Trump’s Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Activists Faces Federal Trial Over Free Speech Concerns
This trial is a rare civil challenge to federal policy
A federal bench trial begins today at 9 a.m. EDT in Boston, challenging the Trump administration’s campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests, the Associated Press reports. The lawsuit, filed by university associations against President Donald Trump and his administration, accuses the government of violating the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs federal agency regulations.
The plaintiffs argue that the policy has created a climate of fear, silencing noncitizen students and faculty who avoid protests, self-censor in classrooms, and scrub social media to evade scrutiny. “Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence,” the plaintiffs stated in their pretrial brief, highlighting the chilling effect on activism for Palestinian human rights and criticism of Israeli policies.
Since Trump’s inauguration, the administration has targeted international scholars and students, revoking over 300 visas, primarily for those involved in pro-Palestinian activities, often labeling them “pro-Hamas” without evidence, according to Reuters. Notable cases include Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, detained for 104 days before his release in June, and Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, held for six weeks after co-authoring an op-ed critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Also Read: Trump Ramps Up Trade Pressure as July 9 Deadline Looms, Signals Flexibility
The government denies the existence of a formal policy, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims rely on a “misunderstanding of the First Amendment,” which they say applies differently to noncitizens in immigration contexts. However, plaintiffs assert that evidence, including public statements from officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and formal guidance on visa revocations, proves the policy’s existence. “Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it,” the plaintiffs wrote, noting Trump’s claim that Khalil’s arrest was “the first of many to come.”
U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, will hear testimony from over 20 witnesses, including scholars like Nadje Al-Ali of Brown University and Harvard’s Bernhard Nickel, to determine if the policy infringes on constitutional protections. The trial, a rare civil challenge to federal policy, could set a precedent for noncitizens’ free speech rights amid escalating tensions over campus activism.
