As Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and legal U.S. resident, remains free amid ongoing deportation proceedings, a Republican legal analyst is suggesting the Trump administration still has legal options to remove him from the country.
Khalil was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March following a series of anti-Israel protests on Columbia University’s campus. A memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed Khalil’s actions conflicted with U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. Although an immigration judge initially supported Khalil’s removal, a federal judge later ordered his release on bond, pending further legal review.
Attorney Mehek Cooke, a conservative legal analyst, argued that the federal court overstepped its authority.
“The district judge didn’t have jurisdiction to order Khalil’s release,” Cooke said. “That authority rests solely with immigration judges under existing immigration law. His release, in my view, should be overturned.”
Cooke emphasized that the Trump administration still has pathways to seek deportation, especially given allegations from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Khalil omitted affiliations with certain campus groups from his green card application — including Columbia University’s Apartheid Divest campaign.
Cooke suggested that these omissions, combined with national security concerns raised by Secretary Rubio, strengthen the administration’s case.
“We’re seeing judges undermine the authority of both the executive branch and immigration law itself for political reasons,” she added.
Federal Judge Michael Farbiarz, who ordered Khalil’s release with travel restrictions, also ruled that Secretary Rubio could not unilaterally invoke foreign policy concerns under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to justify deportation. Cooke argued that decision should be appealed.
“There is a path forward,” Cooke said. “The Department of Justice should argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction and seek a ruling from an immigration judge to re-detain and remove Khalil under INA Section 212.”
Meanwhile, civil rights advocates, including the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), are defending Khalil on First Amendment grounds.
“Mr. Khalil’s arrest and detention were blatant violations of free speech,” said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman in a statement. “He is a human rights defender, not a national security threat. The Trump administration’s attempt to criminalize dissent is unconstitutional and dangerous.”
Khalil was released from ICE custody in Louisiana on June 20 and was later seen at Newark Airport, where he reunited with his family. He has since resumed activism and appeared at recent protests at Columbia.
Cooke, however, pushed back on free speech claims. “There’s a difference between free speech and speech that endangers national security,” she said. “Khalil’s actions weren’t about peaceful expression — they were about destabilization.”
The legal battle over Khalil’s status continues, as both sides prepare for what could be a precedent-setting case at the intersection of immigration law, free speech, and national security.
