Legal expert outlines Trump admin’s options after anti-Israel activist’s release

Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-Israel activist, has been making headlines recently as he was released from federal detention in Louisiana last month. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, was arrested in March for his pro-Palestinian activism on the Columbia University campus in New York City. An immigration judge ruled that he could be removed from the country based on a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which stated that his campus protests were against U.S. foreign policy interests.

However, Republican legal expert Mehek Cooke believes that Khalil should have never been released. Cooke argues that the judge who made the decision to release him did not have the authority to do so. She believes that President Trump, as the Commander-in-Chief, should have the final say in a case like this. Secretary Rubio has determined Khalil to be a threat to national security and has requested his removal from the country.

Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security has accused Khalil of omitting key information from his green card application, including his affiliation with groups like the Columbia University Apartheid Divest. Cooke believes that these allegations strengthen the case for Khalil’s removal from the country.

In response to a New Jersey federal judge’s ruling that blocked Khalil’s deportation, Cooke believes that the prosecution should appeal the decision and challenge the judge’s lack of jurisdiction. She argues that an immigration court judge should have the authority to make decisions about Khalil’s detention status.

On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union has been advocating for Khalil, arguing that his detainment was a violation of his First Amendment rights. They believe that ideas should not be criminalized, even if they are controversial.

Despite the debate over freedom of speech, Cooke believes that Khalil’s protests go beyond free speech and pose a threat to national security. She argues that his actions are a form of terrorism and should not be protected under the guise of free speech.

As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen what steps the Trump administration will take in response to Khalil’s release. The debate over national security, free speech, and immigration laws will likely continue to be at the forefront of this controversial case.