Should the government punish you for allegedly ‘undermining’ American diplomacy?

American foreign policy is vast, complex, and can change by the hour. The First Amendment protects our right to support, challenge, protest, or question the policy of the United States and every other government around the world.

But in seeking deportations of some legal residents in the United States, federal officials are claiming to target immigrants for expression that could, in their view, impact American diplomacy — and the implications for free expression are profound.

This broad justification effectively means any legal immigrant in the United States cannot speak his or her mind about any political issue without risking deportation, lest their words in some way implicate present or future foreign policy matters.

That’s the thing about broad justifications for censorship: They invite broad application.

In the case of Badar Khan Suri — an Indian citizen, Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow, and recent deportation target — The New York Times reported last week that “an official familiar with Dr. Suri’s case” asserted that “the State Department justified his deportation by arguing that he engaged in antisemitic activity that would undermine diplomatic efforts to get Israel and Hamas to agree to a cease-fire.” 

Suri is a fellow at Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. In a statement, the school said Suri “has committed no crime.” His father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef, was “a former adviser to Hamas” over a decade ago and “for his part, has criticized the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.” The ACLU of Virginia, which is serving on Suri’s legal team, asserts that his deportation is “in direct retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family’s ties to Gaza.” 

And on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted that he “will continue to cancel the visas of those whose presence or activities have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country.”

This justification should set off a warning bell for anyone concerned about protecting freedom of expression in the U.S. There is effectively no limiting principle around speech that would allegedly “undermine diplomatic efforts.” 

Can legal immigrants in the United States discuss human rights violations in Xinjiang or Hong Kong, even though doing so could theoretically imperil tariff talks or trade negotiations with China? What about criticism of the notion that Canada should become the “51st state”? Can Ukrainian immigrants criticize the actions of President Vladimir Putin while the U.S. is involved in talks between Russia and Ukraine? 

That’s the thing about broad justifications for censorship: They invite broad application.

And that’s why, last week, FIRE filed a “friend of the court” brief along with a coalition of civil liberties groups contesting the federal government’s detention of lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil. 

The brief challenged the administration’s use of a statute empowering the secretary of state to deport a lawful non-citizen resident if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on American foreign policy. 

As FIRE explains, none of the many immigrants in the U.S., including the million-plus on campus, “will feel safe criticizing the American government of the day — in class, scholarship, or on their own time — if a current or future secretary of state may, whenever he chooses and at his unreviewable discretion, deem them adverse to American foreign policy and have them deported.”

Noncitizens lawfully in the United States may lose their residency for many reasons, like criminal activity or overstaying beyond the authorized date.

Exercising the freedoms protected by our First Amendment should not be one of them.