Staff Reports
Mahmoud Khalil, a former Palestinian graduate student with a penchant for pro-Hamas rants, has found himself cooling his heels in a Louisiana detention center while his fate hangs precariously in the balance. Khalil, known for calling for a “student intifada” at Columbia University, is the poster child for what happens when one’s love of terrorist rhetoric overshadows common sense. No wonder folks on both sides of the political aisle are arguing over whether he should be sent packing.
On one hand, you have a gaggle of New York Democrats and Socialists declaring that Khalil’s first-class free speech rights are under siege. They seem to think that advocating for a terrorist organization is just another vibrant part of “progressive expression.” Their letter, signed by politicians looking to ride the anti-ICE wave, insists that he should be set free like a bird, perched comfortably back in New York. Assembly member Claire Valdez, who clearly has a unique view of free speech, joined this mission to shield Khalil from the consequences of supporting violence against innocents. Apparently, the idea of condemning terrorism is controversial when it clashes with the left’s agenda.
On the other side, there are those who can see the forest for the trees. Khalil’s antics included pushing anti-Semitic propaganda on campus, turning him into a nightmare for Jewish students seeking a peaceful education. It’s hard to argue that handing out Hamas flyers is just an innocent expression of Palestinian rights. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt laid it out clearly: when someone actively interferes with the safety and education of their peers while promoting terrorism, it’s hardly a matter of free speech.
Now, as U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman prepares to rule on Khalil’s case, he faces an uphill battle thanks to the federal government’s high burden of proof. However, it’s astonishing that the government has to make a solid argument against someone who seems so keen on promoting insurrection. Throughout it all, Khalil hasn’t been charged with any crime—at least not yet. Still, anyone with half a brain can see that advocating for violence against civilians isn’t exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the First Amendment.
Whether to Deport Khalil Is a Close Call. And That's a Good Thing.https://t.co/kGlvbKqUe2
— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) March 12, 2025
Khalil’s legal team, led by attorney Ramzi Kassem, has come out swinging, declaring that their client is merely a victim of “unconstitutional” prejudice. The notion that he is being unfairly targeted because of his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian rights is as absurd as claiming that a cat is a dog. Khalil put himself on the radar by blatantly supporting a group responsible for the murder of innocent people. The real tragedy here isn’t Khalil’s plight; it’s the idea that anyone could think it’s acceptable to cheer on terrorists while living in the land of the free.
Khalil was given a special opportunity to study in the United States, yet he chose to abandon that privilege in favor of siding with terrorists. This should be a clear-cut case: a person who supports genocide and harassment has no place in a nation that values human rights. It is time for the courts to make the right call—not for the sake of free speech, but for the sake of justice. The left’s insistence on portraying Khalil as a martyr is nothing short of ridiculous, and it should serve as a wake-up call for conservatives everywhere. The protection of the First Amendment doesn’t mean protecting those who would destroy its very foundations.
