Listen to the article
The U.S. federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from detaining Imran Ahmed, a British anti-disinformation campaigner and U.S. permanent resident who had been targeted for deportation over what officials claimed was his role in online censorship.
Ahmed, the 47-year-old CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, was among five individuals subjected to visa bans announced Tuesday by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The move affected Ahmed and four Europeans, including former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, all accused of working to restrict freedom of speech or imposing burdensome regulations on American technology companies.
Unlike the other four targeted individuals, Ahmed lives in New York with his wife and child, both U.S. citizens, making his situation particularly precarious. His legal permanent resident status, commonly known as a green card, suddenly came under threat when Rubio declared that the presence of these individuals in the United States had “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
The visa restrictions sparked immediate diplomatic backlash from European governments, who contend that their regulations and the work of monitoring groups like Ahmed’s actually make the internet safer by highlighting false information and compelling tech giants to address illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material.
Fearing imminent deportation that would separate him from his family, Ahmed filed a lawsuit Wednesday in the Southern District of New York. The legal action named Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and other Trump administration officials as defendants, arguing they violated his constitutional rights to free speech and due process with their deportation threat.
U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick responded swiftly by issuing a temporary restraining order Thursday. The judge’s order prevents officials from arresting, detaining, or transferring Ahmed before he has an opportunity for his case to be heard. A conference between the parties has been scheduled for December 29.
“I am grateful for the checks and balances in the U.S. legal system and proud to call this country my home,” Ahmed said in a statement provided through a representative. “I will not be bullied away from my life’s work of fighting to keep children safe from social media’s harm and stopping antisemitism online.”
When asked about the case, a State Department spokesperson emphasized the government’s position: “The Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: the United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here.” The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.
The case raises significant questions about the legal rights of green card holders in the United States. While legal permanent residents do not require a visa to remain in the country, the current administration has attempted similar deportation actions against at least one other green card holder this year.
In March, Mahmoud Khalil was detained following his prominent involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. He was subsequently released by a judge who ruled that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional. Though a U.S. immigration judge ordered Khalil’s deportation in September over allegations he omitted information from his green card application, he appealed the ruling, and separate court orders blocking his deportation remain in effect.
Ahmed’s organization, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, has gained prominence for its research into online misinformation and hate speech. The group has been particularly vocal about holding major social media platforms accountable for content moderation policies and practices.
The Trump administration’s targeting of individuals like Ahmed has intensified concerns among civil liberties advocates about potential retaliation against critics of U.S. tech companies or those who advocate for stricter online content regulation. Meanwhile, European officials have defended their digital regulations as necessary consumer protections rather than censorship measures.
As Ahmed’s case moves through the legal system, it highlights growing tensions between the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities and constitutional protections for free speech and due process – particularly as they apply to lawful permanent residents with established lives in the United States.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Blocking free speech advocates from entering the US is troubling. While nations have a right to manage immigration, this seems like an overreach that could backfire and hurt America’s global reputation.
It’s concerning to see the US government targeting anti-disinformation activists, even those with permanent residency. Restricting voices that counter false narratives seems counterproductive.
Absolutely. Clamping down on those fighting misinformation is a dangerous road that undermines democratic values.
This case highlights the fine line governments must walk between legitimate security concerns and protecting free speech. I’m curious to see how the legal proceedings unfold and what precedent this may set.
Agreed, it’s a complex issue without easy answers. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw that line.
I’m glad to see the judge intervene to block this detention, at least temporarily. Deporting an anti-disinformation activist on dubious grounds would set a worrying precedent.
It’s positive to see the judge step in to halt the detention of this British activist. Censorship and overreach by governments against disinformation fighters is a concerning global trend that needs to be closely monitored.
The visa restrictions on this activist and others seem like a heavy-handed attempt to silence criticism of US tech policy. I hope the courts continue to carefully scrutinize such actions and protect free expression.
This is a concerning case of the US government targeting an anti-disinformation activist. I hope the judge’s temporary block leads to a permanent resolution that protects the activist’s rights and ability to continue his important work.