Judge Slams U.S. for Punishing Israel Critics With Deportation
“Criticizing the state of Israel is not antisemitism,” said a federal judge—putting the State Department’s secretive deportation campaign on trial.
WASHINGTON — A federal bench trial in Boston revealed that senior State Department officials under the Trump administration considered statements critical of Israel and U.S. foreign policy as justification for revoking foreign students’ visas, raising concerns over constitutionality and free speech protections.
John Armstrong, the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ most senior official, testified on July 18 that action memos recommending visa revocations for students such as Tufts University’s Rumeysa Öztürk and Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil were either personally approved by him or passed along to Secretary of State Marco Rubio for final authorization.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
Armstrong acknowledged that criticisms of Israel—including calls for an arms embargo, describing Israeli actions as “worse than Hitler,” and labeling Israel an apartheid state—were considered relevant in evaluating visa eligibility. He further testified that ties to pro-Palestinian student groups or protest activities factored into decisions to revoke visas.
Under questioning from Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP, Armstrong admitted the bureau operated without formal guidance or a clear definition of antisemitism. He conceded he could not recall any directive clarifying what constituted antisemitic speech, relying instead on the “totality of the situation.” He described antisemitism as hatred directed at Jewish people or Israel, and expressed his view that some individuals’ criticisms of Israel were a “dodge” to conceal antisemitism. Yet, he did not assert that criticism alone automatically qualified for deportation.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
The State Department’s revocation authority stems from a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing visa cancellation when an individual’s presence is deemed to pose potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Armstrong testified that the Trump administration’s policy on ideological deportation—framed as an effort to combat antisemitism—triggered extensive interagency discussions involving the White House, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense, and State Department, with more than 20 meetings occurring primarily in March 2024.
During testimony, Armstrong named Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller and his deputy as participants in conversations related to visa revocations of student protesters. The DHS’s assistant director for national security, Andre Watson, testified that since the formation of a “Tiger Team” task force, he had referred 10 to 15 cases of student protesters—including Khalil, Öztürk, and Mohsen Mahdawi—to the State Department for possible visa revocation.
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
The lawsuit, brought by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association, alleges that the Trump administration implemented an unconstitutional ideological deportation policy targeting pro-Palestinian voices in academia. Veena Dubal, AAUP’s general counsel, testified that the policy has significantly altered the organization’s work to defend academic freedom and immigration rights for noncitizen members.
U.S. District Judge William G. Young presiding over the case emphasized that criticism of Israel is political speech protected by the First Amendment. In a notable ruling moment, Young stated, “Criticisms of the state of Israel are not antisemitism. They are political speech, protected speech.” He added that allegations linking such speech to support for Hamas or other terrorist groups were unfounded, saying, “Criticizing the state of Israel does not constitute pro-Hamas support.”
The trial has spotlighted tensions between national security concerns and constitutional rights, with plaintiffs arguing that government actions disproportionately target pro-Palestinian students while suppressing political speech. The government’s approach to antisemitism and visa revocation remains under scrutiny, with the court expected to rule following closing arguments scheduled to begin July 21.
Liked this story? Help us break the next one. Migrant Insider is one of the only outlets digging deep into the secret machinery behind U.S. immigration policy. Our reporting is independent, relentless, and often uncovers what others won’t touch..