“Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. That’s why it’s the FIRST Amendment. Without free speech, all is lost.” —Elon Musk (February 16, 2024)
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote is often attributed to Voltaire, but in reality, it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote it in The Friends of Voltaire. Ironically, it seems neither Elon Musk nor Donald Trump have bothered to read that book—or at least, they’ve skimmed the free speech part and skipped straight to the “but not for you” section.
Musk, ever the self-appointed guardian of free expression (except when it’s inconvenient), waxes lyrical about the right to speak freely without fear of government retaliation. And yet, as the US government moves to deport Mahmoud Khalil—a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia graduate—for, well, speaking freely, Musk’s grand proclamation faces a rather awkward reality check.
Khalil’s arrest and possible deportation aren’t just about one man with an opinion the government doesn’t like; they’re about the bigger question of whether the First Amendment is truly for everyone or just for those who pass the political vibe check. If free speech really is the bedrock of democracy, why is a lawful permanent resident being shown the door for actually using it?
The First Amendment and the Fine Print of Free Speech
The First Amendment, that sacred document enshrining free speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government, is supposed to protect even the most controversial voices. In theory, at least. In reality, Mahmoud Khalil’s case shows that these protections come with an asterisk—especially if your views don’t align with those of the people in power.
Khalil, a legal green card holder, found this out the hard way when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided that his activism was less about exercising free speech and more about engaging in activities aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. The kicker? There are no formal charges against him. His crime, it seems, is participating in student-led protests advocating for Palestinian rights—actions that, last time we checked, were still protected under the First Amendment.
So, if the First Amendment guarantees the right to protest, why is Khalil being punished for doing exactly that? The answer lies in the increasingly elastic definition of “national security threats.”
Trump’s Free Speech Exception Clause
Donald Trump has long portrayed himself as a warrior for free speech—at least when it involves conservative voices being “canceled” on college campuses or social media. His administration even issued executive orders to defend speech at universities. But Khalil’s case makes one thing clear: Trump’s free speech absolutism has its limits, and those limits conveniently appear whenever speech becomes critical of US foreign policy or sympathetic to Palestinians.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt summed up the administration’s stance with an unmistakable message: “This administration is not going to tolerate individuals having the privilege of studying in our country and then siding with pro-terrorist organizations that have killed Americans.”
It’s a line that sounds tough but also dangerously vague. If handing out flyers or joining a protest is now tantamount to “siding with” terrorism, what does that mean for the thousands of student activists across the country? It’s a slippery slope when the government starts treating political speech as a security threat, and at the bottom of that slope is a world where dissent gets you a one-way ticket out of the country.
So, Where’s the Proof?
The Trump administration insists that Mahmoud Khalil’s activism is Hamas-adjacent, a claim that sounds ominous but lacks public evidence. No secret meetings, no money changing hands, no calls for violence—just some protests at Columbia University. Unfortunately for the administration, that pesky little thing called the First Amendment protects such speech.
But here’s where the magic trick happens. US immigration law allows non-citizens to be deported for “material support” of terrorism, even if that support is indirect, accidental, or purely symbolic. Past cases show that even providing medical aid to someone later accused of terrorism can get you kicked out. So, the government doesn’t need to prove Khalil is a Hamas agent; it just needs to stretch the definition of “support” like pizza dough until it fits.
His legal team, led by attorneys Samah Sisay and Amy Greer, isn’t buying it. They argue that Khalil’s arrest is less about national security and more about punishing pro-Palestinian activism. The ACLU and other advocacy groups agree, calling it an attack on First Amendment rights with zero hard evidence linking him to Hamas.
The administration’s argument leans heavily on Khalil’s role in the Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) coalition, which called for the university to divest from Israel. Pro-Israel groups like Canary Mission allege that CUAD praised Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, but Khalil denies leading the group, claiming he was merely a spokesperson.
As of now, the government has yet to produce intercepted calls, financial ties, or any explicit Hamas endorsements from Khalil. Instead, it appears to be using an elastic definition of “material support” to make activism a deportable offense. The message to green card holders? Protest at your own risk.
Does Khalil’s Speech Even Cross the Legal Line?
The Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) ruling established a key test for determining when speech loses First Amendment protection. Known as the Brandenburg test, it has two prongs: speech can only be restricted if (1) it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) it is likely to produce such action. This means that advocacy, even for controversial or extreme ideas, remains protected unless it explicitly calls for and is likely to lead to immediate illegal activity.
Khalil’s participation in protests and distribution of literature might be controversial, but by Brandenburg’s standards, it’s far from incitement. And yet, here we are, watching a green card holder face deportation for doing what free societies claim to encourage: speaking out. If Khalil’s activism doesn’t meet the threshold for incitement, why is he being punished as if it does?
Musk, Trump, and the Free Speech Mirage
Elon Musk and Donald Trump love to fashion themselves as free speech warriors. Musk, in his Twitter (now X) era, declared himself a “free speech absolutist,” vowing to fight against censorship. Trump, after being booted from major social media platforms, built Truth Social as a haven for “unfiltered expression.”
But here’s the catch: their defense of free speech seems to apply only when it benefits them. Would Musk defend Khalil’s right to protest, or does his commitment to absolutism have exceptions for political inconvenience? Would Trump see Khalil as a victim of government overreach, or does free speech protection conveniently stop when it comes to criticism of US foreign policy?
Their silence on this case suggests that their free speech advocacy isn’t about principle—it’s about politics.
The Bigger Picture: A Warning for Green Card Holders and Student Activists
Khalil’s case is already having a chilling effect. If lawful permanent residents can be deported for activism, what does this mean for others? Will international students and green card holders start self-censoring, fearing that their political involvement could cost them their place in the US? And if immigration laws can be weaponized to silence dissent, is free speech really a right for all—or just a privilege granted at the government’s discretion?
These aren’t just abstract questions. They cut to the heart of what America claims to stand for. Elon Musk once proclaimed, “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy.” Sounds great in theory. But Khalil’s case exposes the uncomfortable reality behind such grand statements.