The federal government has provided no evidence that Mahmoud Khalil has committed a criminal offense, and yet on Saturday night, he was taken by agents of the state from his home and renditioned to a detention facility where neither his pregnant wife nor his lawyer have had access to him.

Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States and Palestinian activist who helped lead the protests at Columbia University over the Israel-Hamas war last spring, seems to have been disappeared by the U.S. government because of his political views. Khalil was among the students urging the university to cut financial and educational ties with Israel. (Unlike with other categories of immigrants, revoking the status of legal permanent residents generally requires evidence of wrongdoing.)

Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had “proudly apprehended” Khalil, describing him as a “Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student.” A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson described Khalil as having “led activities aligned to Hamas.” There is, notably, not even a hint of an allegation of criminal behavior in that description. They do not accuse him of being a member of, fighting for, or providing material support to any terrorist group, all of which are prosecutable crimes. The phrasing aligned to implies that if Trump-administration officials think the views of a green-card holder are unacceptable, they can deprive him of his freedom. How does one even prove they are not “aligned” with Hamas, a subjective and arbitrary judgment that could be thrown at anyone deemed too critical of the Israeli government?

Government officials have told reporters that Khalil’s green card was revoked under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that authorizes the secretary of state to expel an “alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

Trump supporters have a remarkable ability to coalesce around whatever explanation they are told to repeat, so the arguments defending the detention are likely to orient around this justification. The idea that Khalil’s views might have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States is an obvious pretext for expelling him—and a message to others who might hold or express similar beliefs. Trumpists simply do not approve of his politics and have therefore resorted to using the power of the state to deport him. Trump has styled himself a champion of free speech, but this is what Trumpists mean by “free speech”: You can say what Trumpists want you to say or you can be punished.

[David A. Graham: The free-speech phonies]

Trump has announced as much, declaring that the administration would not tolerate “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.” That is an admission that Khalil’s arrest is not about consequences for American foreign policy but about punishing speech. The administration is using the power of the state to silence people who express political views that Trump dislikes. And it is worth noting that Trumpists define any criticism of Trump as “anti-American.”

Due process is a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law. Without it, anyone can be arbitrarily deprived of life or liberty. Leaders who aspire to absolute power always begin by demonizing groups that lack the political power to resist, and that might be awkward for the political opposition to defend. They say someone is a criminal, and they dare you to defend the rights of criminals. They say someone is a deviant, and they dare you to defend the rights of deviants. They call someone a terrorist, and they dare you to defend the rights of terrorists. And if you believe none of these apply to you, another category might be “traitor,” the label that Trump and his advisers, including the far-right billionaire Elon Musk, like to give to anyone who opposes them.

Trump’s assault on basic First Amendment principles may begin with Khalil, but it will not end with him. Trump’s ultimate target is anyone he finds useful to target. Trump and his advisers simply hope the public is foolish or shortsighted enough to believe that if they are not criminals, or deviants, or terrorists, or foreigners, or traitors, then they have no reason to worry. Eventually no one will have any rights that the state need respect, because the public will have sacrificed them in the name of punishing people it was told did not deserve them.

The Trump administration began its drive for absolute power by ignoring congressional appropriations of foreign aid, which are laws. It calculated that Americans would be callous enough not to care about the catastrophic loss of human life abroad and that the absence of backlash would enable the administration to set a precedent for defying duly passed laws without consequence. Trump began his assault on antidiscrimination law with a vicious campaign against trans people—but has already broadened that campaign into a sweeping attempt at a great resegregation of American life. The detention of Mahmoud Khalil begins a dangerous new phase, in which the Trump administration will attempt to assert an authority to deprive people of due process based on their political views.

The Anti-Defamation League, a pale shadow of its former self, enthusiastically endorsed Khalil’s detainment absent due process, saying it “appreciated” the Trump administration’s “bold set of efforts to counter campus anti-semitism” by “holding alleged perpetrators responsible for their actions.” Although the statement includes the caveat that “any deportation action or revocation of a Green Card or visa must be undertaken in alignment with required due process protections,” praising the Trump administration for arresting Khalil absent any such process makes clear that the question of Khalil’s guilt is an afterthought. One source of legal authority that the administration appears to be citing is the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, whose co-sponsor Senator Patrick McCarran believed that Jews were “subversive rats that need to be kept out” of the country. If there is one obvious lesson of Jewish history, it is that when governments persecute people based on their political views and ethnic background, it is unlikely to end well for Jews. The ADL learned different lessons from that history, I suppose.

This sort of reaction, where a self-styled civil-rights organization endorses depriving people of their basic rights of speech and due process because they find the target unsympathetic, is what the Trumpists are counting on. Trumpists are counting on as many people as possible shutting off their conscience, because the administration has picked a target it hopes few will defend. They are counting on the public deciding that free speech and due process are optional for this category of people or that one, and that they will be safe, as they have done nothing wrong. The Trump administration wishes to lull people into this complacency until it is too late to react.

This kind of arrogance has a poor track record historically. Despots are always in need of powerful enemies to justify an insatiable drive for absolute power. Where none exist, they will invent them. Mass graves across the world are full of those who believed they had nothing to fear.

This is what is important: It does not matter if you approve of Khalil’s views. It does not matter if you support the Israelis or the Palestinians. It does not matter if you are a liberal or a conservative. It does not even matter if you voted for Trump or Kamala Harris. If the state can deprive an individual of his freedom just because of his politics, which is what appears to have happened here, then no one is safe. You may believe that Khalil does not deserve free speech or due process. But if he does not have them, then neither do you. Neither do I.

Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia University, is challenging efforts to deport him over his role in student protests.

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

As the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger had a triple target on his back from the start of Donald Trump’s presidency: He was a Joe Biden appointee, he was the head of one of the independent regulatory agencies that the Trump administration is targeting, and his duty was to fight to protect the jobs of tens of thousands of civil servants the president has tried to fire.

So when Dellinger received an email on Friday, February 7, telling him that he’d been dismissed, he wasn’t surprised. He also wasn’t going to quietly concede. Under a law that’s stood for decades, the special counsel serves a five-year term and “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The following Monday morning, Dellinger filed a suit challenging his firing, and by that night, a federal judge had temporarily reinstated him.

During the following month, Dellinger led a bifurcated life that he joked was “like a Severance episode, except I was always at work”: one workplace “where I was advocating for others, and that was the place I wanted to be completely focused,” he told me on Friday. “But then the other side of it was trying to keep my job.”

OSC is a classic post-Watergate creation, designed to insulate the functioning of the federal government from political and other improper interference. It’s charged with protecting whistleblowers inside the executive branch and with identifying violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits politicking by government officials. If OSC believes that federal employees have been improperly fired, it can file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board.

This makes an otherwise obscure office very important right now, because the Trump administration, with Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service leading the charge, has laid off huge swaths of the federal workforce in apparent defiance of laws designed to protect them, with more cuts promised. Last Wednesday, Dellinger won a major victory: The MSPB ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture must temporarily rehire nearly 6,000 probationary employees while an investigation proceeds into whether they were wrongfully fired. He told me that he was ready to try to get tens of thousands more probationary employees reinstated.

Instead, Dellinger found himself out of a job a few hours later. On Wednesday night, a panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the administration and against Dellinger, declaring that he would be removed while he pursued his appeal. The next day, Dellinger announced that he was ending his fight.

“I knew it would take at least a year to get a final decision” in court, he told me. “It may well have gone against me, and by that point, seeing the damage that’s taking place on a daily basis at federal agencies, I knew there would be almost nothing I could do should I ever get back into my job.”

In his statement ending his challenge, he wrote: “I strongly disagree with the circuit court’s decision, but I accept and will abide by it. That’s what Americans do.” That was a pointed response to comments by several government officials, including Musk and Vice President J. D. Vance, who have questioned whether the executive branch has to follow judicial rulings. “I think the key to our country is respect for the rule of law, and I think there’s been too much disrespect of late,” he told me. “So I wanted to make it clear that just because I’m unhappy with the decision, I in no way contest its binding nature.”

What is at stake right now is not just the fate of whistleblowers and probationary employees but also the underlying principle of independent agencies within the executive branch. Such bodies have existed since the 1930s and are written into laws passed by Congress, but as I wrote recently, Trump allies have argued in Project 2025 and elsewhere that independent regulatory agencies are unconstitutional because they limit the president’s control of the executive branch. They have promised to politicize traditionally detached parts of the government.

If courts conclude that this independence is unconstitutional, then most existing protections for whistleblowing seem doomed. Congress concluded when passing these laws that the executive branch needed internal watchdogs. They are generally presidentially appointed—like Dellinger, and like inspectors general inside major departments—but, once in place, insulated from pressure. Without them, whistleblowers have no clear recourse besides going to Congress (no easy feat for all but the most major scandals) or the press. Either path is uncertain and fraught with dangers of retaliation.

Gutting the current regime may result in more of the problems that Musk is supposedly fighting, Dellinger argued. “I think it’ll mean that government is less effective,” he told me, because fewer routes will exist for employees to shed light on failures. “I think it may lead to an increase in waste, fraud, and abuse. And I think we’re not going to know for sure what it means, because you don’t have these independent watchdogs who are able to make their work public.”

The entire existing vision of the executive branch, constructed by an idealistic liberal vision of government held accountable by legal structures and processes, seems currently under threat. Dellinger is a fitting figure to be in the middle of this fight. He’s spent his career moving between government service and practicing law in the private sector. (He’s also contributed to The Atlantic.) His father, Walter Dellinger, served as the acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and was regarded as one of the most brilliant Democratic lawyers of his generation. Hampton Dellinger told me he remains hopeful that the decades-old vision of the federal government is not dying.

“The fact that people are resisting unlawful orders, I think, is vital,” he said. “I still have faith in the judiciary, even if my case didn’t succeed. I have faith in generations younger than me.” If the federal government is to run on anything other than patrimonialism, those generations will have to find a way to rebuild it after the current assault.

Related:

Trump tests the courts. “It feels like it’s chaotic on purpose.”

Here are three new stories from The Atlantic.

The diseases are coming. Colleges have no idea how to comply with Trump’s orders. Trump drops the mask.

Today’s News

The U.S. stock market plunged today amid concerns over the economic pain that President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies could bring.

ICE agents arrested the Columbia University graduate student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil over the weekend. According to Khalil’s lawyer, agents said that they were operating under State Department orders to revoke his green card. The State Department declined to comment on Khalil’s case.

Elon Musk blamed a “massive cyberattack” for a series of outages on X.

More From The Atlantic

DOGE’s plans to replace humans with AI are already under way. Europe can’t trust the U.S. anymore. Teens are forgoing a classic rite of passage. Kara Swisher: Move fast and destroy democracy.

Evening Read

Lila Barth for The Atlantic

Turtleboy Will Not Be Stopped

By Chris Heath

On overpasses and by roadsides they gather, holding banners and placards. In the early days, only a few people showed up, congregating at chosen times and scattered locations around Boston. But their cause has grown and their numbers have swelled. For Labor Day 2024, plans were made for “standouts,” as the organizers called them, in more than 70 places—all over Massachusetts, yes, but also in Ohio, Kansas, Florida, California, and elsewhere.

These assemblies are the most visible manifestation of what is usually referred to as the Free Karen Read movement. If in the fullness of time it will seem strange that such unity and passion should have been mustered in defense of a 45-year-old Massachusetts financial analyst and adjunct college professor accused of killing her police-officer boyfriend by backing into him with her car … well, not to these people gathered today.

Read the full article.

Culture Break

Theo Wargo / Peacock / Getty

Listen. Lady Gaga’s latest album, Mayhem, is “an ode to her early career—and a powerful demonstration of growth,” our music critic Spencer Kornhaber writes.

Read. Waste Wars, by the journalist Alexander Clapp, tracks how the garbage of rich countries ends up in some of the world’s poorest places.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

This weekend, I drove to the North Carolina mountains with my family, and we spent most of the drive both ways listening to Big Ugly, the brand-new record by Fust, one of my favorite musical discoveries of the past year. The Durham-based alt-country band is led by Aaron Dowdy, who is a Ph.D. student in Duke University’s literature department but also firmly rooted in his native Appalachian Virginia. The lead track, “Spangled,” rhymes Route 11 with repossession and includes the memorable image of “feeling like a sparkler / that’s been thrown off a roof.” I’m obsessed.

— David

Isabel Fattal and Shan Wang contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.