The case of Mahmoud Khalil has been the talk of the nation’s media in recent days.

Predictably, coverage has been short on context, but long on editorializing platitudes. Outlets like NPR and CNN have worked to depict Khalil’s story as simply one of a “prominent” protester “against Israel’s war in Gaza,” whose right to “free speech” is being attacked by the Trump administration.

But this narrative is only tenable when material information is left out of the story.

As with any legal proceeding, there is some legal and factual ambiguity, but mainstream media outlets have omitted crucial context about both the law and the facts.

Some of that context is provided below, beginning with a broad overview of the relevant laws and ending with a list of some of the relevant facts.

US Immigration Law

US immigration law provides reasons for which a green card holder may be deported (“removed”) from the country. (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)). Those relevant to the Khalil case include general security considerations, terrorist activities, and foreign policy considerations.

General security grounds for deportation include any green card holder who engages in “criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security” or “any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means…” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)).

Another grounds for deportation is if a green card holder engages in “terrorist activity,” which includes anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization…” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(B) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)).

The third grounds provides that any green card holder “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)).

First Amendment Protections

Green card holders do have some rights, including under the First Amendment. However, those rights may be restricted where there is a “legitimate governmental interest.”

For example, Mark Goldfeder, a former law professor and CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, has pointed to Citizens United v. FEC, in which the Supreme Court specifically mentioned “foreigners” as a category of individuals whose speech rights may be restricted and which “are not automatically coextensive with the rights” of “members of our society.”

To begin, the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3) contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. Subsection (B)(i) has nine grounds related to terrorism.https://t.co/1wK45tUmG4

— Mark Goldfeder (@MarkGoldfeder) March 10, 2025

In another Supreme Court case referenced by legal expert Erielle Azerrad at City Journal, our Nation’s highest court held that foreigners may be deported on the basis of their destructive or “dangerous” advocacy (Turner v. Williams).

Recognizing the importance of the freedom of expression, the Court still acknowledged that governments “cannot be denied the power of self-preservation.” Azerrad also pointed out two recent cases in which appeals courts upheld deportations on grounds that the deportees had distributed flyers on behalf of terrorist organizations (see Hosseini v. Nielsen and Bojnoordi v. Holder).

Other commentators have pointed to even more cases, such as Harisiades v. Shaughnessyand Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Even if these precedents did not exist, the First Amendment is not an automatic bar or absolute right. As explained by Goldfeder, Supreme Court precedent provides that even the right to free expression may be restricted if the law is “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest” which, in this case, would be national security.

A related legal issue typically omitted by media commentators is the prohibition against providing material support for a terrorist organization (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). While this law does not prohibit an individual advocating for a terrorist organization on his own accord, it can and does prohibit “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project).

The Facts

So which facts fit the law in the Khalil case? Consider just a sampling of the evidence.

Khalil is a leader in the organization Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an organization whose most prominent coalition member is Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

Immediately after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, National SJP aligned itself with Hamas, declaring it was “part of” the “movement” operating “under unified command” which had just waged “a large scale battle … within ’48 Palestine” (referring to southern Israel).

Since then, CUAD has been directly involved in numerous illegal and violent actions, including the illegal encampment and the violent takeover of Hamilton Hall at Columbia. During the latter, university staff were violently assaulted and kidnapped.

Importantly, Khalil is not in trouble merely for his and his organization’s horrendous views.

As explained by Ken Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center: “This was not mere protest activity, but involved some degree of criminality. The federal government is not prosecuting people for engaging in political speech. The federal government is addressing criminality, violation of school rules and violation of the terms of either green cards or student visas.”

At the encampment and other CUAD-sponsored events, Hamas propaganda was distributed, including personally by Khalil himself. This included a document titled “Our Narrative … Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” with the “Hamas Media Office” marking on it.

Footage has emerged from earlier this month showing Khalil at one such event where the propaganda booklet was being distributed.

There’s footage of Mahmoud Khalil engaging in criminal activity just last week, when he helped take over a Barnard College academic building that was then littered with terrorist propaganda.

Don’t let them gaslight you into silence pic.twitter.com/ThVReUokO2

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) March 10, 2025

Literature distributed by CUAD contained language such as: “This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly.”

The organization has also hosted events featuring the designated terrorist organization Samidoun and a senior terrorist leader. Events and publications have regularly glorified terrorists, and participants have even encouraged Hamas attacks against peaceful Jewish counter-protesters.

This is happening at @Columbia right now.

A pro-Hamas protestor calling on the Al-Qasam brigade (the military wing of Hamas) to kill Jewish students.

If you are not enraged by this, you can GO FUCK YOURSELF. pic.twitter.com/sw98mjNQKj

— Shai Davidai (@ShaiDavidai) April 21, 2024

Khalil’s organization also harbors deeply anti-American motives. In August 2024, for example, CUAD posted that it is “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization” and aligning itself with “militants … who have been on the frontline in the fight against tyranny and domination which undergird the imperialist world order.” CUAD then declared that its members “must be prepared to make … sacrifices” in order “to achieve liberation in America.”

There is also evidence that has not been made public. According to The New York Post, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was “presented with intelligence” regarding Khalil being a threat to national security. Classified intelligence may be used in deportation hearings that does not need to be disclosed either to the defendant or to the public, if the judge determines that disclosure could harm national security. (8 U.S.C. § 1534(e)(3))

Khalil will have his day in immigration court to make his legal case. But it is incumbent on the media to ensure that the law and the facts have their day in the court of public opinion.