March 12, 2025
I am a supporter of @realDonaldTrump and @SecRubio. But the unfolding legal battle surrounding #MahmoudKhalil, a Palestinian activist and lawful permanent resident (LPR), raises profound constitutional and moral questions about free speech, due process, and the limits of government power. Today’s federal court proceedings were expected to address the merits of the case, yet they never did—because Khalil’s own attorneys have not even been granted the basic right of attorney-client privileged communication since his arrest.
As a Christian and an elder in the Lord, I humbly and respectfully urge Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reconsider his stance on this case, not from a place of political opposition, but as one brother in Christ to another. With no clear evidence linking Khalil to Hamas, the constitutional concerns raised by his detention should give all Americans—especially Christians—pause.
What Happened in Court Today?
The courtroom hearing was expected to discuss the legality of Khalil’s detention and deportation, but instead, the federal judge was forced to focus on procedural issues—specifically, jurisdiction and Khalil’s lack of access to his legal team.
Jurisdictional Battle: The government is arguing that New York lacks jurisdiction, likely seeking to move the case to the Fifth Circuit, a conservative court district where they may expect a favorable ruling.
Denial of Legal Counsel: Khalil’s lawyers revealed that they have not been able to speak with their client in a privileged setting since his transfer to a detention facility in Louisiana.
Amended Habeas Petition: Due to this lack of access, his legal team is preparing to file an amended habeas corpus petition, highlighting due process violations.
Judge’s Order: The judge has now ordered immediate attorney-client privileged calls for Khalil so his legal team can properly argue the case.
It would have been reckless and irresponsible for Khalil’s attorneys to argue the merits today without even having the chance to ask their client basic questions, such as:
“Have you ever personally handed out pro-Hamas pamphlets?”
By all available accounts, the answer appears to be a resounding no.
The Constitutional Crisis: Using a Vague Law to Deport a Lawful Permanent Resident.
The government appears to be relying on INA § 237(a)(4)(C), which states that an LPR can be deported if the Secretary of State deems their presence “adverse to U.S. foreign policy.”
However, this statute is dangerously vague—a concern that was once raised by none other than President Trump’s own late sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry. In a 1990s case, she ruled that this provision was “constitutionally vague”. Although the case was later dismissed on procedural grounds in the Third Circuit (where Justice Alito ruled the lower court lacked jurisdiction), her legal reasoning remains highly relevant today.
Using a broad, vague statute to silence political dissent is not only constitutionally troubling but also sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations of any political persuasion. If we tolerate this today, who will be next?
The Evidence Against Khalil: A House Built on Sand.
When I read the following article by Zeteo here: https://zeteo.com/p/scoop-emails-show-mahmoud-khalil-ask-columbia-protection-ice I started to have doubts about the veracity of the claims against Mahmoud Khalil and I wrote the following article about the situation as seen here: https://x.com/4TheRepublicrat/status/1899845406919377020 . Despite weeks of public statements from the Trump administration, no clear evidence has emerged proving Khalil engaged in any material support for Hamas—a requirement under INA § 212(a)(3)(B) for deportation based on terrorism.
Instead, the only accusations against him seem to stem from:
Social media posts by pro- #Israel activists like Shai Davidai and David Lederer, neither of whom have provided direct proof of Khalil’s involvement in terrorist activities.
A vague claim that he “led activities aligned with Hamas,” yet no specific actions have been cited.
A disputed pamphlet allegedly distributed at a Barnard College protest, with no evidence linking Khalil to its circulation.
What we do know is that Khalil was a mediator at the Barnard protest, engaging with administrators to ensure that students’ voices were heard. If the government’s case rests solely on guilt by association, it does not meet the legal burden required for deportation.
Rubio’s Dilemma: Has He Been Misled?
Secretary Marco Rubio has publicly committed to revoking the visas and green cards of Hamas supporters. When Khalil was arrested, ICE agents were allegedly unaware that he was a lawful permanent resident—a potential fundamental oversight that suggests this operation may have been rushed and politically motivated.
This raises an important question:
Has Rubio been misled by unreliable sources, causing him to have to pivot and rely on a vague unconstitutional portion of the INA potentially setting himself up for an embarrassing legal defeat?
Given that the habeas corpus petition is now moving forward, it is likely that a judge will demand concrete evidence linking Khalil to Hamas. If none emerges, the Trump administration will face a judicial rebuke, damaging its credibility on immigration enforcement. They may want to graciously bow out before that time comes.
A #Christian Plea to Secretary of State Rubio.
Secretary Rubio, I write to you not as a political adversary, but as a fellow Christian, and elder in the Lord who has supported much of your work in defending conservative values. You have long championed religious freedom, constitutional rights, and justice, and I believe you sincerely desire to uphold the rule of law.
However, I urge you to prayerfully reconsider your position on this particular case.
1. If Khalil is truly guilty of material support for Hamas, then yes, deportation is justified.
2. But if the evidence is flimsy or nonexistent, then this is a wrongful persecution.
3. The law you are relying on is dangerously vague—even President Trump’s own sister warned about its constitutional risks.
4. If the courts overturn this case due to lack of evidence, the administration risks losing credibility on real national security threats.
As a Christian, I believe in justice, mercy, and truth. If Khalil is being falsely accused, then this is not righteous justice, but political persecution. And as Christ himself warned:
“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” – John 7:24
Secretary Rubio, I humbly urge you to pick your battles wisely. The fight against terrorism is critical, but we must ensure that our actions are backed by truth, not political expediency.
I leave you with this final thought: If we create a government powerful enough to deport people based on vague accusations today, then tomorrow, that same power could be used against Christians, conservatives, or anyone who dares to dissent.
In Christ’s grace and wisdom,
~WLBJ~