Mahmoud Khalil claims Trump administration used ICE detention to silence activism on Gaza

Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil says his 100-day ICE detention was political retaliation for campus protests.

Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil has spoken out about his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), alleging it was politically motivated due to his activism in support of Gaza. In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Khalil said he believes the Trump administration targeted him as part of a broader effort to intimidate those advocating for Palestinian rights.

“They want to conflate any speech for the right of Palestinians with speech that supports terrorism, which is totally wrong,” Khalil told CNN, asserting that his 100-plus days in detention were an attempt to make an example of him and discourage similar activism.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by CNN (@cnn)

A legal permanent resident, Khalil was arrested in March without any criminal charges filed against him. He described harsh treatment during his transfer to a Louisiana detention facility, including being shackled and arriving with a severely swollen leg that made it difficult to walk.

While in custody, Khalil was denied temporary release to attend the birth of his child. “It was the most difficult moment in my life,” he said, calling the situation avoidable and unnecessarily punitive.

Khalil was involved in campus demonstrations urging Columbia University to divest from companies allegedly complicit in violence in Gaza. He emphasized the peaceful nature of the protests and suggested his detention sends a chilling message: “Even if you are a legal resident, even if you are a citizen, actually, we will find a way to come after you.”

His legal team has filed a $20 million claim, accusing the government of political retaliation. A White House spokesperson told Axios that Khalil had “consistently engaged in conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests.” The case continues to raise concerns about free speech and the potential use of immigration enforcement as a political tool.