Trump is Within His Rights to Remove Pro-Hamas Protesters

Six weeks into the second Trump administration, and just days after President Trump expressed intent to combat “illegal protests” at universities, the State Department has revoked the first visa of a foreign student involved in disruptions, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehended a legal permanent resident (green card holder) who participated in pro-Hamas protests on campus.

This action aligns with the necessary steps to improve campus culture. Additionally, contrary to the claims of some critics, it does not infringe on First Amendment rights.

Following the detention of Mahmoud Khalil by ICE agents, a Democratic backlash ensued.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee tweeted “Free Mahmoud Khalil” on X. DNC vice-chair David Hogg condemned it as “one more step in Trump’s authoritarian march, detaining Palestinian . . . Mahmoud Khalil.”

Interestingly, Khalil is actually Syrian, not “Palestinian,” and the Democrats are misguided in both their understanding of the principles involved and their interpretation of the law in this scenario.

In fact, this is a straightforward enforcement of U.S. immigration law, which stipulates that individuals on a visa (whether tourist, student, or work) who demonstrate ineligibility for that visa—classified as “inadmissible” under the Immigration and Nationality Act—can have their visa revoked.

Even President Biden’s State Department previously indicated to then-Senator Marco Rubio that it could annul the visas of those supporting Hamas.

Temporary visa holders, like students, generally do not receive a hearing or any recourse beyond an administrative order that is not contestable.

Conversely, green card holders like Khalil have the right to appear before an immigration judge, who must decide if the government has sufficiently proven the case for deportation.

There is no doubt that pro-Hamas demonstrations at universities nationwide pose risks to the U.S. foreign policy objectives, which include safeguarding the state of Israel, a key ally of the United States.

In Khalil’s case, it remains unclear what due process he has received, such as whether he was served a notice to appear before an immigration judge. However, it is evident that the executive branch has the authority to evaluate noncitizens based on their beliefs, empowered by laws enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.

While there is potential for abuse of the relevant sections of the INA, there is currently no evidence indicating any misuse in these instances. Instead, they are being applied selectively in the interest of national security.

Moreover, Trump has additional options available: The inadmissibility provisions of the INA also enable the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” he determines to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

During Trump’s initial term, the Supreme Court upheld wide-ranging presidential discretion to assess, restrict, and even prohibit immigration—culminating in the high-profile litigation surrounding the “travel ban.”

In Trump v. Hawaii, the court affirmed an executive order limiting travel from certain nations, where Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the sole statutory requirement is that the president “finds” the entry of affected individuals to be “detrimental to the national interest.”

This is precisely what is occurring now.

In one of the first executive orders Trump signed this year, he instructed federal agencies to enhance the vetting of individuals seeking admission and those already present in the U.S., emphasizing that “the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.”

Additionally, as part of his “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” executive order, he mandated the use of “all available and appropriate legal tools” to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold accountable those responsible for unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.

All of this is entirely rational: It is the government’s responsibility to filter out visitors and migrants who may pose a threat to our country, including those who reject our values or harbor hostility towards our way of life, such as Communists, Nazis, or Islamists.

When immigrants apply for legal permanent residency or citizenship, they are required to affirm that they are not affiliated with such groups “or any other totalitarian party.”

For further illustration, 1,000 Chinese nationals had their visas revoked in 2020 due to being considered national security threats—a decision that the Biden administration defended successfully in court.

While the government cannot imprison noncitizens for expressing unpopular opinions, it can and should rescind or deny visas to those who promote causes that are fundamentally opposed to the United States.

There is nothing objectionable about expelling individuals who engage in harassment, intimidation, vandalism, or disrupt the educational mission of institutions. More actions like this are welcomed.

Ilya Shapiro is the director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, where Daniel Di Martino is a fellow. Both are immigrants. Adapted from City Journal.