Hasan Piker: Feds likely rethinking my outrageous airport detention

Early this week, popular Twitch streamer and YouTube podcaster Hasan Piker was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents for two hours at Chicago O’ Hare International Airport. There, he said he was questioned about his work and on his political views, especially those related to Israel’s war in Gaza and foreign policy.

Piker, who is an American citizen and was returning home from a family trip to France, spoke with RS about his experience being detained, First Amendment rights, and U.S. foreign policy in the Trump era. He said he was not arrested, but was clearly singled out for his interviews and online commentary. He told RS that he thinks the feds are likely worried about blowback and “bad branding” now that this case has gotten widespread attention and is generally seen as an attempt to put a chill on Constitutionally protected speech challenging the administration’s policies.

In a X post this week, the Department of Homeland Security suggested Piker was "lying for likes."

"Our officers are following the law, not agendas," posted DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, adding that Piker was "promptly released" after a "routine" inspection.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity

Stavroula Pabst: Now that you've had some time to reflect on the experience [of being detained], and maybe you've been able to speak with other journalists and lawyers about it…do you have anything more to say about the situation than what your initial reaction to it was. Has maybe your analysis of the episode changed at all over the last few days?

Hasan Piker: Not necessarily. I guess the only thing that was really interesting was the Department of Homeland Security's spokesperson's response to it all, which was to claim that this was like ‘lying for likes,’ and that it was a routine part of the process, a routine investigation that was, was not conducted on the basis, or was not started on the basis, of like political dissidents. And that they released me after, you know, asking these questions. I find that interesting, because, on the one hand, I think that they're still lying. I don't think that they're being truthful when they say it's not targeting due to political opinions.

But I think it's also interesting that they are worried about that being branded with the, that being associated with the administration. Like they're worried that could be an angle of attack, or an angle of criticism that could galvanize a lot of people against the administration.

So it's interesting — what they chose to defend and what they chose to omit. And what they chose to omit, of course, is the line of questioning, because I think that's what most people are understandably disturbed by: you know, my political affiliations, my opinions on American foreign policy, my opinions on Israel and numerous non-state actors that are in the region. All of that is constitutionally protected speech for an American citizen such as myself. And yet this was, these were questions that were asked almost to feed a line of inquiry that could potentially create some kind of actionable situation, you know, in an effort to, like, trip you up in that conversation. To try to see if you could say something that could justify further investigation into whether or not you are doing something illegal, like material support for any number of these different groups.

And so that, in and of itself, was a frustrating, frustrating thing to contend with, that the administration is trying to do this. But I guess, like I said, the silver lining is that they are still worried about the bad branding, the bad attention that this brings upon the Department of Homeland Security. So those are my thoughts since the detention.

SP: I understand in that same [DHS] comment, I believe it's Tricia McLaughlin, she had said that what had happened to you was legal. What do you make of that?

HP: I think it's definitely very strange, if this is now considered legal and routine. Because not only did she say it's legal, but she also said it was a routine investigation. And I don't know if it's actually routine, or if it should be routine, to ask American travelers entering the country what their opinion on the President is. Would it have been fine if, I don't know, Rush Limbaugh was apprehended during the Bill Clinton administration at the border? I mean, I don't even know if Tucker Carlson was questioned or investigated by the Department of Homeland Security, or any other agency under the Biden administration, when he went and talked to Vladimir Putin, the leader of a foreign adversary.

So, I don't think this is routine at all. I mean, it's routine if you are Muslim, living in the post 9-11 War on Terror era where you're traveling and all. And I have seen some of that impact as well, like you know, getting the quadruple “S” stamp on my boarding pass, like, I've experienced that before, right, for additional security clearances and things of that nature.

But this was unique in the sense that I've never been taken to a detention center, and like, been investigated this thoroughly with questions that revolve around things that they're not even supposed to technically ask you when you're entering the country. Your opinion on the president is not pertinent to entering the country as an American citizen. It is unconstitutional for them to bar me entry into my own country on the basis of my first amendment-protected speech.

SP: In light of this event, it's my understanding that you've accused the U.S. government of "causing a chilling effect" and an "environment of fear" through these detainments, not just yours, but as well as others in an effort to silence critics. Why do you think the U.S. government might view your speech or your political activity as dangerous to its prerogatives, and perhaps especially in regards to its foreign policy goals and objectives?

HP: Because it's deeply unpopular. It's that simple. Our agenda in the Middle East, our grand design for the region, revolves around Israel dominating every other country in its immediate vicinity with American munitions. And the atrocities are so severe that it has actually changed the political calculation in the way that people view Israel no longer as the most reliable and most valuable ally in the Middle East... This has created a major fissure between what the American public's demands are, which I believe are very reasonable and just, which is to put an end to this bloodshed and to also bring about war criminals that are responsible for this genocide to justice, right?

And the American politicians on the other hand, the American government, on the other hand, has a very different attitude on this, a very different attitude that revolves around letting Israel continue doing what it wants to do. And for this reason, I think, and this happened, this accelerated under Biden administration, as well, something I was very critical about even then, the government's response to this has been to basically try and punish people for not liking what Israel is doing, rather than address the elephant in the room: the idea that this can continue forever is ridiculous, and that's where we're at now. That's why we are seeing [this] first from an immigration enforcement side, which is, I think, also delivery, because that was Trump's most popular policy. In his mind, at least.

So we're seeing the immigrant enforcement mechanism target student protesters and even green card holders for no crimes whatsoever, but simply for their First Amendment protective speech in an effort to, I think, open the door to a complete erosion of the First Amendment and maybe even possibly another unconstitutional precedent to set on, on a distinction being made in terms of constitutional protections between citizens and non-citizens. Because right now, there is no distinction.

The constitution protects citizens and non citizens alike as long as they're on U.S. soil, which means that they're still also protected by the First Amendment. I think that that's what they're trying to tackle right now. And I fear that they're using Israel, which has a tremendously sophisticated and and very expansive, and also expensive, lobbying and and influence peddling operation in the United States of America and the the cynical shield that this influence peddling operation uses is antisemitism, that that this administration is using antisemitism as a way to open up the flood gates of eroding civil liberties, and they're doing this in a very cynical and very transparent manner.

SP: If our ability to speak out as civilians in this capacity is being jeopardized, what should we try to be doing right now to prevent that? What is our action in terms of where we go from here, now that [U.S. citizens' right to free speech is] to possibly be the target?

HP: I mean, I think we just keep pushing. There's nothing else to do in this situation. You can change targets as the government changes its priorities or engages in ridiculous enforcement and further encroachments on civil liberties.

But before that happens, as long as there are legal avenues that you can exhaust, I think we should exhaust all avenues, and all options, and engage in civil disobedience and continue to speak truth to power and exercise our first amendment rights, especially as American citizens.

I have immense privilege as an American citizen, an American citizen that is relatively wealthy and as an American citizen with a public persona. And I try to use that privilege every single day to speak out for those who can't speak out for themselves, to give voice to the voiceless. And I'm going to continue doing that, regardless of whether or not the government doesn't like it, or whether or not the government wants to prosecute me over these sorts of things, when previously, it would have been seen as unimaginable to prosecute an American citizen over their constitutionally protected speech.

SP: I have a more specific question regarding the detainment. Have you heard of the Zionist organization called Betar?

HP: Yeah.

SP: For reference, it says it shared a list of names of “hundreds of terror supporters” with the Trump administration. Do you think that there's a chance that you've been the target of this group, considering your views on Israel-Gaza?

HP: Potentially. But it's not — we don't have to look that far.

I mean, I've been almost declared the number one antisemite of the year by stopantisemitism.org. I've been targeted by the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] on numerous occasions. So there are much more prominent advocacy institutions, not even Stop Antisemitism, but ADL being like, probably the most, the largest and the most influential one with institutional muscle, coming after me with regular frequency and with vicious smears of antisemitism when I have been a massive combatant of antisemitism in perpetuity. It's just that I am also an anti-Zionist, and that is very frustrating for a lot of these organizations that simply care about Israel and not necessarily about antisemitism at all.

So there's a number of different groups that could have put me in the crosshairs of this administration. There's also obviously alongside this, like sophisticated influence peddling operation. There are papers that will routinely write hit pieces at times when I'm getting any sort of media coverage that's somewhat positive. You got the ‘Free Presses’ of the world that very obviously, are just doing propaganda for Israel with regular frequency. You have the ‘New York Posts’ of the world, like these right wing newspapers. Sometimes Fox News will even entertain writing counter-messaging.

This happened after my New York Times article came out. There was, in the Sunday Style section, they wrote about the appeal that I have, I guess, for young men. And this was viral among right-wing circles. And very quickly, as it happens over and over again, all of these are institutions that I was talking about, all these, like right wing papers that I was talking about, started immediately writing counter articles being like, ‘This guy's a terrorist supporter. He loves terrorism.’ And you know, broadly, in the eyes of the broader public, that kind of stuff doesn't work anymore. Like, no one really cares about it that much. Everyone's like, ‘oh, here we go. Another person who is pro-Palestine is being branded as an antisemite again.’ And I feel like that has kind of softened the impact. But it's obvious to me that the government certainly takes note of these things, right? That's something to consider.

SP: You had said that you told the CBP agent that you were upset that Trump hasn't ended the wars, and obviously that's definitely true in relation to Israel-Gaza.

Now, Trump has made certain efforts to try to move to end the war in Ukraine. And he's also made certain efforts to negotiate with Iran, as well as Yemen's Houthis. What do you think about Trump's efforts in these other realms? Do you support some of his other foreign policy efforts?

HP: Yeah, I actually mentioned the Houthis specifically in my interrogation as well, where I said, look, there are certain things that Trump does that I think are considered unorthodox from a, you know, foreign policy perspective, in comparison with the previous administrations, that I actually appreciate.

And the one that immediately came to mind was the talks that took place in Oman over a cessation of hostilities between the Ansar Allah movement and the Trump administration. And I think that that was productive. Stopping the bombing of [unclear], other numerous points in Yemen, and killing a bunch of civilians was not only costly. I believe what the total number is like, $15 billion of munitions that have been used so far in Yemen? It's more so than the War on Terror. As a matter of fact, it's, like, totally ridiculous. I guess you could say it's irresponsible statecraft. And I said that I actually appreciated that he did that. So there are certain things that he does that I agree with.

But the problem is, that didn't come about exclusively because Trump is a peaceful dove. That came about because the Houthis were punishing the American Navy tremendously with the very little that they have, right? It's the poorest nation on the planet, and yet, they were able to take down 22 Reaper drones, that are, what? $20 million a pop almost, or even more expensive than that, if I'm not mistaken. Four F-18 fighter jets were destroyed in the process, one under the Biden administration in the month of December, and then three, including the last one, being destroyed the day of the ceasefire. I mean, those are $70 million a pop. That's a crazy amount of cost and, if you believe the New York Times reporting on this, they were claiming, or at least, like, sources were claiming, that they even, the Houthis were almost able to take down an F-16 and an F-35 seriously putting pilot lives at risk and really changing the calculation for the Trump administration.

So it's not necessarily that Trump was a peaceful dove, but at least he was reasonable enough to recognize that these guys are not going to stop, and at the very least it's better to continue engaging in a defensive posture for Israel. But, you know, let them do whatever they're doing to Israel, but also create this situation where there's no longer any sort of back-and-forth between the American Navy and the region and the Houthis.

SP: What [do] you see amongst your own streamers, or the people that follow your work. Do they feel their foreign policy views are being represented? What are their frustrations and how do we move forward with that?

HP: No, I don't think the broader American foreign policy perspective is being represented. But I think that is also by design, kind of, where Americans have the capacity to feel as though they want peace all the time. But that's only because a lot of our imperialist efforts are sheltered from the public, whether it be the damaging impact to the local populations, or even migration patterns that end up out of all of the displacement, the migration patterns that end up causing destabilization in certain places, like Europe. Those issues never come all the way back to the United States of America and create political trouble in the United States of America. We are sheltered from the impact of our actions.

And I think that the media, broadly, also keeps people desensitized, and either desensitized or utterly oblivious to American foreign policy, which is precisely the reason why both parties can engage in like full blown war hawk behavior all around the world, and even Trump can present himself as a peaceful dove, as an ender of wars. Even though he also, when in charge, will greatly accelerate America's most damaging and most violent policies on the global stage.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that like, Americans fancy themselves to be peaceful, or want to feel peaceful, and want to vote for a guy who says he's going to end the wars. But both parties are not really invested in that at all.

At least Trump is lying about it when he's running for office, which I think is also still instructive to understand, like what the public position is on this. But neither, neither party actually represents it, and it's really damaging. We're completely servile to the interests of the military industrial complex in this country, our politicians are.

SP: Thank you, anything more you'd like to say?

HP: No, thank you, keep up the good work.