By: Rafael Wexler
Edited By: Kripa Sridhar
In the wake of heightened fear-mongering and the spread of both misinformation and disinformation, our nation’s college campuses have faced a surge of harassment, destruction, and violence. This ongoing attack on law and order has spurred the issuance of executive orders designed to strengthen our national security and civil rights protections. It is essential to separate fact from fiction. Those who need help clarifying and addressing misconceptions surrounding these recent policies aimed at countering foreign influence, violent extremism, and terrorism should use this distinction between fact and fiction as a starting point.
Following the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel and the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas War, many domestic extremist groups organized disruptive protests on and off college campuses. As the fighting intensified, so did the disruptive protests. A study conducted by the Capital Research Center (CRC) found that more than 150 groups involved “support [and have] ties to terrorism and terrorist organizations” and fall into two factions: one combining communists/Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist extremists, and the other rooted in white supremacist/nationalist ideologies. Despite differing beliefs, both factions sometimes align over “a shared Jew-hatred, anti-Americanism, and goal of sparking a revolutionary uprising or insurgency.”
During the 2024 presidential election, Trump pledged to expel pro-Hamas activists and arrest anti-Israel agitators involved in violence and warned institutions of higher education they would lose accreditation and federal funding if they promoted antisemitic propaganda or allowed violence against Jewish students. The Republican National Committee added a commitment to “deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again” to the party platform that was adopted at the National Convention.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” It outlined measures to enhance national security by strengthening the vetting and screening process of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. It assigned the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence several key responsibilities. As part of enhanced vetting and screening, the four officials were directed to maximize vetting and screening of all foreign nationals seeking admission or already present in the country and recommend actions to exclude or remove those identified as security threats unless it interferes with ongoing investigations or national security interests. In addition, within 30 days of the Executive Order being issued, the four officials would have to review and adjust regulations related to grounds of inadmissibility, ensure that hostile actors don’t exploit visa programs, and recommend actions against foreign nationals that threaten U.S. constitutional rights.
A notable implication of the January 20 Executive Order concerned the language used in the last sentence of Section 1(b), which stated that “… the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.” Some interpret this as the Trump-Vance Administration seeking to act against foreign nationals who have engaged in First Amendment-protected activities that critique U.S. policy towards the Israel-Hamas War. Others recognize the potential impact it would have on international students with F-1 visas who have undeniably supported Hamas. Since the Biden-Harris Administration never revoked a student visa for protest activity, legal precedent is untested and would likely face constitutional hurdles.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the language is both broad and specific to target foreign nationals that are either hostile to the United States or endorse designated foreign terrorist organizations. The Middle East Media and Research Institute has disseminated evidence of participants at post-October 7 protests waving flags of state and non-state actors known for their Islamic extremism and antisemitism, having a recorded history of interacting with them, and echoing rhetoric like the ones espoused by them.
On January 29, 2025, The Daily Wire was one of the first major news outlets to break the news that President Trump was set to sign an Executive Order to combat antisemitism, referring to a Fact Sheet that a White House official provided, which the White House officially published later in the evening. The Fact Sheet, titled “President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism,” stated that the Trump-Vance Administration pledges to enforce laws against antisemitic crimes, aggressively prosecute offenders, and revoke student visas for Hamas sympathizers.
By the end of the day, the language of the Executive Order, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” was officially published. It reaffirmed Executive Order 13899, “Combatting Anti-Semitism,” and introduced additional measures to combat antisemitism on college campuses. Within 60 days of the Executive Order being issued, each federal agency must submit a report to the President on legal authorities and available actions to address antisemitism. The Attorney General must analyze all legal cases against universities and colleges related to civil rights violations post-October 7 and determine potential federal actions. The Secretary of Education must review all Title VI complaints and administrative actions related to antisemitism. In addition, the Secretaries of State, Education, and Homeland Security would have to provide recommendations on monitoring and reporting international students, staff, and faculty who may be involved in antisemitic activities, ensuring lawful action against them.
The notable implication of the January 29 Executive Order concerned 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3). It outlines security-related grounds for denying entry or deporting foreign nationals. Specifically, it states that any foreign national who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization” is “ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States.”
The new Executive Order builds upon the Executive Order of his first term as President to ensure a tougher response against the widespread epidemic of civil rights violations that have been perpetrated against Jewish, Zionist, Israeli, and pro-Israel students, faculty, and staff. The Anti-Defamation League has documented numerous instances where participants at post-October 7 protests have explicitly or implicitly promoted classic antisemitic tropes, called for the exclusion of Jews from public life, threatened Jewish organizations and institutions, expressed support for terrorism and violence against Israel, and justified or applauded the October 7 attack.
It is worth noting that, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal statute that prohibited knowingly providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) as constitutional as applied to the specific activities the plaintiffs sought to undertake. The Court considered the Executive Branch’s stated view and Congress’ findings that all contributions to FTOs further the group’s terrorist activities. In the end, knowingly providing material support or resources to designated FTOs includes “speech to, under the direction of, or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows to be terrorist organizations.”
Considering this, there should be no doubt that as a community of law-abiding students, faculty, and staff, we can distinguish between activities protected under the First Amendment and those not protected. International students should not have their visas revoked or be subject to deportation simply by peacefully voicing opinions that differ from the current Administration’s policies towards the Arab-Israeli Conflict and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. At SAIS and beyond, we have a duty to uphold the fundamental principles of our democracy. But the message should be clear: those who attack, threaten, and intimidate Jewish, Zionist, Israeli, and pro-Israel students, faculty, and staff will be held accountable on each and every one of our nation’s college campuses.
Edited By: Kripa Sridhar