Follow us on social

How a post-9/11 law could enable a crackdown on speech

How a post-9/11 law could enable a crackdown on speech

If Trump Justice Department lawyers want to avoid First Amendment arguments, this is likely where they'll go

Analysis | Washington Politics

In yet another example of Donald Trump announcing new policy via social media, the president has now pledged to crack down on “illegal protests” at universities, warning that “agitators” will be headed to jail or targeted for deportation.

Most likely, Trump’s Truth Social post is a reference to last year’s uprising of student encampments and protests at universities across the country in opposition to U.S. weapons and political support for Israel’s onslaught of Gaza that the International Court of Justice and every major human rights organization has concluded plausibly amounts to genocide. On the campaign trail, Trump already pledged to crush pro-Palestinian protests if they ramp up again, including deporting foreign national students who participate.

Many may see this and not be very alarmed. After all, peaceful protest isn’t illegal. But what many do not realize is that counterterrorism law gives enormously wide-ranging discretionary authority to the president, to law enforcement, and to immigration officials that could be used to squelch free speech and dissent.

For example: providing material support for terrorism is a federal crime. This may seem fair enough on its face. But the breathtaking scope of this provision becomes more clear once we see how the terms are defined. “Material support” includes the provision of “service,” “expert advice or assistance,” “communications equipment,” or “personnel” (including yourself). And the Supreme Court has confirmed that the support does not actually have to go toward any particular violent act that might be considered terrorism, only to a group that is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government, even if that support is otherwise lawful.

Hamas is designated as an FTO and those opposing U.S. and Israeli policy are often accused of supporting Hamas. Could peaceful pro-Palestine protesters be charged with materially supporting terrorism? This is exactly what the Anti-Defamation League was pushing for in the last wave of student protests when it urged universities to shut down and investigate Students for Justice in Palestine chapters for their role in organizing the activism. It is also what Rep. James Comer suggested in a letter he sent to Americans Muslims for Palestine in his capacity as the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, demanding documents and information.

Allegations of “material support for terrorism” have long been launched against peaceful pro-Palestine activists by those who disagree with them ideologically, including suggestions that such activism provides “services” to Hamas in the form of public relations or propaganda. The Supreme Court has been clear that independent advocacy remains protected by the First Amendment, but aggressive prosecutors could allege that activism is illegally “directed by” or “coordinated with” a designated terrorist organization by leaning on things like similar uses of language from both protestors and Hamas (there are already numerous civil lawsuits making this exact case.)

What about Trump’s pledge to deport foreign students who engage in protest? Immigration law contains enormously wide-ranging counterterrorism measures that deny foreign nationals entry or permit their deportation if officials determine that they “persuade[d] others to support a terrorist organization,” or “endorse[d] or espouse[d]” or “persuade[d] others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.” These are the same stringent provisions that prevented Nelson Mandela from easily traveling to the United States, even once he became the leader of South Africa, until Congress passed a law in 2008 rectifying the embarrassing situation.

Many Members of Congress and state attorneys general were already urging the Biden administration to ramp up deportations of foreign student protestors last year using these provisions of the law. Now that the Trump administration has taken over immigration enforcement, we can easily imagine these “anti-terrorism” laws being relied upon to execute a sweeping revocation of student visas and mass deportations - all for peacefully protesting US and Israeli policies in Gaza.

It is almost a cliche by now that we are supposed to take bombastic statements from Trump “seriously, but not literally.” But, because of the massive power given to him by counterterrorism laws, we may actually want to take this one literally.


Top image credit: USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect
Analysis | Washington Politics
general Michael Kurilla Israel
Top photo credit: General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of U.S. Central Command, visited Israel in July 2022 to meet with Israeli Defense Force (IDF) leadership, to include the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt General Aviv Kohavi. (U.S. Central Command public affairs)

Is Israel's favorite US general helping to push us into war?

Middle East

Did the Israelis strike Iran when it did because Michael Kurilla is still commander of U.S. Central Command and a “window” for a prospective joint operation with the U.S. might be closing?

Some are speculating that because Kurilla is expected to retire from the military this summer that the Israelis saw their chance. The Army general, 59, has been widely reported to be on one side of a split in the Pentagon over whether the U.S. should support and even be part of Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.

keep readingShow less
Baqubah, Iraq
Top image credit: Baqubah, Iraq, March 30, 2007 (Stacy L. Pearsall USAF photo)

Welcome to Iraq War 2.0

Middle East

Like all things in the Middle East, the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran can seem complicated. It’s not. The unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran is the 2003 Iraq War 2.0, except it has the potential to be far, far more catastrophic than the absolute catastrophe that was Iraq.

Like President George W. Bush’s 2003 war on Iraq, the war on Iran is an unprovoked, illegal, offensive, unilateral war of aggression, potentially aimed at regime change, and sold to the public based on lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

keep readingShow less
Soldiers Mali Africa
Top photo credit: Soldiers in Ansongo, Mali (Fred Marie/Shutterstock)

Wagner mercenaries declare 'mission accomplished' in Mali

Africa

On June 6, a Wagner-affiliated Telegram channel announced the Russian private military company’s (PMC) withdrawal from Mali, declaring “mission accomplished.”

After continuing operations in Mali nearly two years after the deaths of its founders, Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin, the Russian state has finally subsumed Wagner’s structures under the Russian Ministry of Defense-subordinate, Africa Corps.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.