I support Israel, but Trump's arrest of pro-Palestinian protester crosses a line

USA Today

14-03-2025

I support Israel, but Trump's arrest of pro-Palestinian protester crosses a line | Opinion I've spent years defending Israel against unfair attacks, exposing hypocrisy and double standards of anti-Israel propaganda, but the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil is a mistake that will hurt Israel.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Protesters take over Trump Tower for release of Mahmoud Khalil
Demonstrators with the organization Jewish Voice for Peace were arrested after demanding Mahmoud Khalil's release by staging a Trump Tower sit-in.
Until last weekend, I had never heard of Mahmoud Khalil. Most Americans hadn't. He was a Columbia University graduate student, a lawful permanent resident and a soon-to-be father. Then immigration officers arrested him, sent him to a detention center in Louisiana and turned him into a political symbol.
His crime? Organizing protests against Israel's actions in Gaza.
Khalil faces no charges of violence, terrorism or material support for extremism. His offense appears ideological − he led pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia. His arrest isn't about law enforcement. It's about politics.
I've spent years defending Israel against unfair attacks, exposing hypocrisy and double standards of anti-Israel propaganda, but this is a mistake that will hurt Israel.
Some see this as a victory − a warning shot to campus protesters, a show of strength. But is it? Or has the government set a dangerous precedent while handing Khalil a legacy far beyond anything he could have built on his own?
The administration invoked an obscure immigration statute that allows Secretary of State Marco Rubio to expel a noncitizen if their presence has 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.'
Think about that. Not for committing a crime. Not for aiding a terrorist group. But for their political views.
Trying to silence protesters doesn't work
History shows that silencing critics doesn't work. It amplifies them. We have seen this before, and every time, it ended in embarrassment for the government.
In the 1950s, the U.S. government used vague national security laws to revoke the passport of Paul Robeson, a legendary Black singer and activist, because he refused to disavow the Soviet Union. But silencing him only made him more famous. It culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court case affirming a right to travel and declaring the denial of a passport without due process a violation of civil rights. Robeson's passport was restored.
Similarly, in 1919 during the first Red Scare, the government deported anarchist Emma Goldman to Russia for her political views, even though she had not committed any crimes. This also backfired, giving her a broader international platform to continue advocating for anarchism, free speech and workers' rights on a much larger scale than if she had remained in the United States.
Each time, the justification was national security. Each time, the government not only failed to silence its target but also amplified their message.
Now, unfortunately, Khalil joins that list.
Opinion: I worked alongside Mahmoud Khalil. His detention is a terrifying abuse of power.
Politically inconvenient speech shouldn't lead to arrest
Of course campus protests have crossed lines. Some rhetoric has been antisemitic and threatening. No Jewish student should feel unsafe. But we already have laws to address this. If someone makes threats, charge them. If protests turn into harassment, stop them.
That's not what happened here. Khalil wasn't arrested for breaking the law. He was removed because his speech was politically inconvenient. That should concern anyone who believes in free expression, especially those who advocate for Israel.
The Supreme Court has held that even antisemitic hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it incites and is likely to cause imminent violence. Do Khalil's protests − or the pro-Hamas pamphlets he supposedly distributed − really meet that threshold?
Silencing pro-Palestinian voices with immigration law today sets a precedent that could silence pro-Israel voices tomorrow. What happens when a future administration, under pressure from international allies, decides that Zionist activism threatens U.S. foreign policy? What if a Jewish student from France or South Africa gets expelled for speaking out in support of Israel?
These powers never stay in one lane. What seems like a victory now can easily become a weapon against you later.
Opinion: When free speech champion Elon Musk threatens speech, we should take it seriously
The government should focus its power against real threats, like people funding terrorism, trafficking weapons, planning violence. Yet instead, the administration chose to make an example of an activist and create a martyr.
That's not national security. That's a political spectacle. And in the long run, it makes everyone less safe.
If Khalil had been left alone, few outside his circle would know his name. Now, his detention has turned him into a cause. His case is being watched worldwide. His name will last far longer than his protests ever would have.
By treating him like a political prisoner, the government gave him a platform he never could have built alone. If the goal was to silence him, it failed spectacularly.
And if the goal was to protect Israel, this is the wrong way to do it. Real, lasting support for Israel comes from standing on principle − not from celebrating actions that undermine the freedoms we claim to defend.
Eli Federman works in private equity. He has written for CNN, Fox News, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, including on the First Amendment and the Middle East. Follow him on X: @EliFederman