Mahmoud Khalil's arrest is a frightening turn.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Let me state a few things about my views up front:

I believe protestors have a right to demonstrate, and that many activists protesting for Palestinians have been driven by the horrifying images of the war in Gaza.

I also believe that protests sometimes leave the realm of civil disobedience and move into criminal actions, and that legitimately scary things have happened on college campuses across the country over the past year.

Lastly, I believe that colleges and police are perfectly within their rights to maintain order, and that in many cases — including at Columbia — universities were very slow to respond.

Additionally, I’ve argued that protesters aren’t always right, have written about how protests can be counter-productive, and repeatedly made the case that college protests were taking up way too much oxygen relative to the actions of the U.S. government, Hamas, and Israel. Last spring, I went to Penn’s campus to talk to students in the encampments. It was clear to me that most protesters were well intentioned if not misinformed; I also learned that a lot of the “students” occupying space on campus were not students but professional organizers, and — given that — left feeling the university had the right to clear out the encampments (which they did the following day).

I say all this to remind you that my views on student protests have some nuance but are far from innately positive. I hope that gives my statement more weight when I say that the arrest of Khalil is one of the most chilling acts by the Trump administration yet. 

Most importantly, President Trump is infringing not just on the inalienable right of free speech, but the fundamental ethic of it. On Truth Social, he warned that any student who engaged in “anti-American activity” would be apprehended and deported. That’s quite the net to cast — and a decidedly malleable definition that could be used to justify arresting and deporting people for all manner of constitutionally protected speech. Will students qualify as “anti-American” if they criticize Trump?

Some prominent conservative legal minds whom I genuinely admire, like Ilya Shapiro, appear so blinded by their hatred for these movements that they’ve tied themselves into knots to justify the decree. Shapiro argued that Trump’s actions are a basic application of the law, saying the Immigration and Naturalization Act allows the government to pull visas from people who are members (or supporters) of terrorist organizations. This law, according to Shapiro, legally justifies revoking green cards from U.S. residents like Khalil who “engaged in pro-Hamas disruptions.”

The problem with Shapiro’s position is that it’s based on a series of questionable assumptions. Critically, Khalil has not been charged with any crime. As far as we can tell, he has not gotten a hearing or gone through a removal proceeding — both of which are his rights. ICE agents who entered his apartment said they were revoking his student visa based on State Department orders. When they were informed by his lawyer that he had a green card, which his wife presented to them, they said that they were actually revoking his green card. 

Khalil’s arrest is not “a basic application of U.S. immigration law,” as Shapiro claims. If it were, then Trump’s actions wouldn’t be so unprecedented. No due process or legal standard has been applied here — the administration has not justified or presented proof of anything, just broadly worded and unsubstantiated claims that he is a terrorist supporter or was paid by a terrorist organization. 

On X, the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association insisted nobody should have sympathy for Khalil, given what he’s done. The organization accuses Khalil (note: accuses) of disrupting learning, helping protesters take over campuses, and intimidating Jewish students. Even if true, those claims fall pretty far short of “providing material support for terrorism.” Threads that are supposed to be damning indictments of Khalil show him calmly giving interviews to the press, peacefully standing in a drum circle, or making the case that he’s participating in an anti-war movement.

By most accounts, Khalil was in a leadership role during the protests, working to mediate a resolution with the university. Again, he has not been charged with any crime — there’s no evidence I could find that he took part in any kind of violence or vandalism, or even the incitement thereof. If the administration does charge him with a crime, my position could change. However the evidence I’ve seen so far indicates the Trump administration is attempting to arrest and deport someone for peacefully saying a bunch of things they didn’t like.

Of course, for many Americans, “deporting non-citizens supportive of terrorist organizations” is a very popular position, and I imagine Khalil’s arrest will play well with a lot of people. Let me be clear: I do not believe this framing describes the situation accurately. Khalil is a Palestinian who clearly had a vested interest in objecting to a war that was killing his people, and like many Palestinians (especially those in America) I sincerely doubt the assumption that he is a full-fledged supporter of Hamas. 

There are legitimate debates to have about immigration and the commitment to the American project we may ask of those here on student visas or green cards, but there should be no debate about their rights to free speech and due process. Were these takeovers and encampments the kind of thing I wish college campuses did a better job policing during the protests? Absolutely. But are they so insidious as to justify Khalil’s arrest and deportation? 

C’mon.

This saga reduces the administration’s claim to be bastions and warriors for free speech to absurdity. The entire point of advocating for free speech is to defend the principle even when you abhor the speech. I’m certain that Khalil and the organizations he affiliates with hold views I find abhorrent, and even if he publicly expresses them on a regular basis, I — along with anyone with real free-speech principles — should still defend his right to speak his views without fear of government reprisal. Kudos to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), who took a stand demanding answers about his arrest. 

Even Ann Coulter — Ann Coulter — took to X to say “There’s almost no one I don’t want to deport, but, unless they’ve committed a crime, isn’t this a violation of the first amendment?” The ADL, shamefully, found themselves on the other side of the issue. 

I really don’t know where we go from here. The Trump administration promised it would focus its deportation efforts on the “worst of the worst,” but instead are bringing the force of the state down on a Columbia University alumnus with no criminal record, who just got his master’s degree in international affairs, and whose wife is an American citizen and eight months pregnant. No matter how you feel about Khalil, his movement, the students at Columbia, or anything else; if you value civil liberties, due process and free speech, you should find this development deeply disturbing. 

Reminder: My take is just one of many. To read more opinions about Khalil's arrest, and Columbia University's funding cut, read the full newsletter here.