Listen to the article
US Judge Blocks Deportation of British Anti-Disinformation Campaigner
A federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to detain Imran Ahmed, a British anti-disinformation campaigner who was among five Europeans targeted with visa bans earlier this week.
Judge Vernon Broderick of the Southern District of New York issued a restraining order on Thursday preventing officials from arresting, detaining or transferring Ahmed before his case can be properly heard. The judge scheduled a conference between the parties for December 29.
Ahmed, CEO of the US-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, is a permanent resident living in New York with his American wife and child. He filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other officials, arguing the government was violating his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
“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,” Ahmed said in a statement after the ruling, praising the American judicial system’s checks and balances.
The visa restrictions announced Tuesday targeted five Europeans whom the administration accused of working to censor free speech or impose burdensome regulations on American technology companies. Ahmed is believed to be the only one currently in the United States.
When announcing the measures, Secretary Rubio claimed the individuals presented “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” and could therefore be subject to deportation.
The move sparked immediate outcry from European governments, including Germany, France, Spain, and the European Union, who condemned it as “intimidation and coercion.” European officials defended their digital regulations and monitoring efforts as necessary measures to combat harmful online content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material.
Ahmed’s Center for Countering Digital Hate has been at the forefront of research documenting the spread of misinformation and extremist content on social media platforms. The organization has frequently criticized major tech companies for failing to adequately police harmful content on their platforms.
When questioned about the case, a State Department spokesperson responded: “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.
Legal experts note that the case raises significant constitutional questions. While legal permanent residents (green card holders) don’t need visas to remain in the United States, the Trump administration has previously attempted to deport at least one permanent resident this year on controversial grounds.
In March, Mahmoud Khalil was detained following his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. A judge ordered his release, ruling that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional. Although an immigration judge later ordered Khalil’s deportation over allegations he omitted information from his green card application, he has appealed, and separate orders blocking his deportation remain in effect.
Ahmed’s case highlights growing tensions between the incoming Trump administration and European digital policy. The European Union has implemented some of the world’s most stringent tech regulations, including the Digital Services Act, which requires platforms to quickly remove illegal content and increase transparency about content moderation.
Legal observers suggest Ahmed’s case could become an early test of the new administration’s approach to immigration enforcement and its stance toward critics of major technology platforms.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
This seems like an important free speech and due process issue. Glad the judge stepped in to prevent an immediate deportation and allow the activist’s case to be properly heard. Curious to learn more about the reasoning behind the government’s original visa restrictions.
Yes, protecting free speech and due process rights is critical, especially for those working to counter disinformation. The government’s motivations will be worth examining closely.
This case highlights the complexities and tensions around online content moderation and combating disinformation. The government’s actions seem heavy-handed, but the full context is still unclear. Curious to learn more about the specific reasons behind the visa restrictions.
Agreed, the nuances of this case will be important to understand. The judge’s intervention at least suggests there are valid concerns that need to be properly examined.
The anti-disinformation activist’s lawsuit argues his constitutional rights are being violated. The judge’s restraining order suggests there may be merit to those claims. It will be interesting to see how this case develops and what implications it could have.
Interesting case involving a British anti-disinformation activist facing deportation from the US. The judge’s decision to halt the deportation and schedule a hearing suggests there may be valid concerns about the government’s actions. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out.
The ability of activists and researchers to work freely without fear of retaliation is crucial for addressing online harms. This case could have wider implications for how governments approach content moderation issues. I’ll be following it with interest.