Trump Immigration Actions are Likely to Have a Chilling Effect on Online Speech
By Benjamin Bardman; Photo Credit: Olivia Falcigno/USA Today Network
For immigrants to the US, even those who have fully complied with all immigration laws, self-censorship of controversial political opinions may now seem like a rational choice. That is because the Trump administration has targeted legal residents for deportations based on their political activities and has publicized these deportations through an aggressive social media strategy. For example, Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student, green card holder, and husband of an American citizen, was detained by immigration officials who intend to deport him for allegedly supporting Hamas through his protest activity.[1] Mr. Khalil has not been charged with any crime; the only explanation for the deportation is that he engaged in speech that had “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.[2] This phrasing comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes removal if the Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds” for that determination.[3]
Even though the deportation of Mr. Khalil was halted by a judge, and his detention may ultimately be deemed a violation of the First Amendment, the fact of his detention may produce a significant chilling effect on the speech of legal immigrants. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers have argued this, saying “They’re trying to make an example of him to chill others from making similar speech.”[4] This is especially true given reporting that the Trump administration has ignored judicial orders and denied due process as part of its stated policy of mass deportations.[5]
This chilling effect will be especially pronounced on social media, which Trump administration officials have been monitoring.[6] For one thing, it is unclear what constitutes “pro-Hamas” speech. President Trump has accused many people of being pro-Hamas, including even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.[7] Given this extremely broad potential definition, the potential for a chilling effect on legal speech is vast.
This effect is compounded by social media, both by making it easier for officials to enforce restrictions on speech and by making it easier to publicize deportations. Online speech can be indexed and searched by a small number of people. Additionally, once a person has been detained or deported, the Trump administration can use social media to publicize this fact, encouraging self-censorship. In fact, Trump administration officials have admitted that a significant part of their aggressive social media strategy is to encourage “self-deportation;” the official White House account on X told “illegal aliens” to “[d]o it the easy way, or get deported the hard way.”[8] The same account also posted a video of people being chained and led onto a airplane with the caption “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight”. [9] Other posts, including by the President himself, celebrated the detention of Mr. Khalil and promised that it was “the first arrest of many to come”.[10] The same strategy that is intended to lead to “self-deportation” could just as easily lead to self-censorship.
This chilling effect on speech could extend beyond speech about Palestine, especially if judges defer to the executive on what speech is harmful to foreign policy. Other issues could be characterized in the future as having “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” so legal immigrants may have to think twice before posting anything that goes against the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals. For example, would a Ukrainian immigrant be at risk of deportation if they criticized the Trump administration’s policies towards Russia? Could a Panamanian, Greenlander, or Canadian face deportation if they protest the President’s pro-annexation stances? These are mainstream political opinions shared by many US citizens, yet the government could argue that such speech creates adverse foreign policy consequences, allowing them to revoke the legal status of those immigrants. Regardless of whether they actually do this, the mere fact that they could do it, without warning, may chill immigrants from engaging in online speech that is likely to anger the Trump administration.
Benjamin Bardman is a second-year law student at Vanderbilt Law School. He is from the San Francisco Bay Area and graduated from Lewis & Clark College with a degree in Political Science and History.
[1] See Phil McCausland, Who is Mahmoud Khalil, Palestinian student activist facing US deportation, BBC (Mar. 12, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj5nlxz44yo.
[2] Cate Brown, et al., Effort to deport Columbia student rests solely on Rubio decision, The Washington Post (Mar. 12, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/12/marco-rubio-mahmoud-khalil-deportation/.
[3] 8 USCA § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i).
[4] McCausland, supra note 1.
[5] See Marc Caputo, Exclusive: How the White House ignored a judge’s order to turn back deportation flights, Axios (Mar. 16, 2025), https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judge-deport-venezuelans.
[6] See Andrew Kreighbaum, Social Media Activity Targeted in Trump Immigration Crackdown, BloombergLaw (Mar. 17, 2025), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/social-media-activity-targeted-in-trump-immigration-crackdown.
[7] Marianne Levine, Trump falsely calls Schumer a ‘proud member of Hamas’, The Washington Post (Aug. 1, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/31/trump-jewish-schumer-hamas-emhoff/.
[8] The White House (@WhiteHouse), X (Mar. 18, 7:44 AM), https://x.com/whitehouse/status/1901977915882938715?s=46&t=bLHr_uwAxqEKJWBMwGU-7g.
[9] The White House (@WhiteHouse), X (Feb.18, 2025, 12:45 PM), https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1891922058415603980.
[10] Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Mar. 10, 2025, 12:05 PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114139222625284782.