Is the U.S. Government Monitoring Your Pro-Palestine Posts?

In the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not have the authority to detain or initiate removal (deportation) proceedings against someone solely for exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, and the government cannot punish individuals—including non-citizens—for expressing opinions, even if they are controversial or critical of the government.

However, ICE can detain and deport non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents, visa holders, or undocumented individuals) if they violate specific immigration or criminal laws.

In the case of Mahmoud Khalil, ICE is using INA § 237(a)(4)(D) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(D)) to seek his removal from the United States. This provision states that a non-citizen (including lawful permanent residents) can be deported if the Secretary of State determines that their presence in the U.S. has “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States. Specifically the text states:

“Any alien who has engaged in 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, or who engages in any activity that has or is intended to have a serious adverse foreign policy consequence for the United States, is deportable.”

How Could This Apply to Free Speech?

While the First Amendment protects free speech, the Trump Administration is using this Cold-War era law to justify removal of non-citizens from the United States stating that their free speech has “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” This allows the Trump Administration to treat certain pro-Palestinian speech as potential anti-Semitism, which could then be used in immigration cases. All that is needed is a letter from the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stating that the individual poses a serious adverse foreign policy consequence to the United States.

In Mr. Khalil’s case, the Secretary of State did submit such a letter stating that Mr. Khalil’s “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities…undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.” Rubio’s letter also references Executive Order 14150—America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State, which states, in part, that “as soon as practicable, the Secretary of State shall issue guidance bringing the Department of State’s policies, programs, personnel, and operations in line with an America First foreign policy, which puts America and its interests first.”

Example Cases Where DOS/ICE May Seek To Remove Persons Based On Speech

1. An activist in the U.S. who publicly advocates for overthrowing an allied government on social media and other forums (e.g., a Saudi dissident calling for revolution against the Saudi monarchy).
2. A person who organizes protests that lead to diplomatic tensions (e.g., burning flags of a U.S. ally in front of their embassy).
3. Someone whose social media posts are used by hostile foreign regimes to justify anti-U.S. actions or can be construed as anti-semitic (e.g., a pro-Palestinian activist whose statements are cited by Hamas in propaganda).

Courts have upheld deportations under the INA § 237(a)(4)(D), arguing that immigration law is a “plenary power” of Congress, meaning it has broad authority over non-citizens. However, if applied too broadly, we believe it could violate free speech protections. This provision is being weaponized as a political tool to silence dissent—specifically targeting activists who criticize U.S.-allied regimes. Under the Trump administration, accusations of antisemitism have been cynically exploited to justify the deportation and repression of immigrant communities, conflating legitimate political speech with bigotry to serve an ideological agenda.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that expanded immigration screening procedures, ostensibly to protect national security. Just days later, on January 29, 2025, he signed another EO targeting antisemitism on college campuses. While framed as measures to ensure safety, these policies have been weaponized against academic freedom—specifically targeting noncitizen students and faculty who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

The Trump administration has also increased scrutiny on groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, suggesting ties to Hamas (a designated terrorist organization). ICE and the DOJ will aggressively apply the “material support for terrorism” clause (INA § 212(a)(3)(B)) to deport immigrants for:

• Attending protests where Hamas or PFLP flags were present.
• Donating to Palestinian charities later blacklisted by the U.S.

Know Your Rights

• Given the increasing enforcement of speech, activists should assume their online activities are monitored and avoid calls for violence, explicit support for designated terrorist groups (Hamas, PFLP), or threats—these can trigger removal.
• Non-citizens should avoid donating to charities that are blacklisted
• Non-citizens should avoid making social media posts praising armed resistance (even vague slogans like “From the river to the sea” have been misconstrued). Posts condemning Israel’s right to exist or calling for its elimination will most certainly be viewed as anti-semitic.
• Non-citizens should always use disclaimers such as “I condemn violence against civilians” and “I condemn anti-semitism”), avoid sharing content from Hamas/PFLP-affiliated accounts, even for news.
• Non-citizens should use pseudonyms or refrain from posting political views on social media. If you do post, frame arguments around international law (UN resolutions, ICC rulings) rather than emotive slogans.
• Non-citizens should communicate using Signal or Telegram (secret chats) for private messages and ProtonMail or Tutanota for email.

 Prepare for Law Enforcement Interaction

• If questioned by FBI/ICE:
  • You have the right to remain silent (say: “I choose not to answer questions without a lawyer”).
  • Never lie—false statements can lead to deportation.
• If detained:
  • Demand a lawyer and contact National Lawyers Guild (NLG) or Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
  • Do not sign anything without legal counsel.

While legitimate anti-Semitism should be condemned, the Trump administration’s approach of conflating criticism of Israel with hate speech is a tool for deporting dissenters.

On March 25, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and other academic organizations took a stand by filing a lawsuit against Trump, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Their claim? That the administration is enforcing an “ideological deportation policy”—one that singles out scholars and students based on their political views, not their actions.

The plaintiffs argue that this policy has created a “climate of repression and fear” on university campuses. By threatening deportation for political speech, the administration is not only violating the rights of noncitizens but also undermining the academic freedom of U.S. citizens. Faculty and students are being denied the opportunity to engage with colleagues, hear diverse perspectives, and collaborate on research—cornerstones of higher education.

Worse yet, the policy appears to be a direct attack on the First Amendment, punishing individuals for their viewpoints rather than any legitimate threat. The government’s actions are not narrowly tailored to address national security concerns—instead, they function as a blunt instrument to silence dissent.

Academic freedom is a bedrock principle of American democracy. When the government targets individuals based on ideology rather than evidence, it doesn’t make us safer—it makes us complicit in censorship. The AAUP’s lawsuit is a crucial step in pushing back against this overreach and defending the right to learn, teach, and speak without fear of retaliation.

Ultimately, you have the right to advocate for justice—but the U.S. government is increasingly treating pro-Palestine speech as a national security threat. Stay vocal, but stay smart.

Photo by levarTravel on Unsplash

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and enforcement policies may vary or change. If you face legal action, consult a qualified immigration or civil rights attorney. Past cases do not guarantee future outcomes.