State Department Official Says Criticism of Israel Can Lead to Visa Revocations

In a landmark federal trial in Boston, a senior State Department official testified that criticism of the state of Israel or U.S. foreign policy can play a central role in decisions to revoke noncitizen student visas raising fresh concerns about the erosion of free speech protections and academic freedom. The official, John Armstrong, who heads the Bureau of Consular Affairs, told the court that certain statements—such as denouncing Zionism, calling Israel an apartheid state, advocating arms embargoes, or using phrases like “from the river to the sea”—“could be” considered sufficient grounds to cancel a visa.

He explained that his department lacks a formal definition of antisemitism and instead assesses what he termed “the totality of the situation” when reviewing cases Armstrong’s testimony came in the context of a lawsuit brought by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association, challenging what plaintiffs describe as a Trump-era “ideological deportation policy.” That policy allegedly targeted pro‑Palestinian student protesters, including Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, and Mohsen Mahdawi, stripping their visas and initiating aggressive immigration actions. The lawsuit asserts that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment, singled out political viewpoints, and disproportionately affected foreign academics and students engaging in protected speech Armstrong categorically denied the existence of an official ideological deportation policy, calling such accusations “groundless” and arguing that visa revocations were tied only to activities that threaten foreign policy or involve support for designated terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, under questioning he conceded that criticism of Israel can carry weight when making visa decisions He specifically cited the cases of Khalil and Ozturk—both students at elite universities—whose visas were revoked after they took part in pro‑Palestinian protests or authored critical writings.

Armstrong confirmed that a memo recommending the revocation of Ozturk’s visa highlighted her association with student activism and activism-oriented op‑ed pieces. While he claimed the op‑ed alone was not determinative, he acknowledged that affiliation with pro‑Palestinian campus groups could be seen as undermining U.S. foreign policy Tensions over the administration’s actions extend beyond individual cases.

Documents revealed during the trial show that over 20 interagency meetings—including officials from the White House, State, Homeland Security, and Defense Departments—discussed student visa revocations, and leadership figures like Stephen Miller played a role in planning removal actions. A memo admitted at trial warned that Armstrong’s visa authority had never been used in this way and would face judicial scrutiny because revoking visas for speech‐based conduct raises constitutional concerns The administration also rolled out an AI‑powered “Catch and Revoke” initiative earlier in the year that purportedly scanned social media for signs of Hamas or pro‑Palestinian support among foreign student visa holders. The effort flagged tens of thousands of accounts and triggered further enforcement actions—prompting worries among rights groups that nonviolent political speech was being equated with terrorism During trial, Judge William Young strongly criticized the operation’s secrecy and its reliance on informal standards.

He emphasized that criticism of Israel is protected political speech under the First Amendment and said clearly: “Criticisms of the state of Israel are not antisemitism. They are political speech, protected speech.” Young’s ruling underscores that visa holders retain constitutional protections while residing in the U.S. The defendants include Harvard and other major universities, represented by amici and advocacy groups emphasizing that academic freedom depends on allowing dissent and debate—even criticism of U.S.

foreign policy. Opponents argue that politicized use of visa authority undermines trust in public institutions and chills political expression across university campuses In response, Armstrong insisted that his decisions were never based solely on protected speech and pointed to legal provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that permit visa revocation when someone’s presence is seen as having “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Still, he acknowledged that because internal guidance on antisemitism is vague or nonexistent, those determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. He expressed that some university and student speech could be construed as fostering a hostile environment against Jewish students—a rationale cited in visa‐revocation memos The broader crackdown has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates, student rights organizations, and faculty associations across the country.

Critics warn that the State Department’s approach amounts to ideological censorship, especially when applied to foreign students who exercise the same free-speech protections as U.S. citizens once on American soil. They argue that universities may lose trust and international talent, further politicizing campus life Meanwhile, supporters of the policy, including some conservative commentators, frame it as appropriate national security enforcement.

They argue that foreign nationals should not be allowed to remain in the U.S. if they engage in or support rhetoric deemed hostile to American policy or which could promote antisemitism—even if that rhetoric is political in nature. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly stated that “a visa is not a right, it's a privilege” and that support for terrorist ideologies is grounds for revocation.

He has singled out consular revocations of protest‑linked students as part of a broader effort to push back against what his administration calls “pro-Hamas” activity on college campuses Some visa holders, like Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, have denied allegations against them and remain detained or awaiting legal outcomes in federal courts. Judges in several cases have blocked ongoing deportations, citing constitutional concerns about due process and freedom of expression As closing arguments approach in the AAUP v. Rubio trial, legal observers anticipate a ruling that could either reaffirm expansive executive authority over foreign visa holders or mark a turning point protecting constitutionally protected political speech for noncitizens.

At stake is not only the future of the named plaintiffs but whether government policy may exclude or punish foreign nationals based on unpopular political views, rather than clear evidence of criminal support for terrorism. The court’s ruling may also influence future guidance within the State Department and how student visa holders—and consular officers—understand the boundaries of acceptable speech in the United States..