Trump advisor Stephen Miller has called out Democratic lawmakers for backing a Columbia University student who was targeted for deportation over his alleged support for Hamas-aligned activities on U.S. soil. Miller argues that Mahmoud Khalil, 29, has forfeited his right to remain in the country due to his radical activism and open hostility toward Israel and the United States.
Miller took to X (formerly Twitter) to reaffirm the Trump administration’s stance on barring those who support terrorism from staying in the U.S. “America exercises sole and exclusive control over admission to our country. We are a sovereign nation. Admission is a privilege — an extraordinary privilege. Not a right,” he wrote on Sunday. “Those who sympathize with terrorism are unwelcome on our shores. They will be denied entry or sent home.”
Khalil’s Detainment Sparks Controversy
Khalil, a Syrian-born former graduate student, was recently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is reportedly being held at a facility in Louisiana. His arrest follows a series of anti-Israel protests at Columbia University in 2024, during which he allegedly crossed the line from free speech into endorsing acts of terror. ICE confirmed in a statement that Khalil was detained “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism” and cited his leadership in activities aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.
Since his arrest, media coverage of Khalil’s case has exploded, with his whereabouts largely unknown to friends and relatives. Immigration activists and Democratic lawmakers have decried the detainment, claiming it is politically motivated.
A History of Radical Activism
Khalil has been linked to anti-Israel boycotts at Columbia, where he attended the School of International and Public Affairs, as well as Barnard College. He played a leading role in negotiating demands with the university after students took over campus buildings, refusing to leave until Columbia divested from Israeli-linked corporations.
Journalist Eitan Fischberger shared disturbing evidence of Khalil’s activities, including video footage of the activist inside a Barnard College academic building that he and other demonstrators occupied. The building was reportedly littered with antisemitic propaganda, with some images depicting warlike slogans and calls for violence, such as “Death to America.”
During a heated campus protest, Khalil was caught on video encouraging demonstrators to chant in favor of the “resistance” against Israel’s military actions in Gaza. According to Fischberger, Khalil’s words amounted to an open endorsement of Hamas, the terrorist group responsible for the October 7, 2023, massacre of Israeli civilians.
Khalil’s ties to radical activism extend beyond Columbia. CU Apartheid Divest, a student-led organization he co-founded, has previously posted extremist rhetoric on social media, declaring that its members are “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.” Such statements have only strengthened the Trump administration’s case for his removal from the country.
Legal Battle Over Khalil’s Deportation
Despite the allegations, Khalil’s deportation has been temporarily halted by a federal judge, with a hearing scheduled for Wednesday. Hundreds of protestors across the country, including in New York and Chicago, are planning demonstrations in support of Khalil, demanding his release and condemning the Trump administration’s crackdown on anti-Israel activists.
A planned protest at Columbia University was recently relocated off-campus, according to sources who spoke with NBC News.
Miller and Trump Administration Hold Firm
Miller and other key figures in the Trump administration remain adamant that Khalil’s case represents a broader effort to prevent individuals who sympathize with terrorism from residing in the U.S.
“The United States will not tolerate individuals who promote violence against our allies and our nation,” Miller emphasized. “Our laws are clear: supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas disqualifies you from being here.”
The case continues to stir heated debate over immigration policy, free speech, and national security, with both sides digging in as the legal battle unfolds.