The Mahmoud Khalil Case – Trump’s Renewed Assault on Free Speech and Dissent

Picture by Hans Grundig (1901-1958), ‘The Victims of Fascism”.  Heavily influenced by Otto Dix, he was associated with the “New Objectivity” movement. He joined the German Communist Party in 1926.  The Nazis declared him a “degenerate artist”.  Defying the Nazis, he painted on – but was arrested and from 1940-1945 was placed in Sachsenhausen concentration camp. He then taught as a professor of painting in the GDR. This work is in Berlin. 

March 17, 2025

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Martin Niemöller (1892-1984).

We live in ‘interesting times’.
So did Pastor Niemöller who wrote the above words.
They are now a famous, much cited moral.
The words can be called a poem, with their deft use of alliteration and brevity.

For all their fame, these words and their message bear repetition.
Niemöller lived in Germany in the Hitler era.
We live in the Trump II Era.

This article aims to cover two related questions.

First, we believe it is necessary to briefly recall the history of how Hitler came to power under democracy, and then proceeded under democracy – to hollow it and destroy it.

Second, we review the arrest, the attempts at deportation, and the incarceration of Mahmoud Khalil – the Trump Mark 2 Government is moving fast towards an openly fascist regime.

In summary – The crucial first steps in creating German Hitlerite fascism were taken in a state where ‘democracy’ was eroded from within.
This is what is happening now in the USA – as the Mahmoud Khalil arrest tells us. And that is what we in the working class and with its class allies, have to urgently confront. We examine the comparison in more detail below.

1. Who was Niemöller?

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a Lutheran minister and early Nazi supporter. But after the open Nazi attacks on Jewish people were launched and systematised, he turned against the Nazis. In contrast, his later collaborator from 1934 onwards –

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – was always an anti-Nazi. But together they co-founded the “Confessing Church”. This stood opposite the official Nazi-supported, German Christian movement. It was closed by Himmler in 1937.

Somehow – Bonhoeffer joined the Abwhehr in which he worked as a hidden member of the Resistance. From there he managed to help many Jews and progressives to escape. He also became involved with the anti-Hitler military plot. But he was discovered, and then arrested in April 1943. In April 1945, he was executed alongside co-conspirators Admiral Wilhelm Canaris and Hans Oster in Flossenburg concentration camp. (Biography)

Niemöller – who wrote the above poem – served originally in World War 1 as a commander of a German submarine. Becoming an influential pastor, he was “assured” by Hitler that there would be no moves against either Christian dissenters or Jewish people. By 1934 Niemöller had finally saw through the lies. As part of the ‘Confessing Church’, he preached openly against Hitler. Arrested in 1937, he was put in Sachsenhausen and then Dachau. He was freed by Allied forces. “Martin Niemöller – German theologian and pastor”; at Encyclopaedia Britannica;

2. Hitler’s early steps to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship were taken within German democracy

How did the events – as simply, but vividly portrayed in Niemöller’s poem – come about?

Elsewhere we carried W.B.Bland’s discussion of the pre-history of fascism and the communist failure to prevent it in Germany (Bland on the German Communist Party and fascism)

Bland criticised the ultra-left sectarian response of the Communist Party Germany (CPG – or KPD in the original German) – in rejecting any United Front with the workers and leaders of the social-reformists (the SPD). W.B.Bland described how the CPG and the Comintern (CI) adopted an ultra-left line.

The first step was to minimise and deny any distinction between democracy and fascism:

“ The “leftist” leadership of the Communist International (CI) held in 1929-43, that there was no qualitative distinction between a ”parliamentary democratic” state and a fascist state, and this line was loyally followed by the Communist Party of Germany (CPG):
At the 11th Plenum of the ECCI in March/April 1931, Dmitri Manuilsky said;

“Mistakes in our midst which occur in the direction of opposing in principle fascism to bourgeois democracy, constitute the most pernicious and destructive mistakes for the Communist movement. At this moment this represents our chief danger. . ……
The Social-Democrats deliberately proclaim that the chief enemy of the working class is fascism. . . .. to create the impression among the workers, that they must struggle for the ‘democratic’ forms of their exploitation and against the fascist form”.
(D. Z. Manuilsky; “The Communist Parties & the Crisis of Capitalism”; London; 1931; p.111; 112).

And Ernst Thälmann – leader of the CPG – for the followed suit:

“There have been revealed in our ranks tendencies to draw a contrast between fascism and bourgeois democracy . . . That is the worst danger for the Communist Party”.
(E.Thälmann: “Some Mistakes in the Theoretical and Practical Work of the CP of Germany and the Way to Overcome Them”., in: “‘International Press Correspondence”, Volume 11 No.63; December l0th; 1931; p.1137).

. . . This “leftist” misrepresentation was associated with the claim that the restrictions imposed by “parliamentary democracy” – even though the CPG remained legal, was able to hold meetings and demonstrations legally, was able to contest elections at all levels – – amounted to ‘fascism’.
As early as January 1931, Thälmann was telling the CC of the CPG:

“The Bruning government can …”be characterised as the government for the carrying out of the fascist dictatorship”.
(Thälmann: Report to Meeting of CC, CGB, January 1931, in: “International Press Correspondence”; Volume 11 No. 3; January 22nd; 1931; p.54).

In June 1932, the CC of the CPG was describing the von Papen government as:

“..a government of the blackest fascist reaction”.
(CC, CPG, Appeal, in; “International Press Correspondence”; Volume 12, No. 26; June 9th, 1932; p. 527).

At a conference of Party functionaries in August 1932, Thälmann was declaring:

“The further policy of the Papen government, as the government of the fascist dictatorship is directing towards accomplishing and rearming the fascist coup”.
(E. Thälmann: “The Results of the 31st. July and the Next Tasks of the CPG”, in “International Press Correspondence”; Volume12; No 35; August l1th; 1932; p.726).

In December 1932 the Communist International  journal was saying:

“Schleicher’s fascist government is trying to camouflage its actually intensified fascist regime by a few ‘social’ gestures”.
(“International Press Correspondence”, Volume 12, December 15th., 1932; p. 1196).

This “leftist” political misrepresentation continued right through the period to the actual imposition of the fascist dictatorship from December 1930, when the CPG paper, declared:

“The fascist dictatorship is no longer a menace — It is a fact. We are living now in a fascist republic. The bourgeois dictatorship has become a fascist dictatorship”.
“Rote Fane” (Red Flag), December 2nd; 1930; cited in “Communist International”, Volume 9, No. 17/18; October lst. 1932; p. 630).

If all this was true, then the second step was to attack the SPD – the social-reformists as the

“ The crypto-revisionist leadership of the Communist International in 1930-33, coined the term “social-fascist”, meaning by analogy with the terminology developed by Lenin, a fascist posing as a social-democrat. . .

The use of the term “social-fascism” by the CPG in this period had the effect of equating fascism and social-democracy, of directing the struggle with equal emphasis against the principal enemy – fascism and the secondary enemy social-democracy . In so doing, it both weakened the struggle against the principal enemy, and failed adequately to expose the secondary enemy. . .

“Social-fascism . . . was the chief force making for the establishment of fascist dictatorship”.
(E. Thälmann: Report to CC CPG, October 1929, in: J. Degras (Ed.): ibid.; p. 100).

“Only by directing the main blows against social-democracy will it be possible to strike and defeat the chief class enemy of the proletariat – the bourgeoisie”.
(ECCI: Theses on the International Situation and the Tasks of the Sections of the CI, in: “International Press Correspondence”, Volume 12, No. 44; October 6th., 1932; p. 941).

“The 11th Plenum of the ECCI clearly stated that social-democracy represents the main social bulwarkof the bourgeoisie and that we must direct our main fire against it in order to capture the majority of the working class”.
(“The Ideological Mistakes and Shortcomings in the Fulfilment of the Decisions of the 11th Plenum of the ECCI”, in: “Communist International.”‘ Volume 9, No. 4/5; March 15th., 1932; p. 149).

“The intensification of the fascist terror … compelled the revolutionary party of the proletariat to launch its main blow with even greater energy against social-democracy”.
(E. Thälmann: Report to Conference of CPG Functionaries, in: “International Press Correspondence”, Volume 12, No. 27; June 16th., 1932; p.544).

This line was continued not only right up to the fascist coup of January 1933:

“The task of the Communist Party of Germany remains as before — to direct the chief blow at the present stage against social-democracy”.
(“The CPG takes the Offensive”, in: “Communist-International”, Volume 9; no.20 December 15th., 1932; p. 700).

But even after it:

“Social-democracy continues to play the role of the main social prop of the bourgeoisie also in the countries of open fascist dictatorship”.
(13th Plenum, ECCI: December 1933, in: J. Degras (Ed): ibid.; p. 297).

“The SPG remains, as before, the chief social-pillar of the capitalist dictatorship”.
(CC, CPG: ‘Resolution, May 1933, in: J. Degras (ibid.):,ibid..; p. 256).”

Summary: To deny a United Front with any anti-fascist element – regardless of their background is a criminal error that facilitates the creation of a fascist state.

Implications: There are significant implications for the enemies of Trump organising now in the USA. That surely means that even such vacillating social-democrats such as Bernie Sanders – who make even small attempts at organising anti-Trumpism – are welcome to joining the United Front. But if they are allowed to lead it without challenge – that would be a major problem for the working class.

3. Hitler’s early steps to turn Germany into a fascist dictatorship were taken within German democracy

The period in between the election of Hitler, was immediately followed by suppression of free speech and anti-democratic steps. Hence the full fascist regime was not installed by an intitial armed force. It was ushered into power at the ballot box and then installed:

“When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted.
Examples of censorship under the Nazis included:
• Closing down or taking over anti-Nazi newspapers;
• Controlling what news appeared in newspapers, on the radio, and in newsreels;
• Banning and burning books that the Nazis categorized as un-German;
• Controlling what soldiers wrote home during World War II.”
“Nazi Propaganda And Censorship”; Holocaust Encylopedia 

4. The Case of Mahmoud Khalil

Activists march through downtown Chicago to show support for Mahmoud Khalil on March 11, 2025; photo from ‘the Intercept website”; Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and its’ Gazan invasion, with its’ genocidal attack on the people of Gaza inspired much revulsion. During the protests against this genocide, many student bodies at universities were in the forefront. In the USA amongst the most visible were those taking place at Columbia University in New York.

One student leader who emerged there was a student who graduated with a Master’s degree from the School of International and Public Affairs. His name is Mahmoud Khalil. He is of Palestinian heritage, and has a wife who is an American citizen, and he holds an American ‘green card.’ His wife is in her eight month of pregnancy with their first child, in New York. All this establishes his lawful status and rights of residence and validity of his rights equivalent to that of a full citizen of the USA.

During the very strong protests in Columbia, Khalil became very visible as a leader who commanded much respect. At several points he was chosen as a negotiator for the demonstrators with the Administration.

However on a completely flimsy basis he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. There was no legal process and he was whisked out of NY state first to New Jersey, and then to a holding center in Louisiana. The pretexts for this were given by President Trump himself as follows:

“The Trump administration invoked an obscure legal statute over the weekend in an attempt to deport . . . Mahmoud Khalil. . .
“We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it,” Mr. Trump said on social media on Monday.
“If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply,” he added . . . President Trump said Mr. Khalil’s case was “the first arrest of many to come.”
Edward Wong, Charlie Savage, Hamed Aleaziz and Luis Ferré-Sadurní
“Trump Administration Seeks to Expel a Green-Card Holder Over Student Protests”. NYT; March 10, 2025 

Three days later, it is mildly miraculous that Khalail has not been already deported. Yet thankfully:

“a federal judge in Manhattan ordered the government not to remove Mr. Khalil from the United States while the judge reviewed a petition challenging the legality of his detention. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers also filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to compel the federal government to transfer him back to New York.”
Edward Wong, Charlie Savage, Hamed Aleaziz and Luis Ferré-Sadurní
NYT; March 10, 2025; Ibid.

“Khalil is there now, we believe, still in the country, thanks to a ruling by US District Judge Jesse Furman (an Obama appointee), who temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation.”
Elie Mystal; “The only relevant question is not “How can the government do this?” It is “How can we who oppose this fascist regime stop it?”
The Nation; March 12, 2025. 

Later Secretary of State Marco Rubio said:

“Khalil’s case “is not about free speech” but about “people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with.”
“I think being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities and turning them upside down and being complicit in what are clearly crimes of vandalization, complicit in shutting down learning institutions,” he said. . . “If you told us that’s what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in. And if you do it once you get in, we’re going to revoke it and kick you out.”
Jonah Valdez; “The Legal Argument That Could Set Mahmoud Khalil Free”; The Intercept March 13, 2025; 

As Edward Luce Financial Times correspondent writes:

“In spite of apparently having broken no law, Khalil was arrested on Saturday when he was at home with his eight-months-pregnant American wife in New York. From there he was spirited away to a facility in Louisiana (a state with many more pro-Trump judges). The pretext was that he spoke at events where pro-Hamas literature was distributed, though there appears to be no evidence that he has any ties to Hamas.”
Edward Luce; “Je Suis Khalil”; Financial Times 16 March, 2025

Khalil has not been deported already, and is still in Louisiana. No doubt the large demonstrations supporting Khalil have had something to do with it:

“Over 3,000 demonstrators gathered outside the ICE detention facility in Manhattan on Monday to protest the government’s abduction of Khalil. That’s a good start, because no fascist ruler in history ever stopped doing what they perceived to be popular because some pencil-necked geek in a robe or a wig told them their actions were “illegal.” As long as Trump’s persecution of non-white immigrants remains popular, he will continue to persecute them. . . Khalil is now a political prisoner of the United States’ ruling party. He must be freed.”
Elie Mystal; The Nation; Ibid

Thus – there is no evidence that has been provided, to support any of either Trump’s or Rubio’s “allegations” or “charges” of supporting terrorism.

“Since the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, his attorneys have fought any suggestion that this case is about whether their client committed a crime or is a threat to national security. Instead, they say, it’s about the U.S. government stifling Khalil’s advocacy for Palestine.
Even the government agrees it’s not about committing a crime.
According to court filings obtained by The Intercept, the government’s main argument against Khalil rests on a civil law provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act, which governs the country’s immigration and citizenship system. The provision, known as Section 237(a)(4)(c)(i), gives the secretary of state the authority to request the deportation of an individual who is not a U.S. citizen, if they have “reasonable ground to believe” the individual’s presence in the country hurts the government’s foreign policy interests. . .
the government cites the specific provision and states: “The Secretary of State has determined that your presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” Government lawyers have not, however, provided any evidence, in court filings or hearings, to support their claim. Khalil refused to sign the notice. “
Jonah Valdez; “The Legal Argument That Could Set Mahmoud Khalil Free”; The Intercept March 13, 2025;

The plans for legally contesting this were shared by Khalil’s lawyers:

“Khalil’s attorneys [Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a member of Khalil’s legal team] plan to contest his detention on free speech grounds under the First Amendment and by challenging the government’s use of the “foreign policy” provision. By evoking the “foreign policy” provision, the Trump administration is making a clear statement not just about its foreign policy goals but also free speech, Azmy said.
“The United States government thinks Mahmoud’s speech in favor of Palestinian human rights and to end the genocide is not only contrary to U.S. foreign policy, which is something in itself, but that that dissent provides grounds for arrest, detention, and deportation,” Azmy said. “It’s an astonishing claim.”

Central to their challenge in court will likely be another provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act that exempts noncitizens facing deportation under the government’s “foreign policy” provision. The exception, known as Section 212(a)(3)(C)(iii), says that an individual cannot be deported under the “foreign policy” provision cited by the government if their “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States”. . .

“If there is constitutionally protected speech,” Azmy said. “It doesn’t matter if it goes adverse to the foreign policy interests of the United States — it’s still protected. The government doesn’t get to decide what you can talk about and what you cannot talk about based on whether or not it helps the U.S.”
Khalil’s legal team said the “foreign policy” provision giving the secretary of state the ability to request a deportation is rarely used, and when it has been evoked it is to deny visas for foreign officials who have interfered with democracy in their respective countries or officials with a poor human rights record. And the exception to the provision that prohibits deportations exists to ensure that it would not be used to specifically crack down on people’s speech, Azmy said.
“Any kind of removal proceeding because the government disagrees with a political perspective would be unlawful,” Azmy said. “So Congress wrote that into the statute, mindful of what the Constitution requires.”
Jonah Valdez; “The Legal Argument That Could Set Mahmoud Khalil Free”; ‘The Intercept; Ibid’.

The Financial Times correspondent Edward Luce, puts the situation quite accurately:

“Every American should worry about Mahmoud Khalil, the recent Columbia University graduate who was detained last week by US immigration authorities, though “abducted” would be a better description. It is no exaggeration to say Khalil’s fate is a test of how easily President Donald Trump can slide into lawlessness. . . Should Trump get his way, his licence to punish any speech that he deems pro-terrorist or against the US national interest would make him judge and jury on first amendment rights. It would put every US citizen — not just permanent residents — at risk. ”
Edward Luce; “Je Suis Khalil”; Financial Times 15-16 March, 2025

Luce also points to the supine attitude of those in the Columbia administration and the supposed “defender of civil rights’ – the Anti-Defamation League (ADL):

“Among those folding too easily is Katrina Armstrong, interim president of Columbia University. . . after Trump cancelled $400mn of federal research funding for Columbia. The president’s claim was that the university was failing to protect its Jewish students. Do not believe that pretext for a second. His larger goal is to punish US universities — another 59 of which are being investigated on similar grounds. . . .
Armstrong acknowledged Trump’s “legitimate concerns” in her decidedly uncourageous response. Nor has she spoken out in defence of Khalil, a Columbia graduate. For profiles in cowardice, however, consider the Anti-Defamation League, a once proud defender of US civil liberties that is now a reliable backer of Trump. “We appreciate the Trump Administration’s broad, bold set of efforts to counter campus antisemitism — and this action further illustrates that resolve by holding alleged perpetrators responsible for their actions,” said the ADL in a statement after Khalil’s arrest.
This was the same group that appealed for “grace” after Elon Musk had given two unmistakable Sieg Heil salutes last month. “It seems that @elonmusk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute,” ADL said.”
Edward Luce; “Je Suis Khalil”; Financial Times 15-16 March, 2025

As Elie Mystal concludes:

Khalil is now a political prisoner of the United States’ ruling party. He must be freed.”
Elie Mystal; The Nation; Ibid

We can be sure that already Trump is ensuring Khalail’s case will not be unique. This is seen in the current treatment of alleged members of a gang called “Tren de Aragua”. Regardless of the likely terribleness of the gang itself – the whole process of alleged members of the gang being shipped to prison in El Salvador – is without any due process. It is not even clear on what grounds these people were supposed to be members – other than having a tatoo perhaps. The rarely used archaic Law used – is in any case, very suspect:

“Claiming the United States is being attacked by Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang, President Donald Trump on Saturday invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to order the rapid detention and deportation of all Venezuelan migrants suspected of being members of TdA, treating them as wartime enemies of the U.S. government.
The president argued, in his proclamation, that members of the Venezuelan gang are “conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”
The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority that allows the president to detain or deport the “natives” and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing and based only on their country of birth or citizenship. It has been invoked just three times in American history, each during a major conflict: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. It is best known for its role in Japanese incarceration during World War II, a shameful part of U.S. history for which Congress and several presidents have apologized. “
Nick Turse; “Trump Rushes Deportations Using a Wartime Law With a Shameful History”: The Intercept; March 16, 2025; 

Conclusion

Immigrant groups, and many other grass roots groups will – or have already sprung up.
Marxist-Leninists should join with them.

These united fronts must be under grass-roots control, and avoid any semblance of being a front for the Democratic Party – or being controlled by it.

The main faction within the Democratic Party is complicit with Trumpism. As the Jacobin points out:

“The Democratic minority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, simply accepted the Trump administration’s characterization of Khalil as fact. . . (In a social media post) Schumer smeared the student protests at Columbia as “anti-Semitic actions,” . . . At the end of two paragraphs of hedging, Schumer said that “if” the administration can’t prove that Khalil committed serious crimes and hence wants to deport him for his politics, “then that is wrong” and a violation of the First Amendment. His counterpart in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, issued a statement that was almost identical.”
Ben Burgis; “Free Speech Means Free Mahmoud Khalil”; The Jacobin; 03.13.2025

However – splinters, and other liberal or legitimate trade union groupings should be enabled to join this developing move to a United Front. For example, we are extremely sceptical of Bernie Sanders who has caved so often in the past to the leaders of the Democratic Party. We view Shawn Fain (UAW President) with equal distrust.

However if they are really gaining support in the so-called ‘Stop Oligarchy’ tour – it would be a sectarian mistake – not to enable them to be part of the developing United Front. Why is this the case? They are apparently drawing many people to their rallies:

“March 12, 2025: Oligarchy prevention
Bernie had been hesitant about hitting the road. Now 83, he had been hoping another opposition leader would step forward. None did, and, two weeks ago, the tour began. The first stop: Iowa City. Since then, 4,000 have gathered with Bernie in Kenosha, Wisconsin and 2,600 more in Altoona, Wisconsin, both swing districts that Republicans represent in Congress. . . The senator’s rally (drew) 9,000. . . in Warren, Michigan. . . UAW president Shawn Fain introduced Sanders in Warren. More Democrats, Fain noted, needed to follow Bernie’s lead, and Bernie promptly did plenty of leading.
“The people of this country will not allow us to move toward an oligarchy,” Sanders told the overflow crowd. “They will not allow Trump to take us into authoritarianism. We’re prepared to fight. And we’re going to win.” Inequality.org; March 12, 2025: “Oligarchy prevention” 

But control of that United Front can not be ceded to those who wish to bring it into the Democratic Party orbit and domination.

On to the broad, large and principled United Front Against Trumpism! 

Free Mahmoud Khalil!