Judge Blocks Detention of British Anti-Disinformation Activist by Trump Administration

A U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from detaining Imran Ahmed, a British anti-disinformation campaigner and U.S. permanent resident who was targeted by recent visa restrictions. The ruling came Thursday after Ahmed filed a lawsuit against government officials over an entry ban related to his work combating online misinformation.

Ahmed, the 47-year-old CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, is among five individuals sanctioned by the State Department on Tuesday. The group also includes former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton of France and three other Europeans. The administration accused them of working to censor free speech or unfairly target American technology companies with excessive regulations.

The visa restrictions have sparked significant diplomatic tension, particularly with European governments who maintain that their regulatory efforts and monitoring programs make the internet safer by highlighting false information and requiring technology giants to address illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material.

Ahmed, who resides in New York with his American wife and child, expressed fears of imminent deportation following Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement. Rubio stated that the presence of the five individuals in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” and suggested they could be deported.

In response, Ahmed filed a lawsuit Wednesday in the Southern District of New York, naming Secretary Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and other Trump administration officials as defendants. His legal challenge argues that officials violated his rights to free speech and due process by threatening deportation.

U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting officials from arresting, detaining, or transferring Ahmed until his case can be properly heard. A conference between the parties has been scheduled for December 29.

Following the ruling, Ahmed released a statement praising the American legal system’s checks and balances and expressing pride in calling the United States his home. “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,” he stated.

When asked about the case, a State Department spokesperson defended the administration’s position, noting: “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 has not responded to requests for comment.

The case raises important questions about the legal status of permanent residents, commonly known as green card holders, who typically do not require visas to remain in the United States. Ahmed’s situation is not without precedent under the current administration. Earlier this year, the Trump administration attempted to deport another permanent resident, Mahmoud Khalil, following his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

Khalil was detained in March, but subsequently released by a judge who argued that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional. Although a U.S. immigration judge ordered Khalil’s deportation in September over allegations he omitted information from his green card application, he has appealed that ruling, and separate orders blocking his deportation remain in effect.

Ahmed’s case highlights growing tensions between the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement and the courts’ role in protecting due process rights. As one of the few individuals targeted by the recent visa restrictions currently present in the United States, Ahmed’s legal battle will likely serve as an important test case for the limits of executive authority over permanent residents engaged in activities the administration opposes.