Connect with us

Politics

Contributor: Mahmoud Khalil's pro-Palestinian comments are protected speech, not grounds for deportation

Published

on

Contributor: Mahmoud Khalil's pro-Palestinian comments are protected speech, not grounds for deportation

I have been outspoken, including in the Los Angeles Times, about my concern about increasing antisemitism on college campuses. But the solution cannot be to deport those who express messages that President Trump, or anyone else, dislikes. Arresting and seeking to deport a Columbia University student for his speech activities clearly violates the 1st Amendment — and does nothing to combat antisemitism on campus.

On Saturday night, Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and Syrian national, was arrested in New York by federal immigration authorities. He is lawfully in the United States, possessing a green card. The only known basis for his apprehension is his having been a leader of pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia last spring and allegedly to have said objectionable things about Israel and Zionists.

Trump was explicit in his posts on Truth Social that the arrest and planned deportation were entirely about Khalil’s speech. Trump wrote: “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.” He said, “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again.”

This follows an executive order that called for revoking student visas for individuals suspected of sympathizing with Hamas. The White House said: “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.”

On Monday, Trump declared that the action against Khalil is the first “of many to come.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on social media that the government “will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters.”

Advertisement

Trump’s statements, his executive order and his actions against Khalil show a profound disregard of the 1st Amendment. All in the United States — citizen and noncitizen — have freedom of speech. No one can be punished under the law, including by deportation, for the ideas they express.

The Supreme Court long has stressed that the Constitution protects the ability to express views that many find deeply objectionable. It has declared, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”

Even if Khalil’s speech was hateful, and even if it was antisemitic, it was protected by the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court repeatedly has made clear that hate speech is constitutionally protected and cannot be a basis for punishment by the government. In fact, even if Khalil voiced his support for Hamas, that, too, is an idea that can be expressed under the 1st Amendment. Speaking in favor of Hamas is not, by any stretch of the definition, material support for a terrorist organization.

Thus, even those who loathe what Khalil said should fervently defend his right to say it and oppose the Trump administration’s actions. Otherwise, the federal government would have the power to deem any view so objectionable that it could deport noncitizens expressing it. As I constantly explain to my students, the only way my speech will be safe tomorrow is to protect the speech that I detest today.

I recognize that criticisms of Israel, at times, have become antisemitic, using awful stereotypes about Jews. (It also must be stressed that criticism of Israel’s policies is no more antisemitic than it is anti-American to criticize the federal government’s policies.) When there is antisemitism on campus, schools have a duty to respond. But this must be achieved in a way that does not violate the 1st Amendment. Campus officials can condemn antisemitic expression. Schools can ensure that Jewish students are not harassed. There can be programs and trainings about antisemitism. But under the 1st Amendment, the solution must be more speech, not punishing expression.

Advertisement

The arrest and deportation of Khalil followed a day after the Trump administration cut off $400 million to Columbia University because of its alleged failure to deal with antisemitism. This, too, is deeply disturbing. A school legally cannot and should not be held responsible for the views expressed by its students. Indeed, to punish the university for the speech that occurred there is, once again, a violation of the 1st Amendment. Cutting off $400 million without a semblance of due process is a blatantly illegal attempt to intimidate universities across the country.

While the actions of the Trump administration will greatly chill speech, they will not address the problem of antisemitism on campuses. My hope is that Jews, whether liberal or conservative, will say loudly: Do not do this in our name or to protect us. We know all too well how government power can be used against a minority group.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a contributing writer to Opinion, is dean of the UC Berkeley Law School. His latest book is “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending