博客

In a controversial decision, a U.S. immigration judge has ordered the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University student, to either Algeria or Syria. The ruling, issued on September 17, 2025, stems from allegations that Khalil omitted critical information from his green card application. Immigration Judge Jamee Comans asserted that Khalil ‘willfully misrepresented material facts’ to bypass immigration protocols and increase his chances of approval. However, Khalil’s legal team has vowed to appeal the decision, citing ongoing federal court orders that prevent his immediate deportation or detention. Khalil, a 30-year-old permanent U.S. resident of Palestinian descent, was previously detained for over 100 days earlier this year under the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism. During his detention, Khalil missed the birth of his child, as his wife, a U.S. citizen, was pregnant at the time. He was eventually released on June 20 after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled that punishing Khalil for a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional. The Trump administration has labeled pro-Palestinian activists like Khalil as antisemitic and supporters of extremism, a characterization vehemently denied by protesters, including some Jewish groups. They argue that criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza and advocating for Palestinian rights is unfairly equated with extremism. Khalil has accused the administration of retaliating against him for exercising his right to free speech, stating, ‘They resorted to fabricating baseless allegations to silence me.’ The case has sparked widespread concern among human rights advocates, who warn that such actions threaten free speech and due process. Columbia University, where Khalil is a student, was a focal point of last year’s protests calling for an end to Israel’s war and divestment from companies supporting Israel. The ongoing legal battle highlights the tension between immigration enforcement and constitutional rights in the U.S.

Former US President Donald Trump has announced his intention to designate Antifa as a ‘major terrorist organization,’ targeting what he describes as the ‘radical left.’ This declaration follows the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which has intensified political divisions in the country. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump labeled Antifa as a ‘sick, dangerous, radical left disaster’ and pledged a thorough investigation into the group. Antifa, a decentralized, leftist movement opposing far-right, racist, and fascist groups, has long been a focal point of Trump’s criticism. However, experts question the feasibility of this designation, given Antifa’s lack of formal structure, leadership, or membership. In 2020, then-FBI Director Christopher Wray noted that Antifa is better understood as an ideology rather than an organization. Despite this, Antifa remains a contentious topic among right-wing influencers and politicians, who argue it is part of a broader left-wing network undermining US values. The movement, whose name derives from the German ‘antifaschistisch,’ gained prominence after Trump’s 2016 election and the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Activists associated with Antifa have frequently clashed with right-wing groups, both online and in physical confrontations. Critics highlight the movement’s willingness to use violence, which activists claim is in self-defense. Trump’s proposal to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization faces legal hurdles, as the US government can only designate foreign groups as Foreign Terror Organizations (FTOs). Legal experts emphasize that the First Amendment protects the right of association, complicating any efforts to label domestic groups as terrorist organizations. This is not the first time Trump has targeted Antifa; he made a similar pledge in 2020 but did not follow through. His latest move comes amid heightened political tensions, with the Department of Justice recently removing a study on political violence that highlighted far-right extremism as a significant threat. Experts warn that politicizing violence risks escalating tensions rather than reducing them.

Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump held a joint press conference at Chequers, the UK Prime Minister’s country residence, marking the conclusion of Trump’s second state visit to the UK. The hour-long event covered a range of topics, from international relations to domestic policies, with both leaders addressing contentious issues diplomatically. One of the key points of discussion was the UK’s imminent recognition of Palestinian statehood, a move Trump had previously criticized as potentially rewarding Hamas. However, Trump downplayed the disagreement, stating it was one of only a few differences between him and Starmer. Starmer clarified that the timing of the decision was unrelated to Trump’s visit and emphasized that Hamas would have no role in any future Palestinian state. Trump praised Starmer’s stance, even giving him a pat on the back during the conference. Another hot topic was the UK’s efforts to curb illegal migration, particularly the record number of small boat crossings in the English Channel. Trump suggested that Starmer consider involving the military, drawing parallels to his own border security policies in the US. Starmer highlighted the recent launch of the first flight under the UK-France migrant returns deal as a significant step forward. Both leaders also united in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with Starmer criticizing recent Russian missile attacks and Trump expressing disappointment in Vladimir Putin’s actions. Trump admitted he had hoped the Russia-Ukraine conflict would be easier to resolve but reaffirmed his commitment to finding a peaceful solution. The issue of free speech also surfaced, with Starmer vowing to protect it as a fundamental British value while balancing it with necessary safeguards. The press conference concluded without addressing the recent dismissal of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s US ambassador, a decision linked to his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. Trump distanced himself from Mandelson, stating he did not know him well, while Starmer reiterated that the decision was based on new information about Mandelson’s ties to Epstein.