State Department official defends canceling visas of pro-Palestinian academics
The official testified at an ongoing trial that Trump’s deportation drive targets antisemitism and support for terrorism, not ideology or speech.
A top State Department official vigorously defended the Trump administration’s drive to cancel the visas of pro-Palestinian academics, arguing that the effort does not abridge free speech and targets students who are supporting terrorism or promoting antisemitism.
John Armstrong, State’s top consular official, testified Friday at a trial in a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of pursuing an unconstitutional “ideological deportation” policy. He denied that such an initiative is underway.
“I have heard that accusation. I believe it’s groundless,” said Armstrong, who has worked at the diplomatic agency for more than 30 years.
“I run the Bureau of Consular Affairs. I’m responsible for everything those 13,000 people do,” Armstrong added. “I would know if there’s an ideological deportation policy going on that involved the Bureau of Consular Affairs. It’s silly to suggest that there’s such a policy that I wouldn’t know about.”
Armstrong said that revoking visas of foreign citizens due to their activities in the U.S. did not begin with a series of determinations Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued earlier this year declaring certain foreign academics’ presence in the U.S. to be incompatible with U.S. foreign policy.
Armstrong insisted that no visas were revoked based on “protected speech,” but when asked if visas were sometimes pulled due to students’ “political viewpoints,” he gave a more complex answer.
“If you're supporting a terrorist organization, yes,” Armstrong said. “This is not something that we started with Marco Rubio. If you support terrorism, you can have your visa revoked.”
As the government prepared to question Armstrong about the reasons for revoking the visas of several specific advocates for Palestinian causes, a DOJ lawyer asked the judge to clear the public from the courtroom in Boston’s federal courthouse where the trial is taking place.
No specific reason was given for the request. U.S. District Judge William Young, who is presiding over the trial, quickly declined.
“I’m not disposed to clear the courtroom,” Young said. “There’s a constitutional right to have a public courtroom for public trials. … That request is denied. I’m not doing that.”
Armstrong went on to discuss the grounds for revoking the visas in several of the high-profile cases involving academics at U.S. universities.
Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil’s visa was canceled due to his “role in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities that foster a hostile environment towards Jewish students in the United States,” the State Department official said. Khalil organized campus protests at Columbia when he was a student there.
Another former Columbia student, Mohsen Mahdawi, was “involved in leadership of disruptive protests at Columbia University that included antisemitic conduct and calling for the destruction of Israel,” Armstrong said. He said Rubio also determined that “Mr. Mahdawi’s activities undermined the peace process in the Middle East including coming to a peaceful resolution of the ongoing conflict in Gaza.”
Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk had her visa revoked as a result of “her antisemitic activities in the U.S.” and for “creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization,” Armstrong said, adding, “I believe it was Hamas. It might have been Hezbollah.”
Armstrong said Ozturk’s visa was designated for “silent revocation,” meaning it was canceled without notice to her, likely to avoid tipping her off that Homeland Security was seeking to detain her.
All the academics Armstrong mentioned have denied fostering antisemitism and advocating for Hamas. Federal judges have either ordered their release or blocked their detention, citing indications that their arrests may have violated their First Amendment rights.
While Rubio spoke earlier this year about revoking about 300 visas, Armstrong said the number of “student protester” visas he was involved in canceling was much smaller, in the range of 15 to 20.
The lawsuit before Young, a Reagan appointee, was filed in March by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. It claims that the “ideological deportation” policy runs afoul of the First Amendment rights of the academics targeted for expulsion from the U.S. It also alleges that the policy is chilling the speech and travel of other academics in the U.S. who are not American citizens and is curtailing the ability of American students and faculty to hear the views of the foreign academics.
As the trial entered its fifth day Friday, jockeying continued over Young’s handling of records DOJ provided to the judge to review privately. DOJ lawyers say the records, which outline the administration’s research on targets of potential deportation efforts, are legally privileged as sensitive law enforcement information and internal government deliberations.
But Young indicated earlier this week that he believes the government waived those privileges by sending him the documents to examine. The Justice Department filed an unusual appeal Thursday to prevent Young from disclosing any more of the documents to lawyers for the academic groups suing.
A panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay Friday blocking the judge from giving the plaintiffs any additional government documents until the privilege claim is hashed out.
Young read the order aloud in court Friday soon after it was issued.
“I’ve got to reflect on what it reaches,” the judge said, shortly before ending the trial for the day.
The trial is scheduled to continue through next week.