to do so because cases involving pregnancy are a classic example of a time-sensitive matter where people will be irreparably harmed if the courts do not act quickly. If Kacsmaryk's order had remained in effect, many women seeking abortions would have been unable to obtain the medically recommended treatment. Some might have undergone much more invasive procedures, such as a surgical abortion. Others may have been forced to carry their pregnancy to term. These are irreparable harms. Once a woman undergoes a surgery, it is not possible to unoperate on them, and then go back in time to give them the medication that they should have received in the first place. On the other end of the spectrum, consider the Republican justices' decision in Trump v. CASA (2025), which held that lower court orders blocking Trump's attempt to strip citizenship from some Americans may have been too broad. Though CASA was the unusual shadow docket case where the Republican justices actually produced an opinion that discussed Nken, they brushed off the question of how, exactly, the government is irreparably harmed if someone remains a citizen while this case is being litigated. That was wrong. Nken should have required Trump to demonstrate why these Americans couldn't just be stripped of their citizenship at some later date if he somehow prevails in this litigation. In any event, restoring Nken would address Kavanaugh's concern about hastily drafted opinions in nearly every case. If the Court started applying Nken to Trump, most of his shadow docket petitions would simply be dismissed for seeking relief prematurely — so there would be no need for the Court to issue a rushed opinion explaining whether Trump is likely to prevail once the case is fully litigated. If Nken were still applied, the risk that lower courts would then be bound by those rushed opinions would also disappear in most cases, because there would be no opinions. There would still be occasional shadow docket decisions blocking a lower court's order — like the Court's very brief order in the mifepristone case, where the justices blocked Kacsmaryk without fully explaining themselves. But those decisions would be rare. There would no longer be more than a dozen decisions handed down in just a few months, all of which favor a Republican administration, and few of which contain any legal reasoning whatsoever.
