State Dept. Official Says Criticizing Israel Could Be Grounds for deportation

Defence affairs

A senior State Department official testified Friday that some claims and phrases common to pro-Palestine campus advocacy — including criticism of the state of Israel and calls for universities to divest from Israel — all “could be” grounds for revoking a noncitizen’s visa.

John L. Armstrong, who oversees a State Department bureau tasked with issuing visas, spoke during the trial for a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s immigration policies that was filed by groups including the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard chapter. Armstrong was the only government official to testify who had direct input in revoking the visas of five noncitizen student and faculty protesters central to the case.

The plaintiffs claim the protesters were targeted for their pro-Palestine speech. But in court, Armstrong defended the visa revocations, arguing that they were made to combat antisemitism, a goal that he said is part of United States foreign policy.

Armstrong said “a single statement might not be enough” to revoke a person’s visa. But when pressed during cross-examination, Armstrong answered that several common pro-Palestine statements all “could be” sufficient cause to revoke a visa.

The statements included criticisms of Zionism, criticism of the Israeli state’s actions in Gaza, calls for an arms embargo to Israel, allegations that Israel is an “apartheid state,” and the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

At the case’s heart is an executive order by President Donald Trump that makes combatting antisemitism part of the U.S. government’s foreign policy. The visa revocations cite provisions from the Immigration and Nationality Act, including one that allows the State Department to revoke visas of those it deems “adverse to U.S. foreign policy.”

But the executive order does not define antisemitism, leaving the term’s interpretation up to agency officials. Armstrong said that his agency relied on a “common understanding” of antisemitism, which he defined as speech or conduct against Jewish people and the state of Israel.

“In my understanding, antisemites will try to hide their views and say they’re not against Jews, they’re just against Israel. It’s a farcical argument, in my opinion. It’s a dodge,” Armstrong said in the Friday hearing.

Over two weeks of trial, federal officials have repeatedly testified that the arrests of the five protestors were justified because they were illegally in the country after their visas had been revoked — without explaining why those documents had been canceled in the first place. Armstrong’s testimony provided a new, strikingly blunt description of the Trump administration’s rationale for revoking them.