President Trump’s administration recently made a bold move, cutting $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University over what it described as antisemitic harassment on campus. At the same time, U.S. immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student involved in pro-Palestinian protests, as part of a broader crackdown on anti-Israel activists.

These actions raise critical questions for conservatives, Christians, and all Americans who value both national security and the First Amendment. While it’s clear that antisemitism should be condemned, that Hamas is a despicable terrorist organization, and that material support for terrorism must remain illegal, we must also ask: Where is the line between legitimate enforcement of the law and government overreach? At what point does protecting people from threats turn into suppressing unpopular political opinions?

Let’s break it all down.

Antisemitism is Despicable and Must Be Condemned

Antisemitism isn’t just another bad political opinion—it’s pure, unfiltered evil. It has led to centuries of persecution, pogroms, and, of course, the Holocaust. Sadly, today’s so-called “progressive” movements on college campuses have increasingly embraced this age-old hatred under the guise of anti-Zionism.

There is a vast difference between criticizing the Israeli government (which is absolutely fair game) and outright hatred of Jewish people. Too many college protests have crossed that line, with students harassing Jewish classmates, intimidating them, vandalizing property, and even chanting genocidal slogans like “From the river to the sea”—which is a call for the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish state.

This isn’t just offensive—it’s dangerous. We’ve already seen increased attacks on Jewish Americans, from synagogues being vandalized to Jewish students being physically assaulted.

So, let’s be clear: antisemitic harassment, threats, and violence must be punished. Period.

But there’s a very important distinction between punishing actions and policing speech.

Hate Speech is Repugnant—But Still Protected

It’s a common mistake to think the First Amendment only protects “good” speech. In reality, it exists specifically to protect unpopular, controversial, and even disgusting opinions.

That includes speech that glorifies Hamas or their horrifying October 7 attack on Israel. It is vile. It is morally bankrupt. And yet, in most cases, it should still be legal.

Now, let’s be careful here: there are limits to free speech. If someone is directly inciting violence—meaning they’re encouraging, organizing, or planning attacks—that is a crime. But simply expressing awful opinions, as much as we despise them, is not the same thing as calling for violence.

There’s also a clear difference between supporting Hamas (which is illegal, since they are a designated terrorist organization) and expressing pro-Hamas views (which, as repulsive as it is, falls under free speech). The government cannot, and should not, have the power to outlaw opinions, no matter how detestable.

Because once we give the government the authority to ban speech we find disgusting, what stops the next administration from banning our speech?

Christians, conservatives, and anyone who dares challenge the leftist orthodoxy should understand this danger better than anyone. Today, the government cracks down on pro-Hamas speech. Tomorrow, could they crack down on people who express biblical views on marriage and gender? Could opposing abortion be classified as “hate speech”? Could questioning the climate change agenda be considered “dangerous misinformation”?

History tells us that the answer is yes. Once the government starts defining “acceptable” speech, freedom is lost.

Columbia University: Reaping What It Sowed?

Let’s talk about Columbia.

For years, elite universities like Columbia have fostered an environment where leftist activism is encouraged, free speech is selectively protected, and conservative voices are stifled. They’ve allowed antisemitism to flourish under the guise of “social justice,” letting students chant genocidal slogans while punishing anyone who dares to challenge progressive orthodoxy.

So, in that sense, Columbia brought this on itself.

The Trump administration’s decision to revoke $400 million in funding sends a clear message: If you tolerate antisemitic harassment and threats against Jewish students, there will be consequences.

And honestly? That might be the wake-up call academia needs. Universities that turn a blind eye to leftist radicalism while silencing conservatives should not receive taxpayer money.

That being said, here’s the concern: What precedent does this set?

If a future left-wing administration uses the same logic to defund Christian colleges that uphold biblical teaching on marriage and gender, what then? If a conservative university is accused of fostering a “hostile environment” for LGBTQ students, should its funding be cut?

Government intervention in speech and education is a double-edged sword. The same power that punishes radical leftists today could be used against conservatives tomorrow. We must be careful not to let short-term victories blind us to the long-term dangers of expanding government authority.

Mahmoud Khalil’s Arrest: A Step Too Far?

Now, onto Khalil—the Palestinian graduate student arrested by U.S. immigration agents.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Khalil’s visa or green card would be revoked as part of a broader crackdown on “Hamas supporters.”

If Khalil was found raising funds for Hamas, conspiring with terrorists, or actively inciting violence, then yes—his arrest is completely justified, and he should be deported.

But if he was arrested simply for his political views, this is a major problem.

Tom Rogan of the Washington Examiner put it well:

“This arrest is plainly contradictory to the interest of vigorous public debate on a matter of public interest. It will surely deter American students who do not support Hamas but oppose Israeli foreign policy from speaking their minds. That is incompatible with the founders’ intent in their construction of the First Amendment.”

He’s right. Deporting someone over their opinions—no matter how vile—sets a dangerous precedent.

As Ilya Somin of Volokh Conspiracy pointed out:

“There is no immigration-restriction exception to the First Amendment. In addition to legal issues, there are also good moral and policy reasons to oppose deportation for speech.”

Again, if Khalil was aiding Hamas in any way, deport him. No debate. But if he was just exercising his (disgusting) right to free speech, we should be very cautious. The government should not have the power to exile people over political beliefs.

Because again—who defines what is unacceptable speech? If we start deporting pro-Hamas activists today, will Christian missionaries be next? Will vocal critics of the Chinese Communist Party be silenced tomorrow?

The government must not be trusted with this kind of power.

The Slippery Slope of Speech Restrictions

Here’s the bottom line:

1. Antisemitism is evil, and harassment or violence against Jews (or anyone) should be prosecuted.
2. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and material support for them must remain illegal.
3. But speech—no matter how vile—must be protected unless it incites violence.
4. Columbia University is getting what it deserves, but we should be cautious about using government funding as a speech weapon.
5. Khalil’s arrest raises serious First Amendment concerns, and we must be wary of giving the government too much power over speech.

In our rightful disgust at antisemitism and terrorism, we must not hand the government powers that can—and will—be used against us in the future. Because a government big enough to silence your enemies today is big enough to silence you tomorrow.