In America: Free Speech or Selective Silence? US Faces Backlash Over Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Voices
Jorm Sangsorn
In March 2025, Badar Khan Suri, an Indian postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University, was detained by US immigration agents outside his Virginia home. Federal authorities accused him of “spreading Hamas propaganda” and having “close connections to a known or suspected terrorist,” referencing his Palestinian American wife’s familial ties. No concrete evidence was provided, and Suri’s lawyer, Hassan Ahmad, called the arrest “beyond contemptible,” arguing the accusations were rooted in guilt by association.
Suri’s case mirrors that of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and green card holder, who faced deportation under the same obscure statute: Section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This provision allows the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens deemed a threat to US foreign policy interests. Critics, including civil rights groups, argue that the administration is weaponizing immigration law to silence criticism of Israel. “If an accomplished scholar who focuses on conflict resolution is whom the government decides is bad for foreign policy, then perhaps the problem is with the government, not the scholar,” said Mr. Ahmad.
The Trump administration’s aggressive posture contrasts sharply with its tolerance for other protest movements. Pro-Khalistan activists advocating for a separate Sikh homeland—a movement India has labeled extremist—operate freely in the US, as do anti-Sharia law demonstrators critical of Iran’s authoritarian regime. Yet when it comes to Palestine, the administration has drawn a hard line, including but not limited to detention, the revoking of visas and green cards, and potential black-listing from ever re-entering the US. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy condemns the administration, saying, “Once a citizen or a resident of America can be locked away with no charges against them simply because they protested, there is no going back for America…”
The Double Standard of Dissent
The US has long positioned itself as a global beacon for free expression, enshrining protest rights in the First Amendment of its constitution. However, the recent crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism reveals a glaring inconsistency. While the State Department condemns Hamas’ October 2023 attack, it has conflated peaceful advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for terrorism.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem labeled Indian student Ranjani Srinivasan a “terrorist sympathizer” on social media after her visa was revoked for participating in campus protests. Srinivasan, who self-deported to Canada, denied advocating violence, stating her activism was limited to social media. Interestingly, top Democrat leadership, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both native New Yorkers, have had little to say on the matter.
This selective enforcement extends to the press. In 2024, Stanford University student journalist Dilan Gohill was arrested while covering a pro-Palestinian protest for the Stanford Daily, despite wearing press credentials. Although prosecutors dropped felony charges, citing insufficient evidence, Gohill faced nine months of uncertainty. “No journalist should ever have to endure a nine-month-long threat to their academic, social, and professional future for simply doing their job,” Gohill told the Columbia Journalism Review.
MAGA’s Free Speech Paradox
The Trump administration and its allies frequently frame themselves as defenders of free speech, railing against “cancel culture” and vowing to protect constitutional rights from the “woke mob”. Yet their actions tell a different story. President Trump has repeatedly accused pro-Palestinian protesters of antisemitism without evidence. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio greenlit Suri’s deportation under the vague INA provision.
This hypocrisy echoes broader trends within the MAGA movement. While rallying against perceived censorship of conservative voices, Trump and his supporters have advocated harsh measures against dissent. During the 2020 racial justice protests, Trump infamously tweeted, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” encouraging violent responses to demonstrations, while conflating protests with looting. Similarly, his administration’s targeting of academic and journalistic freedoms mimics the authoritarian regimes that suppress opposition under the guise of national security.
A Fragile Alliance: US-India Relations at a Crossroads
The detentions have strained US-India relations, already tense due to Trump’s tariffs on Indian goods and reports of xenophobic rhetoric from administration officials. India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has cautiously avoided direct criticism, stating it expects its citizens abroad to “comply with local laws.”
The irony is stark: as the US seeks India’s partnership to counter China’s influence on the subcontinent, its domestic policies risk alienating a key ally. Georgetown and Columbia, both elite institutions with global ties, have publicly supported their detained scholars, with Georgetown stating it “supports community members’ rights to free and open inquiry.” Yet the administration’s actions threaten to undermine academic freedom and diplomatic goodwill.
Since the attacks on Israel in 2023, Gallup reported that American sympathy for Israel reached its peak. However, in the subsequent months, American support for Israel has experienced a significant decline. Several factors could be contributing to this shift, including the disturbing images emerging from Gaza and the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged acts of genocide against Palestinians. These developments suggest a changing American opinion, yet the leaders remain steadfast in their support for Israel, disregarding the preferences of the American public.
The Future of Free Expression
The cases of Suri, Khalil, and Gohill underscore a troubling reality: free speech in America is increasingly contingent on political alignment. As Human Rights Watch and international courts decry Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, the US government has chosen to stifle debate rather than engage with it. In an interview amidst the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, progressive politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed their concerns, likening the administration’s actions to those of an authoritarian regime.
Amidst this tumultuous political crossroads, the country should try to remember the roots of America as one built on dissent, not conformity. In 2025, when Americans once again dissent from the actions of their country’s leaders, stifling their voices might be the most “un-American” thing to do.