Palestinian-American Activist Files $20M Claim Against Trump Administration for Wrongful Detention
Columbia graduate seeks damages after 104-day immigration detention that separated him from pregnant wife and newborn son
Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old Palestinian-American activist and Columbia University graduate, filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration on Thursday, alleging he was wrongfully detained for 104 days in retaliation for his role as a prominent leader in pro-Palestinian campus protests. The claim, filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, names the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the State Department, accusing them of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress during his detention from March through June 2025.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, was arrested by ICE agents outside his Manhattan apartment and transported over 1,000 miles to a detention facility in Louisiana, where he remained separated from his pregnant wife and missed the birth of his first child. His release came only after a federal judge ruled that the government's attempts to deport him based on foreign policy considerations were likely unconstitutional, marking a significant legal victory for advocates who characterized his detention as politically motivated persecution.
The 104-Day Ordeal
The nightmare began for Khalil on March 8, 2025, when ICE agents in plain clothes detained him outside his apartment in Manhattan. Within hours, he found himself transported approximately 1,400 miles away to a detention center in Jena, Louisiana, far from his pregnant wife and legal support network.
"I shared a dorm with over 70 men, absolutely no privacy, lights on all the time,"
Khalil described his detention experience as "horrendous," according to Dawn. The conditions he endured highlight the harsh realities of immigration detention facilities, where detainees often face overcrowding and limited privacy.
During his 104 days in custody, Khalil's legal team and family struggled to maintain contact with him due to the distance and restrictions imposed by the detention facility. The separation became particularly acute as his wife's pregnancy progressed, setting the stage for one of the most emotionally devastating aspects of his detention.
Missing His Child's Birth
Perhaps the most heart-wrenching aspect of Khalil's detention was missing the birth of his first child, a son named Deen. The activist spent the pre-dawn hours pacing the frigid immigration jail in Louisiana, anxiously awaiting news of his child's birth in New York.
"I cannot describe the pain of that night. This is something I will never forgive,"
Khalil told ABC13, as he cradled his 10-week-old son in his Manhattan apartment. The emotional toll of this separation forms a central element of his legal claim, with his attorneys arguing that the government's actions caused severe emotional distress.
The timing of his detention meant that Khalil was denied the opportunity to be present for one of life's most significant moments. His wife gave birth without her husband by her side, while he remained confined more than 1,000 miles away, powerless to provide support during this critical time.
False Imprisonment and Political Retaliation
The $20 million claim presents a comprehensive legal challenge to the Trump administration's actions, alleging multiple violations of Khalil's constitutional rights. His attorneys, supported by the Center for Constitutional Rights, have constructed their case around several key allegations.
"The administration carried out its illegal plan to arrest, detain, and deport Mr. Khalil 'in a manner calculated to terrorize him and his family,'"
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights backing Khalil. The claim alleges that Khalil suffered "severe emotional distress, economic hardship, and damage to his reputation" as a result of the government's actions.
The legal filing accuses the government of subjecting Khalil to false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. These charges paint a picture of systematic abuse of governmental power targeting an individual for his political activism.
Central to the legal argument is the contention that Khalil's detention was politically motivated retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism, rather than legitimate immigration enforcement. His attorneys argue that the government's actions violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights, establishing a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for political activists.
Campus Protests and National Security
Khalil's prominence in pro-Palestinian campus protests at Columbia University made him a high-profile target for the Trump administration's crackdown on campus activism. As one of the lead negotiators during the Columbia University protest encampments against the war in Gaza, Khalil played a crucial role in student activism that drew national attention.
Interestingly, while Khalil served as a key figure in the protests, he did not personally participate in the encampments themselves. Instead, he focused on negotiating with administrators and offering guidance to students, according to Middle East Eye. This distinction underscores the breadth of the government's targeting, extending beyond direct participants to include those providing leadership and guidance.
The Trump administration labeled Khalil a national security threat, justifying their detention and deportation efforts by citing alleged "serious adverse foreign policy consequences" stemming from his continued presence in the United States. This characterization reflects the administration's broader campaign against what it views as anti-Israel activism on college campuses.
Government's Defense
The Trump administration has defended its actions by invoking foreign policy considerations and national security concerns. Officials have maintained that they possess the authority to deport noncitizens based on foreign policy concerns under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
"These harms are the result of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's ad hoc and conclusory determination that Khalil's presence in the US poses a foreign policy threat,"
Khalil's attorneys stated, according to the Times of India. This characterization suggests that the decision to target Khalil came from the highest levels of the administration, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally determining that Khalil's activism warranted detention and deportation.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson called Khalil's claim "absurd" and maintained that the Trump administration acted well within its legal authority to detain Khalil, according to Reuters. This response indicates that the administration remains committed to defending its actions despite mounting legal challenges.
The government's position reflects a broader interpretation of executive power in immigration matters, particularly when national security or foreign policy concerns are invoked. This approach has been controversial, with critics arguing that it provides a pretext for political persecution.
Context of Campus Activism
Khalil's case represents part of a broader Trump administration campaign against what it characterizes as dangerous foreign influence on American college campuses. The administration has specifically targeted elite universities, including threats to pull federal funding and revoke accreditations over foreign student activism.
The crackdown has particularly focused on pro-Palestinian activism, with the administration arguing that such activities undermine U.S. relations with Israel and pose national security risks. This approach has raised significant concerns among civil liberties advocates about the weaponization of immigration law against political dissent.
The targeting of campus activists has created a chilling effect on free speech at universities across the country. Students and faculty members have expressed concerns about the potential consequences of engaging in political activism, particularly on issues related to the Middle East.
Apology and Policy Change
Despite seeking $20 million in damages, Khalil has indicated that he would accept an alternative resolution that addresses the underlying policy issues rather than seeking monetary compensation. His attorneys have stated that he would accept an official apology and abandonment of the administration's policies targeting pro-Palestinian speech.
"He would accept, in lieu of payment, an official apology and abandonment of the administration's unconstitutional policy,"
His attorneys said, according to the Times of India. This offer suggests that Khalil's primary motivation is not financial gain but rather preventing similar treatment of other activists.
Khalil has indicated that if he does receive monetary compensation, he would share the funds to help others who the Trump administration is similarly targeting. This commitment underscores his continued dedication to the broader cause of protecting civil liberties and supporting fellow activists.
The alternative resolution proposal highlights the case's broader implications beyond individual compensation. Khalil and his legal team are seeking systemic change that would prevent future politically motivated detentions and deportations.
Legal Process
The filing represents a precursor to a potential lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which requires individuals to first seek damages directly from the government before they can file a lawsuit in federal court. The government has six months to respond to the claim, creating a defined timeline for resolution.
If the government rejects the claim or fails to respond within the specified timeframe, Khalil's legal team can proceed with a federal lawsuit. This process provides the government with an opportunity to settle the matter without protracted litigation while preserving Khalil's right to pursue justice through the courts.
The Center for Constitutional Rights' support for Khalil's case brings significant legal expertise and resources to the challenge. The organization has extensive experience in civil rights litigation and has previously challenged government overreach in immigration enforcement.
Public Response and Political Implications
The case has generated significant attention from civil liberties advocates, immigration rights organizations, and political commentators. Many have characterized Khalil's detention as an example of the Trump administration's authoritarian tendencies and its willingness to use immigration law as a tool of political persecution.
The case has also highlighted the vulnerable position of non-citizens, even those with legal permanent residency, who engage in political activism. Despite his legal status, marriage to a U.S. citizen, and U.S.-born child, Khalil remained vulnerable to detention and deportation based on his political activities.
The timing of the claim, coming during a period of heightened political tensions over Middle East policy, ensures that the case will remain in the public spotlight. The outcome could influence how future administrations approach immigration enforcement and political dissent.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
While Khalil has been released from detention, his immigration case continues to wind its way through the court system. The deportation proceedings initiated by the Trump administration remain active, meaning that Khalil still faces the possibility of removal from the United States.
His legal team has expressed ongoing concerns about his safety, warning that threats against him may continue even outside detention. The high-profile nature of his case and the political sensitivities surrounding his activism create ongoing security considerations.
The continued legal proceedings ensure that Khalil's case will remain a test case for the limits of executive power in immigration matters and the protection of civil liberties for non-citizens engaged in political activism.
Deterrence and Accountability
Khalil has framed his legal action as serving a deterrent function, aimed at preventing future abuses of power by the Trump administration. His approach reflects a strategic understanding of the political dynamics at play.
"I hope this would serve as a deterrent for the administration. Trump made it clear he only understands the language of money,"
Khalil told Reuters. This comment suggests that he views financial liability as the most effective way to modify government behavior and protect other activists from similar treatment.
"Nothing can restore the 104 days stolen from me. The trauma, the separation from my wife, the birth of my first child that I was forced to miss. There must be accountability for political retaliation and abuse of power,"
Khalil said in a statement, according to Arab News. His emphasis on accountability reflects the broader principle at stake in his legal challenge.
International Attention and Diplomatic Implications
The case has attracted international attention, particularly from human rights organizations and foreign governments concerned about the treatment of political activists in the United States. The detention of a prominent pro-Palestinian activist has raised questions about America's commitment to civil liberties and free speech.
The case's international dimensions are complicated by the foreign policy considerations that the Trump administration cited in justifying Khalil's detention. The administration's argument that Khalil's activism undermined U.S. relations with Israel highlights the complex intersection of domestic civil liberties and international relations.
Foreign observers have noted the contrast between America's promotion of democratic values abroad and the treatment of political dissent at home. The case has become a symbol of what critics characterize as democratic backsliding in the United States.
Precedent and Protection
The resolution of Khalil's case will likely establish important precedents for the treatment of political activists in the immigration system. A successful outcome could strengthen protections for non-citizens engaged in political speech, while a defeat might embolden future administrations to use immigration law as a tool of political control.
The case's broader implications extend beyond immigration law to fundamental questions about the scope of civil liberties in a diverse democracy. The treatment of minority voices and dissenting viewpoints remains a crucial test of democratic institutions and values.
Legal experts will closely watch how the courts balance national security concerns with civil liberties protections. The outcome could influence the development of First Amendment jurisprudence as it applies to non-citizens and political activism.
Khalil's case serves as a reminder that the protection of civil liberties requires constant vigilance and legal challenges to government overreach. His willingness to pursue accountability, despite the personal costs, exemplifies the importance of individual courage in defending democratic principles.
As the legal process unfolds over the coming months, the case will continue to serve as a flashpoint for broader debates about immigration enforcement, political dissent, and the limits of executive power in American democracy. The $20 million claim against the Trump administration represents more than a demand for compensation—it stands as a defense of the fundamental rights that define American democracy.