Trump Administration Confirms Use of Controversial 'Canary Mission' Website to Target Pro-Palestinian Students for Deportation
The Trump administration has officially confirmed that immigration authorities are using Canary Mission, a controversial pro-Israel website that critics describe as a "hate group," to identify and target pro-Palestinian students for deportation, according to explosive testimony revealed in federal court. The acknowledgment marks the first time the U.S. government has publicly admitted to relying on the anonymous doxxing platform to pursue immigration enforcement against student activists.
During a court hearing on Wednesday, Peter Hatch, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official, testified that the Department of Homeland Security had formed a specialized "tiger team" dedicated to expelling pro-Palestinian university students from the United States. The team systematically reviewed nearly 5,000 profiles compiled by Canary Mission of individuals critical of Israel, Hatch revealed under oath.
When Judge William Young asked directly, "Are you saying someone provided a list that Canary Mission created?" Hatch simply replied, "Yes".
Government Creates Specialized Unit to Target Student Activists
The testimony provides the clearest evidence yet of the Trump administration's coordinated effort to use immigration enforcement as a tool against pro-Palestinian activism on American college campuses. Hatch disclosed that DHS officials created the specialized team in March 2025, with analysts producing between 100 and 200 investigative reports on student protesters listed on the website.
The revelation came during legal proceedings challenging the administration's initiative to deport pro-Palestinian student demonstrators. According to Hatch's testimony, information about targeted students was sometimes shared verbally among team members, suggesting a deliberate effort to avoid creating paper trails.
"Under Trump, ICE has now publicly acknowledged they are targeting pro-Palestinian student activists based on an anonymous-run blacklist site," Palestine Legal stated in response to the testimony. "Both the mass deportation machine and these horrific blacklists clearly operate on racism".
The specialized unit represents an unprecedented fusion of immigration enforcement with ideological targeting, raising serious questions about the use of government resources to silence political dissent on university campuses.
What Is Canary Mission?
Canary Mission operates as an anonymously run doxxing website established in 2014 that publishes personal information of students, professors, and organizations it describes as anti-Israel or antisemitic, focusing primarily on people at North American universities. The site's profiles are designed to be search-engine optimized, meaning targeted individuals often find their Canary Mission profiles ranking high in online searches.
The website's stated mission, articulated in its April 2015 debut video, features disturbing imagery including Jews with yellow stars followed by hijab-clad women waving Palestinian flags. The video's narrator concludes with the ominous message: "It is your duty to ensure that today's radicals are not tomorrow's employees".
Despite claiming to be a nonprofit organization, no entity named Canary Mission is registered with the IRS. The site provides donation capabilities through debit and credit cards, but maintains complete anonymity regarding its operators, sponsors, and funding sources.
Academic Critics Sound Alarm Over "Fascist" Tactics
Academic and civil rights leaders have condemned the government's reliance on Canary Mission as a fundamental threat to free speech and academic freedom. Heba Gowayed, a sociology professor at the City University of New York, described the administration's approach as "absurd and fascist."
"How can you rely on a hate group to determine someone's right to remain in the country?" Gowayed asked, according to Al Jazeera. "Canary Mission is a doxxing website that specifically targets people for language that they deem to be pro-Palestinian".
The criticism reflects broader concerns about weaponizing immigration enforcement against constitutionally protected political speech. Steven Ross, who has his own profile on Canary Mission for criticizing Israel, accused the website of manipulating information to paint targeted individuals as antisemitic.
"They're searching for material they can manipulate to present the individual being profiled as essentially anti-Semitic," Ross told Al Jazeera. He labeled the Trump administration's deportation initiative as a "witch hunt" characterized by "fundamental dishonesty".
The filmmaker Rebecca Pierce has described Canary Mission as using "McCarthyist tactics" and employing "open racism." At the same time, Jewish academics have compared the site's practice of demanding apologies from targeted individuals in exchange for amnesty to authoritarian regimes.
Real-World Impact
The consequences of Canary Mission's blacklisting have extended far beyond online harassment. Multiple foreign students with Canary Mission profiles were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in March 2025, including Mahmoud Khalil of Columbia University and Rümeysa Öztürk of Tufts University.
Öztürk's case illustrates the site's targeting methods. Her name and photo were posted to Canary Mission shortly after her only known pro-Palestinian activism: co-writing an op-ed in the student newspaper that criticized the administration's handling of student demands for acknowledgment of Palestinian genocide and divestment from Israeli companies.
The targeting has also affected family members. Georgetown University graduate student Badar Khan Suri was arrested based on a Canary Mission profile of his wife, Mapheze Saleh. According to Suri's lawyer, he had no criminal record and was detained because his father-in-law was documented as a former adviser to a Hamas leader.
International Intelligence Connections Raise Security Concerns
The scope of Canary Mission's influence extends beyond U.S. immigration enforcement. Israeli security services have reportedly used content from the website to screen profiled individuals at Ben Gurion Airport and justify deportation decisions from Israel. The connections between Canary Mission and Israeli intelligence organizations, including the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Shin Bet, have raised questions about foreign influence in domestic U.S. surveillance operations.
In 2018, Haaretz reported that Israeli authorities had utilized the website to detain individuals and prevent their entry into the country. The same year, The Forward discovered connections between Canary Mission and an Israeli-based nonprofit called Megamot Shalom.
These international intelligence connections suggest that Canary Mission operates as part of a broader transnational surveillance network targeting critics of Israeli policy, with implications for U.S. sovereignty and civil liberties.
Following the Money
Despite its anonymous operations, investigative reporting has revealed significant funding sources for Canary Mission. The Forward and Haaretz reported in October 2018 that the website received funding from the Helen Diller Family Foundation, a supporting foundation of the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco.
The Jewish Community Federation of Los Angeles was identified as a major donor to Megamot Shalom, contributing $250,000 in 2016-2017. Both organizations announced they would cease funding after media exposure.
Al Jazeera's undercover investigation "The Lobby – USA" reported that Adam Milstein was a major funding source for Canary Mission, though a spokesperson for Milstein denied the allegation. More recently, The Intercept reported a $100,000 donation from the Natan and Lidia Peisach Family Foundation in April 2025.
The funding network reveals how wealthy donors have used charitable foundations to support blacklisting operations while maintaining plausible deniability about their involvement.
Government Goes Beyond Canary Mission to Extremist Sources
The Trump administration's surveillance apparatus may extend beyond Canary Mission to even more extreme sources. During Wednesday's court session, Hatch was questioned about other websites the government was consulting and mentioned one he could not recall. When asked if it could be Betar, a far-right, anti-Islamic group associated with the violent Kahanist movement in Israel, Hatch responded, "That sounds right".
This revelation suggests that the administration's targeting of pro-Palestinian activists may be drawing from sources linked to designated terrorist organizations, raising additional questions about the vetting and reliability of information used in immigration enforcement.
The use of extremist sources underscores the ideological nature of the targeting campaign and its departure from standard immigration enforcement practices.
Bipartisan Criticism Emerges as Concerns Mount
The government's reliance on Canary Mission has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. J Street, a group that identifies as pro-Israel and pro-peace, condemned the administration's engagement with the website.
"Canary Mission is supporting the Trump Administration's agenda by weaponizing anti-Semitism to monitor and attempt to deport student activists," J Street stated. "This isn't protecting Jews; it's silencing dissent".
The criticism from pro-Israel organizations highlights how the targeting campaign has gone beyond mainstream pro-Israel advocacy to embrace tactics that even some supporters of Israel find objectionable.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration's approach in a May statement, though he did not specifically address the use of Canary Mission. "The line is if you're coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa and we find you, we will revoke it," Rubio stated.
Constitutional and Legal Challenges Ahead
The use of Canary Mission profiles in immigration enforcement raises significant constitutional questions about due process, free speech, and the reliability of evidence. Israeli attorney Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man has noted that Canary Mission's information is "often neither reliable, nor complete, nor up to date" and should not be used by officials as it does not meet basic reliability standards.
The website's methodology involves framing criticism of Israel as prejudiced and dangerous, with some profiles criticizing individuals for benign actions such as sharing materials from Amnesty International denouncing Israeli violations. This approach conflates legitimate political criticism with hate speech, potentially violating First Amendment protections.
Legal challenges to the targeting campaign are likely to focus on the use of unreliable, ideologically motivated sources in immigration proceedings and the potential chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech and association.
The Broader Implications for Academic Freedom
The systematic targeting of pro-Palestinian activists represents a significant escalation in efforts to suppress campus activism around Israel-Palestine issues. According to W.J.T. Mitchell, who has a Canary Mission profile, the website's search engine optimization means that prospective employers see the profiles appear at the top of Google search results for students and recent alumni.
This employment impact creates a system of economic punishment for political expression, effectively extending the reach of government targeting beyond immigration enforcement to career prospects and professional advancement.
The implications extend beyond individual cases to the broader academic environment, where students and faculty may self-censor to avoid being targeted by surveillance operations that could affect their immigration status or career prospects.
Escalating Surveillance and Resistance
The Trump administration's public acknowledgment of using Canary Mission represents a watershed moment in the weaponization of immigration enforcement against political dissent. The creation of specialized targeting units within DHS suggests that such operations may expand beyond pro-Palestinian activism to other forms of political opposition.
Civil rights organizations have begun mobilizing resistance to the targeting campaign. Pro-Palestinian activists have launched a counter-website called Against Canary Mission, hosting positive profiles of targeted individuals to counter the negative characterizations.
The controversy over Canary Mission highlights the broader tensions between national security concerns, immigration enforcement, and constitutional protections for political expression. As the administration continues its deportation initiatives, the use of ideologically motivated blacklists in government decision-making is likely to face increasing legal and political challenges.
The case also raises fundamental questions about the role of anonymous, foreign-influenced organizations in shaping U.S. domestic surveillance operations and the accountability mechanisms needed to prevent abuse of government power against political opposition. The outcome of current legal challenges may determine whether such tactics become normalized or face constitutional constraints that protect the rights of students and activists to engage in political expression without fear of government retaliation.