Is the case of Mahmoud Khalil an attempt to censor unpopular opinions? Or is it a legitimate enforcement of immigration law based on Khalil's other conduct? Does the First Amendment even apply in this case?

Yesterday, a reporter challenged Secretary of State Marco Rubio over his actions to deport Khalil for conduct detrimental to the national security of the United States. Doesn't this contradict Donald Trump's claims to defend free speech, the reporter asked? Rubio came prepared for the question and spent two minutes dismantling the assumption that this is a speech case at all:

“This isn’t about free speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to a Student Visa. Nobody has a RIGHT to a green card!”

Rubio absolutely FLAMES a reporter trying to corner him on Mahmoud Khalil’s green card being REVOKED!pic.twitter.com/pGmA4J0mJg

— Rob Smith (@robsmithonline) March 12, 2025

“This is not about free speech,” Rubio said during a refueling stop in Ireland on the way to the annual Group of Seven summit of the world’s major democracies, held this year in Canada. “No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card, by the way.”

Rubio echoed the Trump administration’s claims that Khalil and others have supported Hamas, a designated terror group, and said the protests have turned violent and made other students afraid of going to class. Khalil’s attorneys argue he is a peaceful protester who was advocating for the Palestinian people.

“There are kids at these schools that can’t go to class. You pay all this money to these high-priced schools that are supposed to be of great esteem, and you can’t even go to class. You’re afraid to go to class because these lunatics are running around with covers on their face, screaming terrifying things,” Rubio said. “If you told us that’s what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in. If you do it once you get in, we’re going to revoke it and kick you out.”

Jonathan Turley, one of the more pure free-speech defenders, agrees with Rubio on this point. Khalil allegedly took part in occupations of turf at Columbia, propagated Hamas propaganda, and organized intimidation campaigns aimed at Jewish students and faculty. It's about conduct, Turley told Fox & Friends this morning, not speech:

Jonathan Turley responds to protesters and far-left lawmakers raging over ‘violation’ of pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil’s first amendment rights: “The problem is conduct.” pic.twitter.com/eiV77eh672

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) March 13, 2025

The State Department believes that Khalil not only organized the illegal actions on Columbia but that he also used the protests to distribute Hamas propaganda. That itself would be technically illegal even if a US citizen did it, since the State Department has listed Hamas as a terrorist group since 1997. The Department of Justice has prosecuted people for those activities in the past, too, such as in the Holy Land Foundation case. That explicitly involved using front organizations to provide material support to Hamas through a fake NGO. That involved money laundering as well, but the language in the statute about "material support" has a very broad application. Dissemination of propaganda and organizing support on campuses for a terrorist organization -- and championing their barbaric massacre -- almost certainly qualifies:

The posters that Khalil allegedly circulated include one calling on readers to “Crush Zionism” and depicting a boot stepping on the Jewish Star of David.

Another image hails “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood,” the code name for Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of about 1,200 people across southern Israel, and bears the logo of the “Hamas Media Office.”

A different flyer bears an image of the terrorist group’s late leader Yahya Sinwar and the words “Sometimes History Needs A… Push Flood.”

“I thought about bringing them into this briefing room to share with all of you, but I didn’t think it was worth the dignity of this room to bring that pro-Hamas propaganda, but that’s what this individual distributed on the campus of Columbia University,” Leavitt told the White House press corps.

However, the Department of Justice hasn't charged him for that offense yet, likely since the State Department has the authority to simply deport Khalil. As Mark Goldfeder argues at The Federalist, the statute and the precedents are clear that calling this activity 'speech' isn't going to prevent Rubio from exercising that authority:

The current debate concerns § 212(a)(3)(b)(i)(vii), which allows for the deportation of any alien who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” Some have claimed that deporting someone for these reasons violates the First Amendment. That is incorrect.

The premise of the question rests on the assumption that an alien (even a legal alien) has First Amendment rights that are exactly the same in every situation as the rights of a U.S. national or citizen. That is not the case. As the Supreme Court has made clear, sometimes the government may impose distinctions and conditions. ...

As it turns out, more than 120 years of Supreme Court precedent explain that this is just such a condition the government might legitimately put on the holder of a visa or a green card without offending the First Amendment. Turner v. Williams was a case about anarchists who wanted to violently overthrow the government, but you can substitute for anarchists Hamas-affiliated anti-West agitators who want to violently overthrow our institutions. 

Also, Goldfeder notes, the First Amendment doesn't protect material support for terrorist groups, even for citizens, and even if it just involves propaganda propagation:

In this case, it is possible to read the INA narrowly, as referring to the kind of endorsement or support that would not be protected speech even if done by a citizen — i.e., the provision of material support, including advocacy and even speech done in coordination with a foreign terrorist organization (see Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project). Under that reading, there is again no First Amendment concern because the First Amendment does not protect political speech or expressive conduct that materially supports foreign terrorist organizations. Several of the groups Khalil is affiliated with are accused of doing just that. 

Would this case be stronger if the DoJ indicted Khalil? Perhaps, but only politically, and even then only for those uninterested in the actual law. Rubio has the authority to revoke legal permanent resident status for those whose activities threaten the national security of the United States, and advocating for a terrorist organization like Hamas clearly qualifies. Moreover, that is entirely Rubio's call under the current statute. Rubio wants to make clear that the US will no longer tolerate people using student visas to agitate for terrorists, even when they've been here long enough to get a green card. 

That's conduct, not speech. And it is high time that we start taking that difference literally.