Mahmoud Khalil's bid for freedom denied as federal judge sides with Trump administration
Judge Michael Farbiarz denied a request from Khalil's lawyers calling for his immediate release after the government declined to appeal a ruling Farbiarz issued Wednesday that found the main reason cited for jailing and seeking to deport Khalil was unconstitutional.
Until Friday, Trump administration lawyers had primarily argued the lawful permanent resident should be detained and deported based on a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that his pro-Palestinian advocacy could compromise a 'compelling' U.S. foreign policy interest, meaning U.S. support for Israel.
When Farbiarz said Khalil could no longer be detained on that basis, government lawyers were expected to appeal before his order went into effect on Friday at 9:30 a.m. That didn't happen, prompting Khalil's lawyers to call for his instant release.
But lawyers for the federal government later in the day said they did not interpret Farbiarz's opinion as ordering them to release Khalil because they had a backup reason for keeping him in lockup — alleged omissions on his immigration forms about his work experience.
'Khalil is now detained based on that other charge of removability,' Trump admin lawyers wrote.
Farbiarz said Khalil could make a bid for bail to the judge presiding over his separate immigration case in Louisiana.
The 30-year-old grad student, a legal permanent resident, has been detained in Jena, Louisiana, since March 9, a day after agents from the Department of Homeland Security took him into custody at his Columbia-owned apartment. He played a prominent role in campus protests against Israeli military activity in Gaza and the West Bank and Columbia's financial ties to Israel, acting as a mediator between students and the school administration.
In the weeks that followed, the government cited an obscure provision in a 1952 immigration law that says the office of the secretary of state can order someone deported if their beliefs or activities could unfavorably impact U.S. foreign relations, namely, the government's policy of combating antisemitism.
Khalil, a Palestinian who grew up in a Syrian refugee camp, rejects that his advocacy for civilians in war-torn Gaza and the West Bank is based on bigotry. His lawyers have pointed to public comments he made well before his arrest condemning antisemitism.
Farbiarz's Wednesday opinion and order found the basis provided by the government was so vague as to be unconstitutional and said Khalil's ongoing detention was jeopardizing his professional reputation and right to free speech, amounting to irreparable harm.
As of Friday's back and forth, the government's reason for detaining Khalil is now based on its allegations that when he applied for lawful permanent residency in 2024, he didn't disclose membership in the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), that he'd worked for the British Embassy in Beirut after 2022, or that he was a member of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD).
Though he accepted the government's position Friday, Farbiarz on Wednesday appeared skeptical that the alleged omissions warranted his detention, noting that the government 'virtually never [detains]' people on such allegations and that Khalil's jailing was, by all accounts, driven by Rubio's unconstitutional policy.
Khalil, whose U.S. citizen wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, accepted his diploma from Columbia on his behalf last month, is fighting his detention and deportation in a habeas corpus case filed in New Jersey, where he was swiftly transferred after being taken into custody.
Separately, he's faced immigration proceedings in Louisiana, where Judge Jamee Comans has sided with the government in ordering him deported. Before a hearing in that matter last month, where Khalil and other witnesses sought to convince Comans that his deportation could result in his death, he met his 1-month-old son, Deen, for the first time, who was born weeks after he was detained.
At that hearing, according to court papers, the government did not appear to bolster its allegations about Khalil's lawful residency forms.
The immigration judge dismissed the claim about the British embassy. Khalil testified he was never employed by UNRWA or a member or a leader of CUAD, and government lawyers didn't cross-examine him. The government did not mention the UNRWA or CUAD membership allegations in written closing arguments.
Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to the Daily News's queries. Khalil's lawyers could not immediately be reached following Farbiarz's order late Friday.
'The deadline has come and gone and Mahmoud Khalil must be released immediately,' the attorneys said in a statement earlier Friday. 'Anything further is an attempt to prolong his unconstitutional, arbitrary, and cruel detention.'
-----------
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Trump plans to "take over" Gaza aid effort, U.S. officials say
Special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump discussed plans for the U.S. to significantly increase its role in providing humanitarian aid to Gaza in a meeting Monday evening at the White House, according to two U.S. officials and an Israeli official with knowledge of the issue. Why it matters: Negotiations for a ceasefire are stuck, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is moving towards significantly expanding the war. U.S. officials are concerned about more bloodshed but have yet to firmly object. The new food aid plan Trump promised last week is also not yet finalized. Driving the news: Witkoff flew in from Miami to meet Trump for dinner on Monday, the sources say, fresh off a visit last week to Israel and Gaza. A U.S. official said it was decided that the Trump administration will "take over" management of the humanitarian effort in Gaza because Israel isn't handling it adequately. The official didn't say what the U.S. role would actually entail, but said Gulf countries like Qatar will contribute funds, while Jordan and Egypt will also likely be involved. The White House didn't respond to requests for comment. Friction point: Trump is "not thrilled" about the idea of the U.S. taking charge, "but it kind of has to happen," the official said. "There doesn't seem to be another way." "The starvation problem in Gaza is getting worse. Donald Trump does not like that. He does not want babies to starve. He wants mothers to be able to nurse their children. He's becoming fixated on that," the official continued. A second U.S. official said the administration will be careful not to get dragged too deep into the Gaza crisis. "The president doesn't want to see the U.S. being the only country throwing money at this problem. It's a global problem. And he's been tasking Witkoff and others to make sure everyone is stepping up, our European friends and our Arab friends," the official said. The other side: Israel supports the increased U.S. role, according to both U.S. officials and an Israeli official. The Israeli official confirmed the U.S. planned to take the lead on the humanitarian issue in order to increase the level of aid coming into Gaza. "They are going to spend a lot of money in order to help us significantly improving the humanitarian situation so that it will be less of an issue," the Israeli official said. Behind the scenes: Some in the administration are growing worried over Netanyahu's proposed expansion of the war. Netanyahu raised that possibility during Witkoff's visit last week and has discussed it with the White House this week too, an Israeli official told Axios. Israeli officials have claimed they're totally aligned with Washington. Zoom in: The proposed expansion is controversial not just because it entails occupying the entire Gaza Strip, including areas like Gaza City, but also because it would mean moving into zones where Israel believes hostages are being held. The Israel Defense Forces have been reluctant to attack those areas for fear of accidentally killing hostages. IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior security officials have warned Netanyahu against such an operation. According to Israeli officials, Zamir told Netanyahu such a move would endanger the hostages and could lead to Israeli military rule in Gaza with full responsibility over two million Palestinians. What to watch: Nevertheless, the Israeli security cabinet is expected to hold a meeting on Thursday and approve the plan for the full occupation of Gaza. An Israeli official claimed Netanyahu is working to "free the hostages through military defeat of Hamas" because he believes "Hamas is not interested in a deal." At the same time, humanitarian aid will be brought into areas outside the combat zones "and as much as possible to areas outside Hamas' control," the official said.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
90% of UN aid trucks in Gaza were looted by armed militants or hungry Palestinians before reaching their destination: report
Nearly 90% of aid trucks collected by the United Nations along Gaza's border didn't make it to their intended destination since mid-May due to looting from starving Palestinians or 'forcefully armed actors,' officials said. The UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) found that of the 2,604 aid trucks that entered the war-torn enclave from May 19 to Aug. 5, only 295 vehicles, or 12%, were spared from theft or mass looting, according to the agency's Monitor & Tracking Dashboard. Israel has repeatedly blamed Hamas for looting aid trucks, however, the UNOPS report did not name the groups that were taking the food. Advertisement The looming famine in Gaza has caused more and more desperate people to raid the incoming food trucks, with UNOPS finding that in July alone, 94% of the 1,161 vehicles that crossed the border were looted. 5 Nearly all the UN aid trucks that enter Gaza have been raided by starving Palestinians before making it to their final destination since mid-May. REUTERS 5 Security guards brandish weapons on top of a aid truck bound for a Gaza refugee camp, with the vehicles regularly coming under attack by armed men. Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto/Shutterstock Ever since humanitarian aid was allowed to trickle back into Gaza, images of hungry Palestinians surrounding the few UN vehicles cleared to cross the border have become commonplace. Advertisement While Israel has blamed Hamas for the systematic looting of aid, the New York Times cited Israeli sources last month as saying that the Israeli military never found direct proof of looting by the terror group. Seeking aid through the Israeli-backed aid effort has also proved perilous to the enclave's nearly 2 million refugees, according to the UN's human rights office — with more than 1,000 people reportedly killed in shootings at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid cites in recent weeks. 5 Palestinians climb on top of a supply truck arriving in Khan Younis on Monday. REUTERS Advertisement 5 A woman carries a bag of flour over her head after getting aid from one of the few distribution centers open inside Gaza City. Israel has repeatedly denied that its forces have fired on aid-seeking Palestinians, with the military claiming to have only fired warning shots after groups were spotted trying to approach the food sites before they opened. The dire situation in Gaza has left food security experts to warn of a 'worst-case scenario famine' as scores of people die from malnutrition-related cases. 5 The UN has blamed Israel for the lack of aid available to Gazans, with Israel faulting the UN for the bottleneck. REUTERS Advertisement As it faces global backlash over the ongoing war, Israel has maintained that the death and suffering falls on Hamas, which has rejected cease-fire deals calling for the terror group to disarm and exit the Gaza Strip. Hamas said it would only agree to a deal that establishes a permanent end to the war, with the terror group demanding Monday that all humanitarian corridors be open in exchange for allowing the Red Cross to administer aid to the remaining hostages. The future of aid distribution to the hostages and refugees remains unclear after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved a plan for the full military occupation of Gaza.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The ‘Blood Libel' Libel
Whatever quarrels one might have with Senator Bernie Sanders, his thinking would seem to be immune from medieval anti-Semitic influence. Yet last month, after Sanders denounced 'the Netanyahu government's extermination of Gaza,' the pro-Israel group AIPAC attacked Sanders's statement as a 'hate-filled rant' and 'despicable blood libel.' Extraordinary claims—such as the charge that the Jewish senator from Vermont is anti-Semitic to the point of spreading ancient slanders against his own people—require extraordinary evidence. Yet large segments of the conservative and even centrist wings of the American pro-Israel movement have whipped themselves into such a frenzy of paranoia that they are making accusations like this without much effort at justification. Conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is not new, but it has exploded in the post–October 7 era, in which the rising menace of genuine Jew-hatred on left and right alike has been accompanied by a growing chorus of hyperbolic, bad-faith accusations. This dynamic might seem paradoxical, but the two phenomena exist in a natural symbiosis. Anti-Semites often insist they are being targeted merely for criticizing Israel; their defense becomes more effective when many people are, in fact, being called anti-Semitic merely for criticizing Israel. Yair Rosenberg: America's anti-Jewish assassins are making the case for Zionism The hallmark of this style of politics is that, although it does not explicitly state that all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, it acts as though that were true. Consider another recent episode. Late last month, The New York Times ran a photo of a child in Gaza, who the accompanying article said was 'born a healthy child' but had recently been 'diagnosed with severe malnutrition.' Later, it added an editor's note clarifying that he 'also had pre-existing health problems,' which should have been noted in the photo caption. Newspapers make errors from time to time, especially while covering wars, when verifying facts is more dangerous and difficult. Yet some conservatives immediately determined not only that the error reflected an institutional bias against Israel—hardly an indisputable premise, given the anger that the Times has generated on the left for its reporting on such topics as sexual violence by Hamas—but that this bias in turn reflected animus against Jews. 'The media were so eager to produce a story about Jews behaving amorally that they dropped all skepticism in the face of a sensationalistic claim from a terrorist group with a known history of lying,' wrote the National Review editor Philip Klein. Noah Pollak, a Trump appointee at the U.S. Department of Education, did not even grant that the error was inadvertent, charging on X that the paper had deliberately published a falsehood: 'This is a really strange way of saying 'We ran a front page blood libel claiming Israel is starving a baby to death, but it's not true and we actually knew it wasn't true at the time, but it promoted hatred of Jews so we ran it anyway.'' Likewise, Seth Mandel, writing in Commentary, treated the error as an act of anti-Semitic malice: 'Pointing to a suffering child and saying 'the Jews did this' when in fact the Jews did no such thing is an intentional act.' As with the Sanders episode, none of these critics offered any explanation as to why the Times— a newspaper whose executive editor, along with many staffers, is Jewish—would be institutionally committed to whipping up anti-Semitic animus. The proliferation of the term blood libel as a rhetorical tic is especially revealing. The blood libel is a medieval conspiracy theory that posits that Jews murder Christian children in order to use their blood in religious ceremonies. It was used for centuries to incite murder against Jews. My wife's grandmother once told me that her mother had a vivid memory of being a child in 19th-century Russia, hiding under a bed and watching a Cossack plant a dead child in her family's home to blame on the Jews. To claim that Israel murders Arab children for religious ends would be a blood libel. And because anti-Semitic ideas mutate over time, some forms of obsessive hatred of Israel assign the Jewish state an almost demonic place in the imagination. Anti-Semitism can express itself as an inability to process Israel's actions, whether good or bad, in the terms one would use for other nations. But to the extent that the outrage over civilian deaths in Gaza is not categorically different from that surrounding, say, the American counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, Israel's critics are treating it as a normal state. Some elements of the contemporary pro-Israel right have refused to accept that. They have, instead, repurposed the phrase blood libel to cast almost any complaint about the Israeli war effort as anti-Semitic. Because arguments about the scope of war inherently revolve around the propriety of violence, this tactic has limitless application. This rhetorical move is striking in its resemblance to the style of the illiberal left. If you identify your own political position with a vulnerable group, you can accuse anybody who disagrees of opposing the group, thus circumventing the need to defend your position on the merits. The most common fallacy associated with this form of backward reasoning is to assume that any argument a bigot might use is bigoted. Because racists oppose affirmative action, its defenders sometimes assume all opponents of affirmative action are racist; likewise, because anti-Semites hate Israel, some of its defenders treat opposition to Israel as presumptively anti-Semitic. In some cases, the homage is explicit. Some campus activists have demanded that pro-Israel Jews receive the kind of protective treatment that university administrators have previously extended to students from, or speaking on behalf of, other marginalized groups. (Others have merely asked that schools fairly apply content-neutral rules to activists who seize common spaces or shout down pro-Israel speakers.) This would be a logical demand if you believe that illiberal discourse norms have benefited minority students and fostered tolerance. But if you believe that they've generated resentment without helping their supposed beneficiaries, as members of the pro-Israel right generally do, then it is a strange racket to try to get in on. The Trump administration has turned these illiberal concepts into official government policy. Its higher-education agenda revolves around the use of pretextual charges of anti-Semitism to withhold funding and subject universities to political interference. It has detained immigrant students for criticizing Israel and worked with right-wing activists to target protesters and issue draconian demands for 'reform.' How could a movement prone to hair-trigger charges of anti-Semitism identify itself so closely with this administration? President Donald Trump has welcomed an anti-Semitic and even Nazi-curious faction into his coalition, normalizing rhetoric that not long ago would have been disqualifying in a Republican administration. (Kingsley Wilson, a Defense Department spokesperson, has dabbled in anti-Semitic memes, including attacking the memory of Leo Frank, perhaps the most famous victim of anti-Semitic violence in U.S. history.) Trump himself has routinely discussed Jews in crude terms, as money-obsessed and primarily loyal to Israel. In fact, the alliance has a certain logic to it. The pro-Israel right is not so much expanding the definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism as shifting it, so that it covers far more criticism of Israel and far less behavior that would traditionally have fit the bill. After Trump criticized unethical bankers as 'shylocks'—drawing a wrist-slap from the Anti-Defamation League, which has otherwise supported his campus crackdown—the Commentary editor John Podhoretz wrote on X, 'Trump bombed Iran. He can say Shylock 100 times a day forever as far as I'm concerned.' Here Podhoretz is following in the tradition of his father, Norman, who preceded John as editor of Commentary, once an esteemed journal of Jewish thought. Thirty years ago, after Pat Robertson published a conspiratorial book arguing that a tiny sect of 'European bankers' had controlled world affairs for decades, Norman Podhoretz defended Robertson from charges of anti-Semitism in a lengthy essay. 'In my view,' he wrote, 'Robertson's support for Israel trumps the anti-Semitic pedigree of his ideas about the secret history of the dream of a new world order.' Michael Powell: The double standard in the human-rights world At the time, Robertson's crankish views may have seemed marginal enough that his allies could pretend they were tolerable. The door that Podhoretz cracked open for one nutty televangelist has since swung wide open for hordes of obsessive anti-globalists, Nazi-meme appreciators, and other enemies of the Jews. Building a coalition united by its total indifference to Palestinian human rights requires teaming with some people who may lack a certain moral refinement when it comes to the Jews. But you go to political war with the coalition you have, not the coalition you wish you had. This alliance harms the Jews in two obvious ways. First, it provides cover for the legitimization of a strain of far-right anti-Semitism that had been frozen out of mainstream political influence since the demise of the America First movement at the start of World War II. Second, it weakens the fight against left-wing anti-Semitism by diluting the charge through overuse. Flooding the public square with counterfeit accusations devalues the currency. And allowing the cause to be turned into cover for a crackdown on the left that is at best loosely related to defending Jews inevitably subjects the idea of opposing anti-Semitism to cynicism. The pro-Israel right's response to that critique is, of course, to label it as anti-Semitic. 'Jews are being threatened with consequences for being seen as exercising undue influence over campus life,' writes the Manhattan Institute legal-policy fellow Tal Fortgang. American culture has passed through an era in which elements of the social-justice left sought to shut down opposition to their agenda by branding disagreement as bigotry. Members of the pro-Israel right, who gained power in part by riding the backlash against the excesses of left-wing illiberalism, have now decided to borrow its techniques. Can they truly not imagine that they will generate a backlash of their own?
