On March 8, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and vocal leader of pro-Palestinian protests. The agents claimed that Khalil’s student visa had been revoked, and when informed he possessed a green card, they stated that too had been revoked. While the full details of the case are still unfolding, there is significant indication that Khalil’s detention was in retaliation for his activism.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump has explicitly threatened to target university protestors, including through his Executive Order on “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” a measure that, according to legal experts, may be used to broaden the government’s surveillance capabilities. Trump himself celebrated Khalil’s arrest on social media, warning that this was just the “first of many to come.”
This arrest is likely the first in a series facilitated by the State Department’s newly launched AI-enabled “Catch and Revoke” initiative, which will scour social media to identify “foreign nationals who appear to support Hamas or other designated terror groups” and cancel their visas. As with the executive order, this initiative is framed as an anti-terrorism measure. Critics, however, argue that it is instead designed to intimidate foreigners and deter participation in First Amendment-protected activities, for fear of being targeted.
The federal government, starting with the Obama administration, has built an extensive infrastructure for agencies to monitor social media for specific types of speech. Despite civil society groups raising concerns about the potential for these programs to be used to target unpopular speech, the programs have continued to expand. The State Department, for example, collects social media handles from certain visa applicants – approximately 14 million annually – and stores this data indefinitely in government databases. (The Brennan Center and the Knight Institute have challenged this program in court.)
The second Trump administration aims to vastly expand these efforts, gathering social media identifiers from an additional 33 million people, including those seeking permanent residency or adjustments to their immigration status. The first Trump administration’s attempt to do so was blocked in 2021 by the Biden White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs due to a lack of demonstrated “practical utility.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operates at least a dozen overlapping programs that track online speech, with several focused on protests. DHS used social media to track demonstrations against the first Trump administration’s immigration policies. During the Biden administration, DHS scanned social media for other targets like Americans discussing abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and trucker convoys protesting Covid-19 mandates, as well as monitoring online “narratives and grievances” – essentially, political discussions.
Despite the ongoing proliferation of social media monitoring programs, the government has never definitively proven their effectiveness. A February 2017 DHS Inspector General audit of six pilot programs found that the department had not even measured their effectiveness. Furthermore, the few government evaluations available publicly undermine claims of their efficacy. A briefing prepared by DHS for the first Trump administration concluded that social media monitoring provided no useful information for vetting refugees. A 2021 analysis by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found that social media identifiers added “no value” to the immigration screening and vetting process.
Searching for unknown foreign protestors who may have made potentially pro-terrorist statements is much harder than vetting the social media posts of known visa holders. The process will likely cast too wide a net and generate errors. The AI tools deployed by the State Department will likely be tasked to search for specific words or phrases. The Trump administration has previously used such lists in its efforts to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the federal government, which has produced considerable mistakes.
On one occasion, a federal employee managing relations with businesses owned by private equity firms was placed on administrative leave “pursuant to the President’s executive order on DEIA.” The Internal Revenue Service removed from its employee manual mentions of holding taxpayer money for too long, as well as deleting references to the “inclusion” of a taxpayer identification number on a form. Even the Defense Department flagged for deletion references to the World War II Enola Gay aircraft and individuals with the last name “Gay.”
Even without errors, broad social media monitoring will have significant First Amendment implications. The speech that the administration intends to target is exceptionally broad. Defending Khalil’s arrest, DHS stated that he led activities “aligned” with Hamas, a term undefined by any specific law or regulation. Statements from Trump and his cabinet have identified those in the administration’s crosshairs as “pro-Hamas” (most common), “pro-terrorist,” “terrorist sympathizers,” individuals who “support terrorism,” and are “anti-Semitic.” These are broad, contested terms. Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel sentiments can often be conflated with anti-Semitism or supporting terrorism, which puts a large group of people at risk of being captured by the AI-enabled social media monitoring system.
The Trump administration’s efforts could potentially expand further, targeting speech it deems anti-American. The executive order instructed the Secretary of State to recommend measures for foreign nationals who call for the “overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands.” Moreover, the only justification provided by the administration for acting against Khalil is a single line in his Notice to Appear in immigration court: “The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse policy consequences for the foreign policy of the United States,” citing 237(A)(4)(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Adam Cox and Ahilan Arulanantham explained on Just Security that this provision cannot be interpreted as giving the administration a blank check to deport people based on an undefined foreign policy rationale.
If the administration aims to deport foreigners who disagree with U.S. foreign policy, they will find plenty of material on social media. Khalil’s case, along with the promise by the Trump administration to penalize foreign protestors based on their social media posts, represents a significant assertion of executive power regarding immigrants in the United States. But it should be viewed in the wider context of Trump’s broader strategy to quell all possible opposition by attacking universities, the press, law firms, and jurisdictions that do not comply with ICE. All these initiatives jeopardize the fundamental constitutional promise of a democratic society, where a diversity of opinions and interests should be freely expressed.
