Mahmoud Khalil: Arrested for Protesting?

By Greg Collier

Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest is more than just a single case of immigration enforcement, it’s a warning. Whether one agrees with his views or not, the implications of his detention and potential deportation extend far beyond him. This is about speech, protest, and the boundaries of government power in a democracy.

Khalil, a Syrian-born U.S. permanent resident, was taken into custody under accusations that he supported Hamas. Yet, no criminal charges have been filed, and the evidence against him remains vague at best. What is clear is that he played a significant role in student-led demonstrations at Columbia University, advocating for Palestinian rights and challenging U.S. policies on Israel. For the Trump administration, that was enough to mark him as a target.

Khalil was a visible figure during the Gaza war protests that erupted at Columbia University in the spring of 2024. While activists supporting Israel accused him of leading Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group calling for financial divestment from Israel, he denied that role, stating that he served only as a spokesperson and mediator between students and university officials. His involvement in the protests placed him at the center of a politically charged movement, one that resulted in heavy scrutiny from both the government and pro-Israel advocacy groups.

His history reflects a deep commitment to international education and humanitarian work. Before coming to the U.S., he managed the Syria Chevening Programme for the British Embassy in Beirut, helping students obtain scholarships to study in the UK. He also worked with Jusoor, a non-profit supporting Syrian students. When he moved to the U.S. in 2022 to pursue a master’s degree at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, he became involved in campus activism, particularly as the war in Gaza escalated. His role as a protest mediator made him a recognizable figure, but it also made him a prime target.

The Trump administration has defended Khalil’s arrest, with the president himself calling it “the first of many to come” as part of a broader effort to crack down on what he describes as “un-American activity” among student demonstrators. The Department of Homeland Security accused Khalil of “leading activities aligned to Hamas,” yet has provided no concrete evidence. The White House has gone further, alleging that he organized protests where pro-Hamas propaganda was distributed, despite no proof linking him to such actions.

His case signals a shift in how the government approaches dissent. In recent years, the line between protest and criminalization has blurred, with authorities increasingly using national security rhetoric to justify actions against activists. What makes Khalil’s situation particularly alarming is that he holds legal status in the U.S. Unlike international students who could face visa revocation for engaging in protest, Khalil is a green card holder, someone who has been granted long-term residency. If he can be detained and face deportation for his political activism, it sets a precedent that others could be next.

The message being sent is clear. Protest in a way that challenges the government’s stance, and you may find yourself not just criticized, but legally persecuted. The fear of retaliation chills free speech long before any formal charges are filed. It doesn’t matter whether one supports Khalil’s cause or disagrees with him entirely. What’s at stake is the ability to express political opinions without fear of state reprisal.

This is not happening in isolation. Columbia University, the site of the protests Khalil helped mediate, has already faced severe financial punishment from the Trump administration for its handling of student activism. The university lost $400 million in federal funding after the administration accused it of failing to protect Jewish students from harassment. If universities can lose funding and individuals can be stripped of their legal residency for their political speech, then the door is wide open for further crackdowns.

There is a long history of governments using fear and accusations of extremism to justify silencing opposition. Today, it is Khalil. Tomorrow, it could be any activist, journalist, or student who speaks out in a way that the government finds inconvenient. If this moment is allowed to pass without scrutiny, without resistance, then the ability to freely debate, protest, and challenge power will erode for everyone regardless of ideology.

The question is no longer just about Mahmoud Khalil. The question is, who’s next?