In a recent Texas stabbing case, a confrontation between Karmelo Anthony and Austin Metcalf turned fatal. Authorities say an argument escalated into violence, ending with Anthony allegedly stabbing Metcalf in the neck. Metcalf later died of his wounds, and prosecutors charged Anthony with murder. Anthony has claimed he acted in self-defense, but investigators and a grand jury found sufficient evidence to bring charges. In court filings, Anthony’s defense maintains that he was protecting himself, setting the stage for a legal battle over the boundaries of self-defense. Publicly, officials have been circumspect: a brief police statement confirmed the arrest and noted the defendant’s claim of self-defense, while the district attorney’s office vowed to “pursue justice for the victim” without commenting on specifics. The case — now moving through the Texas courts — highlights how strictly self-defense claims are scrutinized under state law.
Self-Defense Under Texas Law
Texas law permits individuals to use force, even deadly force, in self-defense under certain conditions. Under Penal Code §9.31, a person is justified in using force against another “when and to the degree” they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect against the other’s unlawful force. Under §9.32, deadly force is justified only if the person would be justified in using regular force and reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to protect against the other’s use of deadly force (or to prevent a violent felony like robbery or murder). The law’s “reasonably believes” standard has both subjective and objective components: the defendant must genuinely perceive a need to act, and that perception must be one a reasonable person in the same situation would have. In other words, self-defense hinges on an ordinary prudent person’s view of the circumstances, not just the defendant’s state of mind.
There are important caveats. Verbal threats or insults alone are never enough — state law explicitly says “verbal provocation alone is insufficient to justify self-defense.” A person can’t legally stab someone merely for taunts or shouting. Additionally, one who provokes a conflict or is the initial aggressor generally cannot claim self-defense. Texas courts often emphasize that a defendant must not have provoked the person against whom force was used. Engaging in certain criminal activity at the time also nullifies self-defense. For example, a robbery suspect cannot stab a resisting victim and then claim self-defense, since the law won’t excuse violence that arises from the suspect’s own felony.
Texas is known as a “Stand Your Ground” state, meaning there is usually no duty to retreat before using force if you have a legal right to be where you are. In fact, the Texas Legislature removed the old statutory duty to retreat in 2007. Today, as long as the person was not provoking the encounter and was in a place they had a right to be, they do not have to try escaping before resorting to force. (The law even provides that if those conditions are met, jurors should presume the defender’s fear of deadly danger was reasonable in certain situations, such as when facing an armed intruder.) However, “no duty to retreat” doesn’t mean reasonableness goes out the window. Juries may still consider the options the defendant had. In practice, if a defendant could have safely walked away and avoid the confrontation entirely, prosecutors might argue the threat wasn’t truly unavoidable – though legally the lack of retreat cannot by itself make an otherwise valid self-defense claim unlawful.
How Texas Courts Rule on Self-Defense
Anthony’s case will ultimately be decided by a jury at trial, but if history is any guide, Texas courts will closely scrutinize his self-defense claim against the same standards applied in hundreds of other cases. We analyzed recent Texas court decisions involving self-defense to understand common patterns. Several key criteria emerge that courts and juries consistently rely on:
Immediacy and Severity of Threat: Courts look for evidence that the defendant faced an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Deadly force must be a last resort against deadly danger – for instance, a reasonable fear of being killed or victim of a serious felony. If the supposed aggressor was unarmed or not in a position to cause lethal harm, a claim of deadly self-defense is weak. In our dataset, judges often noted when the victim had no weapon or had ceased attacking at the time force was used, concluding that deadly force was not immediately necessary.
Proportional Force: The response must generally match the level of the threat. Bringing a knife to a fistfight can be hard to justify legally. As one appellate court explained, by the time a threat has “ceased” or is no longer lethal, using deadly force is not reasonable. This proportionality principle is baked into Texas law: you can use deadly force only to counter deadly force or forcible violent crimes. If a jury finds that Anthony reacted with greater force than the situation warranted, they will reject self-defense.
Aggressor Status and Provocation: A defendant who started the fight cannot then kill in “self-defense” unless they clearly withdrew and the other party re-engaged. Texas courts routinely instruct juries that self-defense is not available to someone who provoked the conflict or was attempting to commit a crime at the time. In many of the cases, this issue was pivotal: if evidence showed the defendant instigated the confrontation (for example, by throwing the first punch or armed intrusion), the self-defense claim failed. Even provocative words by the defendant can undermine the defense if they were intended to goad the victim into a fight. Conversely, if the deceased was the clear aggressor, that bolsters a self-defense argument. A central question for Anthony’s jury will be who initiated the deadly encounter.
No Duty to Retreat (Stand Your Ground): As noted, Texas law no longer requires retreat. Anthony had no legal obligation to back down if he was lawfully present and not the provocateur. Courts will not fault a defendant just for standing his ground. Indeed, jury instructions in Texas now say a person in those circumstances “is not required to retreat” and jurors should not consider the failure to retreat as evidence against self-defense. However, the circumstances of retreat can still indirectly affect a jury’s view of reasonableness. In one case, a court pointed out that the defendant’s first action was to run away after the incident – a behavior that jurors could interpret as evidence of guilt rather than fear. The implication is that if a defendant truly believed they were in the right, they would stay and report the incident. In short, while Anthony won’t lose his defense solely because he fled, any opportunity he had to avoid lethal violence could factor into the jury’s evaluation of his conduct.
Defendant’s Demeanor and Consistency: Self-defense cases often boil down to whether the jury believes the defendant’s account of events. Appellate opinions show that Texas juries – as the sole judges of credibility – often distrust a self-defense story if it’s unsupported by other evidence or if the defendant’s actions afterward cast doubt. For example, physical evidence like defensive wounds on the victim or lack of injuries on the defendant can powerfully sway a jury. In Anthony’s case, if Metcalf (the victim) had wounds on his hands or arms consistent with blocking a knife, that suggests he was defending himself from an attack, not vice versa. Courts have noted when a defendant has no injuries to corroborate being attacked, or when the forensic evidence contradicts his narrative. Additionally, fleeing the scene and changing one’s story hurt credibility. Texas law doesn’t require a defendant to testify, but juries notice if a story comes only through a second-hand confession or not at all. In one appellate case, the defendant gave five conflicting versions of events to police, which strongly undercut his self-defense claim. The burden of proof is still on the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the defendant to prove it. But practically, once prosecutors poke holes in the defendant’s account, jurors often find that burden met. Our analysis found that in the vast majority of cases, juries did not accept the self-defense claim – and the convictions were upheld on appeal as long as there was any rational basis for the jury’s verdict.
Notably, appellate courts in Texas rarely second-guess a jury’s self-defense decision. Of the cases reviewed, fewer than 2% resulted in a reversal. In those few, the issue wasn’t that judges decided the defendant actually acted in self-defense – it was usually that the trial court made a procedural error. For instance, at least one murder conviction was overturned because the judge failed to give a self-defense instruction to the jury when the evidence clearly called for one. In another case, a conviction was reversed after the jury charge on self-defense was found confusing and prejudicial, “vitally affecting a defensive theory.” In general, if the jury heard proper instructions and still rejected the self-defense theory, appeals courts almost always uphold the verdict. As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed, self-defense is a fact issue for the jury, and on review the question is simply whether any rational juror could have disbelieved the defendant’s claim beyond a reasonable doubt. This deference means defendants like Anthony face an uphill battle if they expect an appellate court to rescue them after a conviction – the fight is really won or lost at trial.
Weighing Anthony’s Self-Defense Claim
How do these legal principles and patterns apply to the stabbing of Austin Metcalf? Based on the known facts, Anthony’s self-defense claim faces significant challenges under the criteria above. Investigators say the altercation began as a verbal dispute over seating under a team tent at a track meet. If Anthony cannot show that Metcalf did more than yell or make threats, Texas law would deem the use of deadly force unjustified by “verbal provocation alone”. A crucial detail will be whether Metcalf had any weapon or was attempting to use deadly force against Anthony. Thus far, police have not indicated that Metcalf was armed. If the evidence shows Metcalf was unarmed, then Anthony will have to convince the jury that he reasonably perceived an imminent deadly threat – a tall order if Metcalf was much older or weaker, for example, or if no one else saw Metcalf brandish a weapon. Any disparity in force will be scrutinized: stabbing an unarmed man can be seen as a disproportionate response unless there were extreme circumstances.
Another factor is who initiated the physical fight. Suppose testimony shows that Anthony threw the first punch or flashed his knife first during the argument. In that scenario, he becomes the aggressor in the eyes of the law, and his right to self-defense would be forfeited unless he attempted to withdraw from the conflict. On the other hand, if witnesses say Metcalf lunged at Anthony or reached for something that could be used as a weapon, that would support Anthony’s claim that he acted out of necessity. The location and context also matter: this incident occurred at a high school track meet at Kuykendall Stadium. He had a legal right to be there, but so did Metcalf. There was no duty for Anthony to retreat under Texas law, assuming he wasn’t trespassing or provoking Metcalf. Still, jurors might consider that Anthony had the opportunity to step away. If, for example, others were present who could have intervened or Anthony could have exited the tent to defuse the situation, the jury might question why he chose to use the knife instead. Prosecutors could argue that a reasonable person in fear for their life would have tried to escape the danger if possible, rather than engage – even though legally Anthony didn’t have to retreat, jurors can and do weigh the overall necessity of the force used.
Physical evidence from the crime scene will likely play a decisive role. If Metcalf’s autopsy shows defensive wounds (cuts on his hands or arms), it suggests he was warding off an attack. That detail, which appears in many Texas cases, tends to undermine a self-defense narrative because it implies the “victim” was trying to protect himself from the defendant’s aggression. Likewise, if Anthony emerged from the fight relatively unscathed, it undercuts the idea that he was under a fierce attack. In the court of public opinion, the notion that Metcalf had fed and sheltered Anthony in the period leading up to the incident (as some reports indicate) also makes it harder to imagine Metcalf suddenly becoming the aggressor; jurors will be aware of these relationship dynamics even as they focus on the moment of the stabbing. Anthony’s behavior after the incident will be scrutinized, too. According to investigators, he fled the scene immediately after stabbing Metcalf. Flight isn’t proof of guilt, but Texas juries are instructed that they may consider it as evidence of a guilty conscience. As one appellate judge noted, a jury is entitled to doubt a self-defense claim if the first thing the defendant does is run away instead of seeking help or calling the police. Unless Anthony can provide a credible explanation for his panic and departure (for instance, if he claims he went to get help, or was in shock), this flight will likely count against him.
Ultimately, the outcome will hinge on reasonableness. Was it reasonable for Anthony to believe his life was in immediate peril when he stabbed Metcalf? All the trends from past cases point to a high bar. If Metcalf was indeed unarmed and the only threat was an argument, the jury – like so many others in Texas – is likely to decide that Anthony’s fear was not objectively reasonable. And if the jury reaches that conclusion, under Texas law they must find him guilty. As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has made clear, once the self-defense issue is raised, the State bears the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, disproving it often involves showing that the defendant’s conduct did not meet the state’s criteria for justification. In Anthony’s case, prosecutors will emphasize any evidence that he was the aggressor, that he used excessive force, or that his fear lacked a factual basis – all to convince the jury that his stabbing of Metcalf was not a justifiable act of self-preservation.
The Road Ahead
As this case proceeds, it serves as a vivid example of how Texas applies its self-defense doctrine in court. Self-defense is a bedrock legal principle, but Texas courts interpret it through a careful, fact-intensive lens. Juries are reminded that the defendant doesn’t have to prove self-defense, but rather the prosecution must disprove it – a protection for the accused. Even so, juries often find that burden met when the evidence shows things like an unarmed victim, a defendant who initiated or escalated the conflict, or inconsistent accounts of the event. In the cases reviewed, defendants asserting self-defense rarely prevailed; most were either convicted at trial or had their convictions affirmed on appeal. Those who did prevail usually had clear evidence of a serious threat – or benefited from a legal error at trial that had nothing to do with the strength of their claim.
For Karmelo Anthony, the legal standard will be no different. His fate will likely rest on whether the jurors believe that, in that split-second on the day of the stabbing, he truly had no other option but to use deadly force to protect himself from Austin Metcalf. If they are unconvinced, Texas law dictates that self-defense doesn’t apply and a homicide becomes a crime. The outcome will add one more decision to the state’s body of self-defense case law. No matter the verdict, the case underscores the consistent themes in Texas self-defense jurisprudence: proportional response, lack of provocation, and the all-important perspective of the “reasonable person.” In the Lone Star State, the right to defend oneself is robust – but it is by no means absolute, as Anthony’s case is poised to demonstrate in the courtroom.
A lawful permanent resident of the United States, Mahmoud Khalil, is at the center of a high-profile legal battle that pits First Amendment freedoms against national security claims. Khalil, a 30-year-old Columbia University graduate student and Palestinian activist, was arrested by U.S. immigration agents on March 8 and told his green card was being revoked for his role in campus protests. The Trump administration argues Khalil’s outspoken pro-Palestinian activism amounted to “antisemitic support for Hamas,” a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Khalil and his defenders insist he committed no crime and was simply exercising protected speech in voicing opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gazan. The case has quickly become a crucial test of how far the government can go in deporting non-citizen protesters – and whether the First Amendment shields foreign nationals on U.S. soil from being punished for their political views.
Who Is Mahmoud Khalil and What Did He Do?
Khalil is a Palestinian-born Syrian who came to the U.S. in 2023 to pursue a master’s at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Described by fellow students as a principled, steady negotiator, he emerged as a leader in campus protests last year advocating Palestinian rights. In April 2024, during Columbia’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” Khalil helped organize demonstrations and served as a negotiator when students erected a tent camp calling on the university to divest from companies tied to Israeli occupation. He was a prominent figure in Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) – a coalition of pro-Palestinian student groups – and spoke on behalf of protesters who occupied a campus library to demand reinstatement of disciplined students. By all accounts, Khalil’s campus activism, while impassioned, did not involve violence. “He committed no crime,” one supporter noted on social media, emphasizing that Khalil’s protests were peaceful expressions of dissent.
That image contrasts sharply with how U.S. officials portray him. Days after the start of the latest Israel-Hamas war, President Donald Trump publicly linked Khalil to “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity” – without evidence, according to Khalil’s supporters. A senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson alleged Khalil had “engaged in concerning conduct” during a “pro-Hamas protest” on campus. In early March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents showed up at Khalil’s university apartment and detained him. His wife, a U.S. citizen, witnessed the arrest and says Khalil expected he might be targeted for his outspokenness. Within days, he was transferred to an ICE detention center in rural Louisiana, thousands of miles from his New York community.
The Deportation Order and Legal Battle
In April, an immigration judge in Louisiana held a hearing to decide whether Khalil can be deported. The evidence presented by DHS was notably slim – “two pages. That’s it,” according to Khalil’s attorney Marc Van Der Hout. Those pages outlined Khalil’s high-profile role in campus demonstrations and accused him of espousing anti-Israel rhetoric, but no violent acts or direct links to Hamas. Still, the government insists Khalil’s very presence is a national security threat. In a memo justifying the deportation, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the personal deportation order of any non-citizen whose presence is deemed to “have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S. This Cold War-era statute – rarely used in recent decades – essentially lets the State Department override normal immigration processes if a person is seen as inimical to U.S. foreign policy interests. Rubio’s memo acknowledged that Khalil’s activities were “otherwise lawful” protest protected by U.S. law, but argued they nonethelessundermine U.S. policy to combat antisemitism and to protect Jewish students from harassment.
The legal fight has unfolded on multiple fronts. While Khalil’s fate is being litigated in immigration court, his lawyers have also filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit arguing that his detention is unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech. They point out that no criminal charges have been filed against Khalil, and that officials have explicitly cited his “beliefs, statements, [and] associations” – all lawful activities – as the reason to remove him. “Neither Secretary Rubio nor any other government official has alleged that Mr. Khalil has committed any crime or broken any law whatsoever,” Khalil’s legal petition states, arguing that he is “being punished for his viewpoints.” Khalil’s attorneys have characterized the move to deport him as “astonishingly broad” and blatantly viewpoint-discriminatory, contending that immigration laws cannot be used as a “bludgeon to suppress speech that [the government] dislike[s].”
Government lawyers, however, maintain that this is not a First Amendment issue at all, but a straightforward matter of national security and immigration law. In newly filed documents, they supplemented Rubio’s foreign-policy argument with additional claims that Khalil misled immigration authorities in the past. DHS asserts that Khalil omitted key information on his 2024 green card application – namely, his prior work with a UN agency for Palestinian refugees and his leadership role in CUAD. Such omissions, they argue, amount to visa fraud and provide independent grounds for deportation beyond his speech. A DHS official accused Khalil of failing to disclose ties that “could bear on our security vetting,” though Khalil’s team calls these allegations “plainly thin” and notes that working for a UN relief agency or a British diplomatic program is hardly evidence of nefarious behavior. “There is zero support for the government’s allegations about any misrepresentation,” Van Der Hout said after reviewing the filings. In his view, the entire case against Khalil “has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy” – it’s about punishing domestic political speech that officials disliked.
On April 11, Immigration Judge Jamee Comans issued her decision: Khalil is legally deportable under the foreign-policy provision. According to attorneys, the judge ruled that Rubio’s determination met the statutory criteria, effectively green-lighting Khalil’s removal. Khalil was not immediately expelled – his lawyers filed an emergency appeal, and the case is expected to wind its way up through the Justice Department’s immigration appeals board, and potentially into the federal courts. “Whichever side loses is likely to appeal,” Van Der Hout noted as the initial ruling came down. The high-stakes legal showdown is only beginning, with constitutional questions looming large: Can the U.S. government use immigration powers to deport someone precisely because of his political advocacy? Or does that cross a bright line set by the First Amendment?
First Amendment Protections for Non-Citizens: What the Law Says
At the heart of Khalil’s case is a novel legal question: Do non-citizens on U.S. soil have the same free speech rights as citizens, and can the government deport someone for pure political expression? The Supreme Court has long held that, yes, the First Amendment generally protects “people who are physically in the United States, regardless of their alienage”. Lawful permanent residents like Khalil typically enjoy the same core free speech rights as Americans – they can attend rallies, criticize government policies, and advocate for causes without fear of criminal punishment. “If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t lock you up or deport you because of your political views,” said Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. Legal scholars note that this principle has been upheld in past cases: for example, in the 1940s the Supreme Court stopped attempts to deport a West Coast labor leader over his alleged communist affiliations, affirming that “freedom of speech and of press is accorded to aliens residing in this country.”
But the government argues Khalil’s situation is different – that immigration law grants the executive branch special authority to exclude or remove non-citizens on national security grounds, even for activity that would be lawful for a citizen. The provision used against Khalil, 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(4)(C) (the so-called “foreign policy” clause), was added during the Red Scare era precisely to deal with subversives whose presence was deemed dangerous. In theory, this power is bounded by strict criteria. Congress amended the law in the 1990s to explicitly forbid removing someone “because of [their] beliefs, statements, or associations” if those would be legal for a U.S. citizen – unless the Secretary of State personally finds that the person’s presence “would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” In other words, the government cannot normally deport someone just for their speech or associations, except in the rare case that keeping them here would gravely harm foreign policy. That sets a very high bar. Rubio insists Khalil meets it: in his view, Khalil’s campus activism on Gaza “undermine[s] U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world”, creating a compelling interest to remove him. Khalil’s attorneys strongly disagree – arguing there is no genuine foreign policy issue at all, only an effort to silence pro-Palestinian viewpoints. “By saying that attending a protest makes one a threat to American foreign policy, the administration is admitting that the Constitution is getting in the way… Something is not right there,” said Eric Lee, a lawyer for another student in a similar case.
Legal experts are divided and note that no exact precedent exists for Khalil’s scenario. The closest analogue may be the case of the “L.A. Eight” – a group of Palestinian immigrant activists whom the U.S. government tried to deport in the late 1980s for alleged ties to a militant group. Those individuals fought a decades-long legal battle, claiming First Amendment protection. Ultimately, in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999), the Supreme Court sidestepped the constitutional issue by ruling that courts lacked jurisdiction to second-guess the government’s “selective” deportation decisions. That 1999 ruling effectively insulated immigration officials from claims that they were targeting immigrants for their political affiliations – even if such targeting was alleged. Citing that case, some analysts suggest Khalil faces an uphill fight if he tries to assert First Amendment rights as a defense to deportation. “Courts might be reluctant to investigate such claims,” observed Adam Cox, a professor of immigration law at NYU, noting that judges historically defer heavily to the executive on immigration and may accept a pretextual rationale as long as some valid legal basis for deportation exists. In Khalil’s case, the government’s strategy appears to be exactly that: invoke a mix of conduct-based grounds (like purported visa fraud or “material support” of terrorism) alongside the speech-based foreign policy claim, so that even if the First Amendment issue is raised, officials can argue it’s not just about speech.
Khalil’s defenders counter that this is precisely a test case that higher courts must not duck. “There isn’t really a legal precedent for a case like Khalil’s,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of UCLA’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, adding that the government seems to be “running headlong… right into the teeth of the First Amendment.” The Knight Institute and ACLU have similarly warned that allowing Khalil’s deportation would set a dangerous precedent, effectively carving out a free-speech exception in immigration law. They argue that even if Khalil isn’t a citizen, the Constitution’s prohibition on viewpoint discrimination should apply: the government should not be able to use deportation “as a tool to stifle entirely lawful dissent.” A federal judge in New York appeared to agree there is a serious question – in a parallel case involving Columbia student Yunseo Chung, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald issued a temporary restraining order in late March halting Chung’s removal. In that order, the judge pointedly cautioned the government against using any alternative justifications that might “constitute a pretext for First Amendment retaliation.” Such language suggests the judiciary is at least aware of the potential constitutional violation. As Khalil’s case progresses, it could well become a landmark showdown over the limits of government power: Can the State Department’s foreign policy prerogatives trump an individual’s free speech rights? Or, as Khalil’s lawyers frame it, “is immigration being used to censor viewpoints?”
Government’s Case: Terrorism Allegations and Security Concerns
From the government’s perspective, Mahmoud Khalil is not merely a student protester – he is a national security risk. Officials have painted him as a pro-Hamas agitator whose campus activities crossed a line into extremism. In public statements, the Trump administration has explicitly linked Khalil to Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. “ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign pro-Hamas student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come,” President Trump announced via the White House social media account in March. The clear message: Khalil is being held up as an example of what happens to non-citizens who show sympathy – however symbolic – with America’s enemies. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, has been even more blunt. “This is not about free speech. This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” Rubio told reporters, referring to Khalil and others. “You pay all this money to these high-priced schools… and you can’t even go to class. You’re afraid to go to class because these lunatics are running around… screaming terrifying things. If you told us that’s what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in. If you do it once you get in, we’re going to revoke it and kick you out.” In Rubio’s view, Khalil abused America’s hospitality by engaging in disruptive activism; thus, being a foreign national is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded in the name of campus safety and U.S. interests.
Government filings in Khalil’s immigration case allege that his actions “amounted to antisemitic support for Hamas.” Specifically, the Department of Justice cites instances where Khalil allegedly led chants or made statements that officials interpret as glorifying Hamas or condoning violence. They also point to the October 2024 incidents on U.S. campuses – when the Israel-Gaza war prompted heated protests – claiming Khalil helped create a “hostile environment for Jewish students.” Although Khalil has not been charged with any crime such as incitement or material support for terrorism, the administration argues that his pattern of conduct (organizing sit-ins, leading rallies, and affiliating with hard-line anti-Zionist groups) fits the profile of someone undesirable and potentially dangerous. “The U.S. government has every right to revoke the visas or green cards of individuals who endorse or promote terrorism, and whose conduct deprives Americans of their civil rights,” insists Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney who focuses on antisemitism issues. Goldstein told Fox News that Khalil is “warping the First Amendment as somehow protecting his illegal conduct. It does not.” In this framing, Khalil’s protests are viewed not as peaceful dissent but as unlawful harassment – essentially an imported conflict that threatened other students. A former ICE Director, Tom Homan, echoed this view on television, arguing that “free speech has limitations” and suggesting Khalil’s campus speech exceeded those limits by “actively [engaging] in activities aligned with Hamas, a blood-soaked organization that massacres civilians.” To supporters of the administration’s crackdown, Khalil’s case is straightforward: The United States is not obligated to host non-citizens who champion extremist causes, and immigration law provides ample grounds to deny entry or status to anyone who does. “While the government can’t send foreigners to jail for saying things it doesn’t like, it can and should deny or pull visas for those who advocate for [terrorist] causes,” wrote legal commentator Ilya Shapiro, arguing that such a move poses no First Amendment problems. In short, the official stance is that national security comes first – and if that means deporting a green-card holder for chanting the wrong slogan, the law permits it.
Beyond the foreign policy statute, the government’s case against Khalil leans on the integrity of the immigration system itself. By accusing him of visa fraud/omission, officials have introduced a narrative that Khalil was not fully truthful when gaining his permanent residency. According to a DHS court filing, Khalil failed to mention on his green card application that he had worked for the British Embassy in Beirut and interned with UNRWA (the U.N. Relief and Works Agency) – experiences tied to the Middle East. He also did not list his involvement with the campus divestment coalition. To immigration authorities, these omissions could be construed as material misrepresentations if they were intentional and if the information “would have had a natural tendency to influence” the decision on his application. For instance, UNRWA has been controversial in some circles (critics allege it has indirectly abetted Palestinian militant groups), so not disclosing that affiliation might be cast as hiding a potential red flag. Khalil’s attorney responds that this is grasping at straws: “the government would have to prove any omission was willful and materially important,” which they argue it cannot. No evidence has surfaced that Khalil was asked about those specific activities or that they were disqualifying – in fact, he listed them on his LinkedIn profile publicly. To his supporters, the fraud claim looks like a pretext – a fallback way to deport Khalil if the free-speech rationale falters. “They haven’t shown he’s a threat to anyone. So now they’re combing through his paperwork hoping to find a mistake,” says one advocate with the National Lawyers Guild. Federal officials counter that it’s perfectly legitimate to charge someone with immigration violations if they discover them; they note that other activists have been caught lying on immigration forms about past arrests or memberships and later removed from the U.S. (an example is the case of Palestinian activist Rasmea Odeh, who was deported in 2017 for failing to disclose a prior terrorism conviction). Khalil, they argue, is no exception: if he wasn’t fully forthcoming, the government is entitled to strip him of the green card he obtained “under false pretenses.”
Khalil’s Defense: “This Is About Speech, Not Terrorism”
Khalil and his legal team flatly reject the notion that he posed any threat. They say he is being persecuted purely for expressing political views – views that are controversial, certainly, but well within the bounds of protected speech in America. “What is the antisemitism [they accuse him of]?” attorney Marc Van Der Hout asked rhetorically. “It is criticizing Israel and the United States for the slaughter that is going on in Gaza, in Palestine. That’s what this case is about.” In Khalil’s eyes, condemning Israeli military actions or U.S. foreign policy is not equivalent to endorsing Hamas or hatred of Jewish people; rather, it is core political speech on a matter of international concern. He notes that his activism aligned with what many human rights groups and even some U.S. lawmakers were saying during the Gaza war debate. Far from inciting violence, Khalil claims he often tried to de-escalate tensions at protests – a characterization backed by fellow organizers who praised his calm leadership. At Columbia, he was known for urging protesters to remain peaceful and focused, even as emotions ran high. In one recorded instance, when a small group of students began chanting slogans that could be perceived as glorifying violence, Khalil reportedly stepped in and redirected the crowd to chants about human rights and international law. His supporters point out that if Khalil truly “endorsed terrorism,” as the government says, it’s odd that he was never arrested by police or investigated by the FBI for any crime. Indeed, New York authorities never charged him with anything more serious than a misdemeanor trespass or obstruction during campus protests (and even those minor charges were later dropped). To Khalil and his attorneys, this underscores that he did nothing unlawful: “Khalil has been imprisoned and is being held without being charged for a crime for engaging in what should be protected free speech,” one free-speech advocate observed, noting the absence of any criminal case.
Regarding the Hamas allegations, Khalil’s defense is that the government has produced no specific evidence tying him to the militant group. He has never been a member of Hamas, never donated money to it, and never advocated violence, his lawyers say. They accuse officials of conflating criticism of Israel with support for Hamas – a leap that civil liberties groups warn chills legitimate dissent. “The claim that Mahmoud Khalil supports terrorism lacks specific evidence,” one international outlet noted in its coverage, explaining that his detention “spark[ed] free speech debates” precisely because it appeared to be based on political expression rather than any actionable wrongdoing. Khalil’s legal filings emphasize that all of his associations – with Palestinian rights groups, with Muslim student organizations, etc. – are lawful. Many of these groups explicitly condemn antisemitism and terrorism; their focus is policy change (e.g. pushing universities to divest from companies aiding the occupation). Khalil’s team has collected statements from Jewish classmates and faculty who, while they may have disagreed with him, attested that he never harassed or threatened them personally. This contradicts the narrative that he “deprived others of their civil rights.” As one Columbia professor put it, “There was a lot of heated rhetoric on both sides, but I never saw Mahmoud target or intimidate individual students.” In fact, Khalil’s advocates argue that the university protest, though disruptive, was addressing a legitimate grievance – the perceived silencing of pro-Palestinian voices – and Khalil’s role as a negotiator helped peacefully end the encampment standoff with campus administrators.
On the immigration fraud issue, Khalil flatly denies lying or hiding anything material. He did not think to list every short-term internship or activism affiliation on his green card application, his lawyers explain, because those forms typically ask for employment and organizational memberships “relevant” to eligibility or security. Khalil had undergone extensive vetting when he was granted refugee status in Lebanon and again when adjusting status in the U.S., and nothing in his background – including his work with the British Foreign Office and the UN – raised flags at the time. “Zero to do with the foreign policy charge. And there is zero support for… any misrepresentation,” Van Der Hout said, arguing that the government’s eleventh-hour document dump about Khalil’s résumé is a sign of a weak case. Khalil’s attorneys note that involvement in political activism, like CUAD, is not a disqualifier for a green card, so failing to mention it cannot be “material.” They accuse the administration of moving the goalposts – after initially justifying Khalil’s arrest on national security grounds, when pressed in court they scrambled to find any technical violation to justify deportation. This shifting rationale, they argue, betrays the true motive: Khalil is being targeted for his speech. Emails obtained in discovery show that federal agents were monitoring Khalil’s Twitter posts and speeches at rallies, not digging through his old job records, in the lead-up to his arrest. “It was exclusively about what he was saying and who he was saying it with,” said one of Khalil’s immigration attorneys, “and only once we challenged them did they start talking about his visa forms.” Such sequencing bolsters Khalil’s claim of retaliatory intent.
Perhaps most poignantly, Khalil’s family circumstances highlight what is at stake for him. Since 2022 he has been married to an American citizen, and the couple is expecting their first child. In a court affidavit, Khalil’s wife described the profound stress of watching her husband “disappeared” into ICE custody for weeks with little information. “I keep asking why,” she wrote, “how can this happen in America – to arrest someone from our home simply because of a protest?” She noted that Khalil’s absence means he might miss the birth of their baby, and that if he’s deported to the Middle East he could be separated from his young family for years or forever. These human stakes underscore a broader point Khalil’s defenders make: deportation is a severe punishment, akin to banishment, and imposing it for expressive conduct runs counter to American values of liberty. As one prominent activist, Medea Benjamin, told an international newspaper: “The U.S. has always portrayed itself as a beacon of free speech — but what we’re seeing now is the exact opposite. Arresting student Mahmoud Khalil simply because they didn’t like what he said is a terrifying precedent.”
Protest and Public Outcry
Khalil’s arrest and detention have galvanized a nationwide protest movement that extends from city streets to social media feeds. In New York, just days after his ICE detention, hundreds of people gathered outside the federal courthouse and at other symbolic sites to demand Khalil’s freedom. Demonstrators held signs declaring “Free Mahmoud! Free Speech!” and “Hands off our students!”, linking his case to a broader defense of civil liberties on campus. Chants of “From NYC to Palestine, free free Mahmoud!” echoed as activist groups like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) and local chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine rallied in his support. “We will continue to stand on the right side of history – Free Rumeysa Oztürk & Free Mahmoud Khalil!” PSL’s national organization tweeted, pairing Khalil’s cause with that of another student (Oztürk, a Tufts University graduate student) who was detained by ICE after writing a pro-Palestinian op-ed. This emerging coalition sees the crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters as a coordinated campaign to silence dissent. Indeed, the hashtag #FreeMahmoudKhalil began trending on Twitter (X), and an online petition demanding his release gathered tens of thousands of signatures within a week. Free speech organizations across the ideological spectrum – from the ACLU on the left to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) on the libertarian right – have sounded the alarm. “Citizenship won’t save you,” one NPR headline warned, as even U.S. citizens realize that if lawful residents can be whisked away for their speech, the climate for dissent darkens for all.
On social media, the case has been intensely debated, with sharply divergent narratives. Progressive and pro-Palestinian voices frame Khalil as a victim of authoritarian overreach. They describe his detention as part of a “fascist attack… eroding dissent, free speech, democracy”. Many point to the irony of a country that champions free expression abroad locking up a student for protesting war. “The entire world is appalled by this flagrant violation of freedom of speech!” one supporter wrote in reply to a State Department post. Others note the relative silence from some self-described free speech advocates: “It’s kinda crazy that all these free speech clowns and campus conservatives have nothing to say about Mahmoud Khalil… being arrested and possibly deported. He committed no crime,” one commentator tweeted in frustration. This sentiment highlights how Khalil’s case has become a politicized litmus test – with some accusing the right of hypocrisy for defending offensive speech on campus unless it’s pro-Palestinian. Activists like Moustafa Bayoumi and Heba Gowayed have written pieces titled “Trump is using Mahmoud Khalil to test his mass deportation plan,” arguing that the administration is leveraging fear of Hamas to push through a much broader assault on political activism.
On the other side, conservative and pro-Israel groups applaud the government’s hard line. They argue that what’s at stake is not free speech but public safety and moral clarity. On X (Twitter), some users celebrated Khalil’s predicament with undisguised glee. “Mahmoud Khalil the pro-violence agitator/protester for Hamas is now free! He’s free to go back to his country to protest and wreak havoc,” one post sneered, effectively telling Khalil to “good riddance”. Another critic insisted Khalil “took over a library… This is not speech it’s conduct and silencing other people’s speech. …He needs to go. He’s anti-free speech and anti-American.” This view depicts Khalil not as a peaceful protester, but as a bully who trampled on the rights of Jewish students – thus forfeiting any claim to First Amendment protection. Right-wing pundits have used terms like “campus jihadi” and “terror sympathizer” to describe him, lauding ICE for, as one put it, “finally doing something about these antisemitic lunatics on campus.” Even some mainstream voices who normally champion free speech have wrestled with the case. For example, an op-ed in The Washington Post argued that “The Khalil case isn’t about speech, it’s about immigration law,” suggesting that whatever one’s view of Khalil’s protests, the law clearly allows a non-citizen to be removed for causing turmoil.
Meanwhile, elected officials and civil society leaders have weighed in. A group of Democratic members of Congress from New York issued a joint letter calling for Khalil’s release, stating that “using immigration enforcement to retaliate against protesters sets a dangerous precedent.” On the other hand, Republican lawmakers have largely backed the administration. At a House hearing, a GOP congressman held up a poster of one of Khalil’s tweets and asked a DHS official why Khalil hadn’t been deported “yesterday,” given his “anti-American propaganda.” The polarization is striking: to one camp, Mahmoud Khalil is a canary in the coal mine for free speech – an indicator of creeping authoritarianism – while to another, he is an object lesson that non-citizens who “misbehave” should expect swift expulsion.
Broader Implications for Free Speech and Immigration
Beyond one graduate student’s status, the case of Mahmoud Khalil raises profound questions about free speech rights for non-citizens in the United States. America has long been a haven for political refugees and dissidents, premised on the idea that here, unlike in authoritarian regimes, one will not be punished for speaking out. Khalil’s deportation fight has many asking: Does that promise apply equally to all who live here, or only to citizens? The chilling effects are already being felt among immigrant communities. According to NPR, Secretary Rubio has boasted of revoking over 300 visas from foreign students and scholars in recent months who joined protests or made statements deemed sympathetic to Hamas. International students from the Middle East (and beyond) have reported increased scrutiny – and a growing fear that voicing certain opinions could jeopardize their studies or careers. One PhD student from Hong Kong, a U.S. green-card holder, told reporters he has begun scrubbing his social media of any controversial political posts, worried that “what I say online might be used against me when I re-enter the country.” “I don’t join protests now,” he said. “I feel like it’s a stupid thing [to do]… I’m being compliant before the thing even hits me.” Such self-censorship is exactly what free speech advocates feared. If non-citizens – even those with legal permanent residency – believe they can be “disappeared” by ICE for attending a march or signing a petition, many will simply steer clear of any activism. And as one commentator noted, “the First Amendment rights of citizens are intertwined with those of non-citizens – if the government can silence one group, it sets a precedent to silence others.”
Historically, the U.S. government has at times wielded immigration law as a tool against political undesirables – from anarchists and communists in the early 20th century to human rights critics more recently. But in the modern era, explicit deportations for pure speech have been exceedingly rare. That’s why Khalil’s case is often described as unprecedented. “They’re trying to create essentially a foreign policy authority to deport green card holders [for their speech],” observed Ahilan Arulanantham, noting that the administration’s broad reading of the law could open the door to many more such actions. Today it is pro-Palestinian activism in the crosshairs; tomorrow it could be another issue. In fact, one striking example emerged alongside Khalil’s: Óscar Arias Sánchez, the former president of Costa Rica (and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate), had his U.S. visa suddenly revoked in 2025. The stated reason was his engagement with China years ago, but Arias publicly speculated it might be retaliation for his outspoken criticism of President Trump. “I have to imagine that my criticism of President Trump might have played a role,” Arias told NPR, after likening Trump to a “Roman emperor” in a social media post. If even a former head of state isn’t immune to visa cancellation over speech, activists note, it underscores that immigration status is increasingly being used as leverage to enforce ideological conformity.
Civil libertarians argue that such practices erode the open democratic culture that the First Amendment is meant to foster. The Knight First Amendment Institute pointedly wrote, “the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for their speech.” They are preparing for a possible constitutional showdown. Should Khalil’s case advance to federal court on First Amendment grounds, it could set a major precedent. A ruling in Khalil’s favor could firmly establish that lawful permanent residents cannot be deported for pure political advocacy, reaffirming the U.S. as a safe haven for dissent. Conversely, a ruling siding with the government might effectively give the executive branch a green light to police the speech of immigrants under a national security rubric.
Meanwhile, immigrant rights groups warn of a “slippery slope”. They note that millions of Americans live in mixed-status families (with U.S. citizens, green-card holders, visa holders all under one roof). If one member of the family – say a student or a visiting scholar – has to fear punishment for political speech, the entire family may self-censor. Over time, this could shrink the space of public debate, especially on contentious foreign policy issues. Already, university administrators have reported international students avoiding campus discussions or student club activities related to Middle East politics, not wanting to be on any “list.” Professors, too, are concerned: will inviting a controversial speaker or allowing a heated protest now risk their foreign students’ futures? Academic freedom and open discourse at universities could suffer, some educators argue, if the government actively monitors and penalizes the political engagement of students from abroad.
As for Mahmoud Khalil himself, he remains in legal limbo – free on bond after seven weeks in ICE detention, but under the shadow of deportation. “He hasn’t been deported yet,” one social media commenter noted, “but it’s funny how you Americans love free speech and always talk about it… Khalil organized protests in a country that’s not his own, and since he’s not American, well, that’s why he’s getting deported.” That sardonic observation captures the crux of the debate: is the freedom to dissent a human right that the U.S. extends to all within its borders? Or is it a privilege of citizenship, with outsiders voicing “unpopular” views sent packing? The Khalil case may force an answer.
One thing is clear: the stakes are far-reaching. As Khalil awaits the next round of appeals, student groups continue to demonstrate on his behalf, and legal experts on both sides prepare for a protracted fight. “If Trump can deport Mahmoud Khalil for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech – Trump can deport anyone,” a concerned observer tweeted. On the other hand, those cheering the deportation effort argue that expelling Khalil will “set an example” to deter campus extremism. This collision of viewpoints – free expression versus security, inclusivity versus exclusivity – strikes at the heart of American identity. The final outcome, whether Khalil is allowed to stay or forced to leave, will reverberate as a defining marker of how the United States balances liberty and safety in an age of polarization and fear.
Introduction: There is a growing wave of public criticism over U.S. lawmakers trading stocks while in office. Many Americans see it as a conflict of interest or even “legalized corruption,” and social media posts reflect intense anger at the idea that members of Congress can profit from inside knowledge. In response, several bipartisan efforts have emerged to ban or restrict congressional stock trading. Below, we analyze public sentiment on this issue, fact-check claims about specific lawmakers’ trades, examine whether partisan affiliation affects the criticism, and review current and proposed legislation (such as the TRUST in Congress Act and the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act) aimed at addressing the problem.
Public Sentiment on Lawmakers Trading Stocks
On social media (e.g. X/Twitter), the sentiment is overwhelmingly critical of Congress members buying or selling stocks. Common themes include accusations of insider trading, conflict of interest, and demands for reform. Many posts argue that no lawmaker should be enriching themselves through stock trades obtained via privileged information. For example, one user wrote, “No member of Congress should be allowed to [be] trading stock while in office. Conflict of interest.”. Others echo that Congress is “supposed to be a service, not a career,” implying that officials are in office to serve the public, not to get rich. The practice is often described as fundamentally corrupt: “They can use privileged information to make money on the stock market… Make no mistake, it’s legalized corruption. Banning the practice is long overdue.”.
Calls for reform or specific actions are frequent. Users across the political spectrum propose measures like outright banning members (and even their spouses or family) from trading stocks, enforcing blind trusts, and imposing term limits as a way to curb self-enrichment. A representative post lists “3 easy steps to improve our government: 1) term limits on Congress, 2) ban lobbyists, 3) ban elected officials from trading stock”. There is also widespread support for pending reform bills (discussed later). Many commenters explicitly back legislative efforts to prohibit congressional stock trading. For instance, a user urges others to “call your congressperson in support of H.R. 396: TRUST in Congress Act, which would ban members of Congress from trading stock.” Another praises a lawmaker’s stance: “Members of Congress have access to all kinds of insider information – it’s common sense that we shouldn’t be able to play the stock market with it.”. This quote, from Rep. Abigail Spanberger’s introduction of the TRUST in Congress Act, encapsulates the public’s common-sense view that lawmakers shouldn’t profit from non-public knowledge.
Notably, praise for politicians who support a ban appears alongside the criticism. Posts commend figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Josh Hawley for pushing to stop congressional trading. “Yes… I back AOC on this. No Congress person should be trading stock while in office. Or family members. Too close to the bone,” wrote a self-identified Democrat on X. Similarly, a conservative user agreed “Josh Hawley is 100% correct here. Congress should NOT be trading stock!”. Such cross-ideological agreement is striking – everyday commenters from left and right both cheer efforts to clamp down on lawmakers’ trades. In one instance, a user highlights that progressive Democrat AOC and pro-Trump Republican Matt Gaetz teamed up on a proposal to ban stock trading, lamenting that “of course it didn’t pass”. This bipartisan outrage from the public indicates a rare unity: Americans largely feel congressional stock trading is wrong and want it reined in.
In summary, general public sentiment is that congressional stock trading is unethical and should be stopped. Posts are laced with anger at perceived double-standards (“Congress can do things that would land regular people in jail for insider trading”), and many stress that lawmakers’ duty to citizens should come before personal profit. The tone of these discussions is often cynical and distrustful of Congress’s willingness to police itself: “Congress isn’t going to ban them trading stock. Most are greedy and there for monetary gains in spite of what they say.”. This public pressure forms the backdrop for the current push to tighten the rules. Polls consistently show broad bipartisan support for banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks, reinforcing what these viral posts reflect – voters want stricter ethics so that elected officials cannot use their office for financial gain.
Claims About Specific Members of Congress and Stock Trades
Amid the furor, several members of Congress are frequently singled out in social media posts for alleged unethical stock trading. The names that recur include former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and others. Often, these posts contain explosive claims – some accurate, some exaggerated. Here we examine a few prominent examples and compare them against factual disclosures and news reports:
Nancy Pelosi: Pelosi has become a central figure in the stock-trading debate. Numerous posts accuse her of personally profiting from insider information. One viral claim alleges “Nancy Pelosi made millions from insider-trading stock investments (big [money] from options)” during her tenure as House Speaker. It’s true that Pelosi’s family (notably her husband, Paul Pelosi) has actively traded stocks, including high-value options in tech companies, which has drawn public scrutiny. For example, Paul Pelosi at times bought large stakes in companies like NVIDIA and Google ahead of key votes or regulatory actions, creating an appearance of potential conflict. In mid-2022, he purchased semiconductor stock just before Congress considered a major chips subsidy bill, prompting criticism and a quick sale of the shares to avoid the appearance of insider advantage. However, no evidence of illegal insider trading by Pelosi has been proven, and she has never been charged with any such crime. In fact, one detailed analysis noted that while Pelosi’s portfolio “outperformed markets (700% vs. S&P’s 200% over a decade), no solid proof exists” of insider trading and “no charges [have been] filed” against her. This highlights the gap between public suspicion and what has been legally demonstrated. Pelosi herself long defended lawmakers’ right to trade. In December 2021, when asked about a possible ban, she argued “lawmakers should not be barred from trading stock” because “we are a free-market economy”. This stance was widely criticized since it acknowledged the practice “gives members of Congress the opportunity to profit off insider information gained through their official duties”. Facing backlash, Pelosi later softened her position and said she would be open to stricter rules. Indeed, under mounting pressure (and ahead of the 2022 elections), she allowed development of a reform bill, though it stalled. Bottom line: Pelosi’s high profile and sizable stock trades by her family have made her a symbol of the issue – her case illustrates how legal trades can still raise ethical questions. Public perception that she “enriched herself” in office aligns with the fact that her net worth grew substantially over the years, but any claim of “insider trading” remains unproven.
Dan Crenshaw: Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) is another lawmaker often mentioned. Posts question whether “Dan Crenshaw [is] insider trading” and call him “a perfect example why we need to ban Congress from directly trading stock”. Crenshaw indeed has been an active stock trader. According to his financial disclosures, he and his wife made dozens of stock transactions, including in industries that intersect with his committee work (for instance, energy and defense companies). He also violated the STOCK Act’s reporting requirements at least once by disclosing trades past the 45-day deadline, for which he paid a fine (as did many colleagues). Critics point out that such late disclosures hide trades until well after the fact, defeating the purpose of transparency. While there’s no public evidence that Crenshaw traded on non-public information, the suspicion arises because some of his trades were well-timed with market movements. For example, observers noted he bought stock in companies that stood to benefit from legislation he was involved in. These patterns, even if coincidental or based on public info, feed the narrative that members “play” the market with an inside edge. Crenshaw has defended himself by saying he doesn’t personally manage his portfolio day-to-day. Nevertheless, he has faced enough heat that in 2022 he expressed openness to a ban, likely recognizing the optics. The public scrutiny of Crenshaw’s trades underscores a broader reality: dozens of lawmakers from both parties have similarly violated disclosure rules or seen their stock moves questioned. In 2021-2022, at least 55 members of Congress were found to have not properly reported trades on time as required by the STOCK Act, a fact that has intensified calls for reform.
Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG): On the other side of the aisle, Rep. MTG (R-GA) has been called out in posts for frequent trading. “If you’re tired of members of Congress trading stock, talk to @RepMTG. She does this all the time,” one user quipped. Indeed, Greene, a first-term member, disclosed a high volume of stock transactions – over $3.5 million in trades during 2021, per her filings. She bought and sold shares in companies like Walmart, Boeing, and energy firms, even while loudly criticizing certain industries publicly. For instance, she invested in pharmaceutical and defense stocks around the same time she railed against vaccine mandates and foreign aid, respectively, prompting accusations of hypocrisy in the press. Like others, Greene has not been accused of anything illegal, but her case exemplifies why many find the practice problematic: even if lawmakers aren’t trading on secret info, the perception is that they could shape policy to benefit their portfolios. Greene’s trading activity, often more akin to a day trader’s than a public servant’s, is used by critics as a talking point that some in Congress treat their position as a money-making opportunity. She has responded to criticism by saying her trades are managed by a third-party advisor. Still, public posts label her “contemptible” for engaging in the very behavior she and her allies condemn in “elites”.
Other Notable Examples: Posts also mention Senators from the 2020 COVID-19 stock sale scandal – specifically Richard Burr (R-NC) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA). In early 2020, both sold large stock holdings right after attending a confidential Senate briefing on the looming pandemic, spurring DOJ investigations. Although neither was charged (prosecutors ultimately found insufficient evidence of insider trading), the incident looms large in public memory as a case of Congress members appearing to profit from disaster. It’s frequently cited in debates, reinforcing the feeling that “they knew and saved themselves while the public suffered.” Another current example making rounds online involves Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A watchdog noted McCaul purchased over $1.1 million in Meta (Facebook) stock in spring 2023 “between March when he wrote the [TikTok ban] bill and April when he voted yes on” banning TikTok. This timing suggests he stood to gain if TikTok’s competitor (Meta) benefited from TikTok being restricted. Posts ask pointedly: “Do you think that’s a good look, Republicans? It is not.”. McCaul’s office claimed those investments were made by his wife’s trust, but to the public it looks like a textbook conflict of interest. Similarly, numerous members sitting on committees (from defense to healthcare) have traded stocks related to their oversight. A recent investigation found nearly 1 in 5 lawmakers (almost 100 members) or their immediate family made trades in companies that could be affected by their legislative work. This includes Democrats and Republicans alike – e.g. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) repeatedly buying and selling biotech and tech stocks while overseeing military affairs, or former Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) whose husband traded defense contractor shares while she chaired the Intelligence Committee. None of these actions have led to charges, but they highlight how “members of Congress have access to information the average person would not know, and they should not be trading stock to enhance their pocketbooks,” as one social media user aptly put it.
Fact-checking these claims shows a pattern: public perception is often grounded in real behavior (extensive trading by lawmakers, pattern of potential conflicts), though direct proof of illegal insider trading is rare. In other words, many members are trading stocks and often in ways that raise eyebrows, but because of how current law is written and the difficulty of proving misuse of non-public information, almost none have faced legal consequences. The only recent member of Congress actually convicted of insider trading was Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) in 2019 – and that was for tipping off his son about a biotech company’s private drug trial results (Collins sat on the company’s board). That case was unrelated to congressional duties, yet it shows members can abuse insider knowledge. For legislative matters, however, the STOCK Act of 2012 technically forbids using non-public government info for profit, but enforcement is essentially nonexistent. Instead, the Act’s main teeth are disclosure requirements, which as noted are frequently flouted with minimal penalties. The result is that no sitting member has been prosecuted under the STOCK Act for insider trading based on congressional knowledge. Public outrage does align with the reality that many lawmakers’ trading patterns would be considered dubious in any other context (e.g. an executive trading on pending corporate info), even if those lawmakers defend themselves as following the rules. The “insider” advantage may often be more about having a deep understanding of upcoming policy shifts rather than explicit confidential info, but the effect is similar – it erodes trust. As an anguished post summed up, “Anywhere else it would be called insider trading… We can’t trust Congress…other than [for] insider trading stock picks.”.
Partisan Differences in Criticism and Focus
Is one party perceived as more culpable? Public sentiment transcends party lines in condemning congressional stock trading, but people tend to highlight the opposing party’s offenders more frequently. On social media, both Democrats and Republicans use the issue to score political points, even as they agree on the core problem.
Many conservative-leaning commenters fixate on high-profile Democrats like Pelosi. For instance, posts with the hashtag #Pelosi call her a “criminal” who has been “trading stock [and] making millions for years”. They accuse her (and by extension other Democrats) of corruption, sometimes lumping it with broader conspiracy tropes (e.g. “CONgress… busy being pedos, trading stock, and getting kickbacks” in one extreme rant). The Nancy Pelosi narrative has been particularly prominent in right-wing circles – so much so that Sen. Josh Hawley cheekily named his 2023 stock-ban bill the “PELOSI Act” to underscore the point. Likewise, Republican or populist accounts often assert that “mostly Democrats” are guilty of profiteering – although in reality members of both parties trade. One tweet claimed “most Democrats don’t do it and most Republicans do”, reflecting a partisan perception that insider profiteering is a GOP motive for entering Congress. This is not supported by the data (Democrats trade just as much as Republicans), but it shows how each side’s base might view the other as the bigger problem.
Conversely, left-leaning and liberal commentators emphasize Republican hypocrisy. Progressive posts frequently mention GOP figures who have opposed reforms or engaged in suspicious trades. For example, users have blasted Senate Republicans for blocking votes on stock trading bans, noting that every time Democrats introduce a bill, it gets stonewalled. A viral “context” explainer on X stated bluntly: “Democratic politicians have tried introducing legislation to block members of Congress from trading stock… GOP members of Congress have blocked every bill introduced.”. (This refers to the fact that in 2022, Republican leadership in the Senate did not advance a House proposal, and in the current Congress, GOP committee chairs have not moved forward on the Democratic-sponsored bills – a point of contention.) Liberal users also call out Republicans who trade. A pointed example is Rep. Mike McCaul’s Meta stock purchase during the TikTok ban effort, which a Democrat-aligned account highlighted to challenge the GOP: “Do you think that’s a good look Republicans?”. Another instance is Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican often singled out in left circles for his prolific trading (and habitual late disclosures) – Democrats cite him as evidence that Republicans also exploit the system. In sum, left-leaning critics argue that while GOP lawmakers rail against “elitist corruption,” many partake in the same behavior and block reforms that would curb it.
Despite these different emphases, there is also a meeting of minds across party lines at the grassroots level. The anger at Congress’s self-dealing is one of those rare issues that unite populists on the left and right. Social media discussions sometimes acknowledge this unity. “The party doesn’t matter. No member of Congress should be trading stock,” one user wrote flatly. Another user, responding to a partisan argument, conceded “It happens with both parties; you just focus on the one you don’t like.”. This recognition that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are guilty is reflected in calls to “check everybody” – “Let’s check everybody, including AOC, Pelosi, and so on,” as one tweet put it. There are also multiple posts praising bipartisan reform efforts: as noted, AOC and Gaetz’s collaboration received applause from across the spectrum, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (a Democrat) and Sen. Hawley (a Republican) are both lauded by their respective followers for pushing similar bans. Interestingly, each side tends to trust its own champions on the issue (progressives trust Warren or AOC, conservatives trust Hawley or Gaetz), but they agree on the substance.
In general, public perception of congressional stock trading doesn’t fall neatly along party lines – it’s more us (the people) vs. them (the politicians). Polls have shown that huge majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike support banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks. The difference by political affiliation mainly lies in who gets spotlighted as the worst offenders or as the blockers of reform. For Republicans online, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are the favored targets (“Pelosi & top Dems’ wealth… insider trading… 700% gains” as one claim went). For Democrats online, the issue is often framed as Republicans cynically opposing a ban to protect their own investments (noting, for instance, that many in the GOP voted against a 2022 ban proposal). Both narratives contain grains of truth: Pelosi was initially opposed to a ban and is indeed very wealthy, and Republican leadership has not embraced the reform bills. But importantly, members of both parties have traded scandalously, and members of both parties have authored bills to end it. As one frustrated observer tweeted, “This should include all GOP and Dem members – it’s an obvious conflict of interest… It needs to END, right now, forever.”. That sentiment captures how many Americans see the matter: not as a partisan issue, but a systemic ethical failure that transcends party.
Legislative Efforts to Curb Congressional Trading
The public outcry has spurred a flurry of legislative proposals aimed at restricting or banning stock trading by members of Congress (and sometimes their spouses and staff). Currently, the law in force is the STOCK Act of 2012, which requires members to disclose trades over $1,000 within 30-45 days and explicitly affirmed that insider trading laws apply to Congress. While the STOCK Act increased transparency, its weak enforcement and loopholes (members can still own and trade stocks freely as long as they report later) have led to widespread agreement that it’s insufficient. In the past few years, especially since 2021, there’s been a bipartisan push to strengthen the rules. Below is an overview of major proposed legislation on this issue and their status:
TRUST in Congress Act (House and Senate bills): The Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust in Congress Act – often shortened to TRUST in Congress Act – is among the most prominent proposals. Originally introduced in 2020 and reintroduced in subsequent sessions by Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), this bipartisan bill would ban members of Congress (and their spouses) from trading individual stocks while in office. Instead, lawmakers would have to either divest their holdings or place them in a qualified blind trust managed independently. The idea is to remove even the temptation or appearance of using insider knowledge. Spanberger has been a vocal advocate, arguing it’s “common sense” to bar stock trading given the information lawmakers are privy to. Dozens of co-sponsors from both parties have signed on. In the current 118th Congress (2023-2024), Spanberger’s House version was filed as H.R. 265 (earlier referenced as H.R. 336 or H.R. 1679 in drafts), and a Senate companion was introduced by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), showing cross-party support. Despite bipartisan backing, the bill has not yet received a floor vote. Advocates were disappointed in late 2022 when a similar proposal was tabled instead of passed. The TRUST in Congress Act remains a key rallying point – supporters frequently urge constituents to pressure Congress to pass it. As of 2025, the Act has not become law, but momentum is still building. The new House Speaker has indicated openness to considering a stock trading ban, suggesting the TRUST Act or something like it could be revisited.
Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act: Another major proposal comes from the Senate side. In early 2022, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced legislation informally known as the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act. This bill is quite similar to the TRUST Act in that it would require members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children to either divest from individual stocks or place assets in a blind trust during their tenure. Violations would carry fines (for example, lawmakers would forfeit any profits to the U.S. Treasury). Ossoff, a freshman senator who notably put his own investments in a blind trust upon taking office, wanted to ensure all members do the same to “remove corruption or the perception of it.” The proposal gained several co-sponsors, including at least one Republican. In the 118th Congress, one version of this concept was introduced as S. 3494 (a previous session’s number) and likely reintroduced with a new number (possibly the S.2773 mentioned in tweets). While this specific bill did not advance to a vote in 2022, it added pressure on congressional leaders. Notably, then-House Speaker Pelosi’s reversal to consider a ban was in part a response to multiple bills like Ossoff’s gaining public support. A revised framework combining elements of these proposals was drafted in late 2022 by House leaders, but it stalled due to disagreements on details (such as whether to include spouses, Supreme Court justices, etc.). In 2023 and 2024, lawmakers have continued to file versions of the ban. The diversity of bills (TRUST Act, Ossoff/Kelly’s bill, etc.) shows a broad agreement on principle but differences in specifics, which has somewhat fragmented the effort.
PELOSI Act: In January 2023, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced a bill with a cheeky acronym: the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act. Hawley, a conservative populist, used Pelosi’s name to underscore the bipartisan nature of the problem (even though Pelosi herself was no longer Speaker by 2023). The PELOSI Act would ban members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks during their tenure, with a grace period upon taking office to divest or put assets in blind trust. If they violate, the law would require the Government Accountability Office to seize the lawmakers’ stock profits. Hawley’s proposal aligns closely with the others — its main distinction was rhetorical branding. It reflects growing Republican support for a ban; a few years prior, such proposals came mostly from Democrats, but by 2023 figures like Hawley were leading the charge on the right. The bill was introduced in the Senate (likely corresponding to S. ?2773 referenced in social media) and drew some attention in conservative media. However, like the others, it has not yet advanced beyond committee.
Other Bills (ETHICS Act, TRUST, etc.): In addition to the above, there have been numerous related bills, often with acronym names:
The ETHICS Act (“Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks Act”) was another bipartisan Senate bill (co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), among others) aiming to prohibit members of Congress from trading stocks and mandate divestment or blind trusts. The ETHICS Act has been put forward in various forms since 2021.
The DIVEST Act is yet another proposal along these lines (details on this one were less publicized, but based on the name, it likely required complete divestiture of conflicting assets by officials).
There’s also the Ban Conflicted Trading Act, originally introduced by Sen. Merkley and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) in 2020, which would bar members and senior staff from trading stocks while in office.
Each of these bills shares the same fundamental goal – removing the temptation for lawmakers to play the stock market for personal gain – but they vary in scope. Some extend the ban to spouses and family (to close the “spouse loophole” often mentioned, since, for example, Paul Pelosi is not a member but his trades benefit the household). Others include senior congressional staff or judges in the ban. There’s debate over how broad to cast the net.
Current status (as of 2025): None of these proposals has become law yet. In 2022, there was a swell of momentum: a compromise bill that combined elements (covering members of Congress, spouses, and even federal judges) was drafted in the House. However, it was introduced very late and never got a vote, reportedly due to mixed support and the clock running out in the session. With the new Congress in 2023, reformers immediately reintroduced their bills. Lawmakers like Spanberger, Roy, Ossoff, Hawley, Warren, and others have continued to champion the cause. The House Administration Committee held hearings on the issue, indicating serious consideration. Public pressure remains high, and even President Biden has signaled support for a ban (at least according to some reports – one viral tweet claimed Biden, in a “farewell address,” called for banning congressional stock trading, reflecting the expectation that the White House would sign such a reform if sent to his desk).
It’s worth noting that some resistance persists within Congress, across party lines. Lawmakers who oppose a ban argue that requiring divestment could deter people from public service or that a blind trust is an excessive step. There are also nuanced questions being debated: Should the ban also cover commodities, cryptocurrencies, or just stocks? What about mutual funds or index funds (most proposals allow diversified funds as a permitted investment to avoid lawmakers having to sit entirely out of the market)? Should it apply to the executive branch and judiciary for consistency? These details are being hashed out. For example, the TRUST in Congress Act focuses on Congress members and spouses. The House’s late-2022 draft expanded to judges and top officials. The MEME Act (mentioned humorously in one tweet\) targeted a very niche issue (banning officials from promoting cryptocurrencies) showing how the conversation even extends to newer asset classes like crypto and NFTs. All this indicates that while there is agreement in principle, the challenge is crafting a bill with enough consensus to pass.
Nonetheless, the drive for reform has not died. With public opinion so strongly in favor (surveys have shown 70–80% of Americans support a ban), it is likely only a matter of time before some form of these proposals is enacted. Congressional leaders in both parties have faced pressure to act. For instance, in 2023, new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy expressed openness to a stock ban rule, and several rank-and-file members ran campaigns partly on this issue. In the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he told members, “I am sympathetic to this reform and asked committees to look at it.” The continued stream of negative headlines – e.g. each time a shady-looking trade by a lawmaker comes to light – adds urgency. As one commentator wryly observed, “Prohibiting members of Congress from trading stock is a total no-brainer — and long overdue.” The fact that so many bills with catchy acronyms are in play shows lawmakers know the public is watching.
In summary, current U.S. law (the STOCK Act) stops short of banning stock trades by Congress, but a broad coalition of reformers is pushing to change that. The TRUST in Congress Act and the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act are leading examples, with provisions for blind trusts that would effectively eliminate the most glaring conflicts of interest. Other proposals like Hawley’s PELOSI Act underscore that this is not a partisan issue in terms of support – members from both sides have authored similar reforms. The main obstacle has been getting leadership to prioritize the issue and unify around one approach. As of early 2025, the effort is very much alive: hearings have been held, bills are pending, and public clamor is only growing louder.
Alignment of Public Perception with Reality
It’s clear that public perception and anger about congressional stock trading stem from real patterns of behavior. Lawmakers from both parties have indeed taken actions that look like profiteering from their positions – whether or not they technically broke the law. The perception is that Congress has been unwilling to police itself, and unfortunately this is largely true so far. Many posts online accuse Congress of being greedy or corrupt for allowing members to trade, and this aligns with the reality that numerous lawmakers have been caught in conflicts or violated the spirit of ethics rules. Public distrust is further validated by the fact that enforcement of the STOCK Act has been lax (only small fines for late reporting, no prosecutions for trading on inside info in congressional context). In short, people feel the system is rigged to benefit insiders – and the existing rules have not been enough to prove them wrong.
However, it’s also true that not every claim on social media is fully accurate. Some assertions, like “Pelosi made $100 million from insider trading” or “only Democrats are doing this” or conversely “only Republicans are blocking it,” are exaggerated or overly partisan. The actual trading behavior cuts across party lines, and figures like Pelosi become lightning rods partly due to their prominence. When fact-checked, we see that Pelosi’s trades were real but there’s no hard evidence she violated insider trading laws, and that Republicans as well as Democrats have stalled reform at different times (e.g. Democratic leadership also delayed action when they had the majority in 2022, even if Republicans were the most vocal skeptics). Public perception sometimes oversimplifies these nuances. Yet, on the core issue – that Congress members trading stocks is a conflict of interest – public sentiment is justified by the facts. Even lawmakers themselves, when candid, have acknowledged the problem. “Members of Congress have access to information … it’s common sense we shouldn’t be playing the stock market,” as Spanberger said. Or in Sen. Hawley’s words, “Members of Congress should not be trading stock, they shouldn’t be.”There is very little counterargument being offered in good faith, except the notion that perhaps strict rules might be inconvenient for some lawmakers’ finances – a position that holds little water with the public.
As of now, public pressure is mounting on Congress to align its rules with basic ethics that other professions follow. Corporate executives, for instance, face blackout periods and insider trading laws with real teeth; many Americans wonder why members of Congress – who arguably have more wide-ranging insider knowledge – are given so much leeway. The calls to ban congressional trading are essentially asking Congress to hold itself to a higher standard to restore trust. It is a rare issue enjoying support from progressive reformers, populist conservatives, and good-government moderates alike. The controversy won’t subside until either a strong law is passed or, alternatively, Congress convincingly self-polices (which so far it has not). Given the trajectory, most observers expect some reform to eventually be enacted, if only because lawmakers up for reelection feel the heat from constituents on this topic.
In conclusion, the public sentiment as captured in the X posts is one of impatience and moral clarity – people see congressional stock trading as wrong, full stop. That perception matches the reality that current laws have failed to prevent even the appearance of self-dealing. While not every allegation is proven, the overall distrust is well-earned by years of permissive rules and examples of dubious trades. The ongoing debate and proposed legislation like the TRUST in Congress Act and the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act are attempts to bridge the gap between public expectation and Congressional practice. If and when such a ban is implemented, it would mark a significant step in ethics reform – one that the public has been loudly demanding and that would finally ensure lawmakers “live by the same rules” they impose on others, restoring a measure of integrity to Congress’s reputation.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) is a first-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives who has quickly risen to prominence for her bold political voice. Elected in 2022 to Texas’s 30th District (succeeding a 30-year incumbent), Crockett has embraced an unapologetically progressive agenda and a combative style of rhetoric. On social media and in congressional hearings, she regularly calls out Republican leaders and former President Donald Trump, champions civil rights and social programs, and isn’t afraid of viral moments. Below is a broad political profile of Rep. Crockett, examining the key issues she raises, the factual basis of her claims, her ideological alignment, her role in current U.S. politics, and the notable moments and controversies that have shaped her public image.
Key Issues and Policy Concerns
Crockett’s Twitter feed and public statements reveal a focus on several core issues that define her priorities in Congress:
Defending Democracy and Rule of Law: A recurring theme is her alarm over threats to democratic institutions. She has spotlighted reports of Donald Trump’s ethical violations, such as Trump’s businesses receiving at least $5.5 million from Chinese government entities while he was president, and she criticizes Republican colleagues like Rep. James Comer for “blocking probes” into Trump’s foreign dealings. Crockett is also outspoken about the January 6 insurrection and its aftermath – for example, she joined calls for Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases related to Jan. 6 due to alleged bias. Perhaps most prominently, she has sounded the alarm on “Project 2025,” a conservative blueprint for the next administration, calling it a roadmap to authoritarianism. Over a series of tweets, she warned that Project 2025 would dismantle checks and balances in service of Trump, echoing analysts who say the plan aims to consolidate executive power and impose an extreme agenda. Protecting democratic norms and accountability is central to her platform.
Social Justice and Civil Rights: As a Black woman and former civil rights attorney, Crockett emphasizes racial justice, voting rights, and equality. She has commemorated civil rights milestones (e.g. the Montgomery Bus Boycott and figures like Harvey Milk and Matthew Shepard) and participates in the Congressional Equality Caucus to advance LGBTQ+ rights. Crockett is a supporter of reproductive rights, voicing support for IVF and condemning abortion bans that have coincided with rising infant mortality rates. She backed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act in the Texas legislature and continues to advocate for voting access. In Congress, she co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, aligning with the movement for police accountability (she tweeted a personal “statement on the police murder of Sonya Massey,” a reference to a police brutality case). Overall, Crockett positions herself as a champion of marginalized communities’ rights and a fierce opponent of racism and discrimination.
Economic Fairness and Social Safety Nets: Crockett frequently defends government programs that support working families. She has been sharply critical of Republican proposals to slash nutrition assistance – for instance, she blasted a House GOP Farm Bill draft that would cut roughly $30 billion from SNAP (food stamps), the largest such cut in decades. Citing the fact that Texas already has the second-highest food insecurity rate in the nation, she argues these cuts would “leave millions of Americans hungry” and calls them “pointlessly cruel.” Crockett also advocates expanding workers’ rights, applauding a (now-overturned) Biden administration rule that would have extended overtime pay to millions. In addition, she supports measures like the Social Security Fairness Act to ensure teachers and public servants can retire with full benefits. Her messaging consistently frames economic issues as a contrast between Democrats “fighting for families” and Republicans favoring the wealthy – she has accused the GOP of “selling out our veterans to billionaires” and points to decisions by figures like Elon Musk (in his role cutting the federal workforce) as harming veterans and workers.
Healthcare and Community Investment: In her district (Dallas), Crockett highlights healthcare initiatives and federal funding she’s helped secure. For example, she announced over $50 million for HIV/AIDS prevention in TX-30 and celebrated grants for local infrastructure. Nationally, she aligns with her party’s efforts to lower prescription drug costs and protect Medicare; conversely, she warns that Trump’s agenda would roll back those achievements and raise drug prices. She also engages on public health issues like maternal health (note her support for Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day) and reiterates that everyone deserves access to build their families, invoking her support for fertility services and reproductive healthcare. These positions place her solidly in the progressive camp prioritizing accessible healthcare and community well-being.
Climate Change and Environmental Protection: While less central than some other issues, Crockett has weighed in on climate and energy policy. She criticized Trump-era moves to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and promote fossil fuel drilling – warning that restoring oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (per Trump’s plans) would destroy a pristine environment and harm indigenous sites. She uses Texas-specific contexts too, such as urging readiness during extreme weather and castigating state leadership over power grid failures (ERCOT issues during winter freezes). In general, she sides with the Biden administration’s climate actions and frames Trump’s proposals (like canceling EV incentives or “destroy Alaska” drilling orders) as dangerous steps backward. Environmental justice – ensuring communities (often minority or low-income) aren’t disproportionately hurt by climate disasters or pollution – also overlaps with her civil rights focus.
It’s clear from these focal points that Rep. Crockett consistently advances a progressive policy agenda. Whether it’s economic justice, social equity, or defending democratic institutions, her public communications center on pushing back against conservative policies and uplifting causes championed by the left wing of the Democratic Party. Next, we examine how accurate her bold claims are and how her rhetoric holds up against fact-checking.
Rhetoric and Accuracy of Her Claims
Crockett’s style is fiery and unfiltered – she often delivers biting soundbites or tweets that draw attention. Importantly, many of her assertions are grounded in verifiable facts or widely shared Democratic viewpoints, even as the tone is partisan. Several examples illustrate the accuracy behind her rhetoric:
Trump’s Foreign Profits: In questioning House Oversight Chairman James Comer’s reluctance to investigate Donald Trump, Crockett claimed Trump “pocketed at least $5.5 million from the Chinese government while he was President.” This claim is backed by evidence. A 2024 House Oversight Committee report (released by Democrats) documented that Trump’s businesses received roughly $5.6 million from entities controlled by the Chinese government during his term – by far the largest chunk of about $7.8 million in foreign government payments to Trump’s properties. This included millions spent at Trump’s hotels in D.C. and New York by Chinese state-linked companies. By citing this, Crockett highlighted a real conflict-of-interest concern, undercutting GOP suggestions that Trump had no financial entanglements. Her implication that Comer is applying a double standard (probing Biden but not Trump) aligns with the factual record of Trump’s foreign earnings.
Budget Cuts and Social Programs: Crockett’s warnings about Republican budget proposals are similarly grounded in data. When she tweeted that Republicans sought to cut $30 billion from SNAP (the food assistance program), it reflected the actual House Agriculture Committee draft in 2023. That partisan Farm Bill draft, led by GOP Rep. Glenn Thompson, indeed proposed to reduce SNAP benefits by roughly $30 billion over 10 years, primarily by changing how benefit levels are calculated. Analysts noted this would be the largest cut to food stamps in decades and likely increase hunger. Crockett accurately translated that complex policy change into a stark outcome (“millions…hungry”) and her outrage matches that of many experts and Democrats who called the cut a nonstarter. Likewise, she cheered expanded overtime pay for workers and noted the judge who blocked it was a Trump appointee – a factual statement, as a Trump-appointed federal judge did strike down the Biden administration’s overtime rule in 2023. In general, her economic claims (from pointing out Texas’s high food insecurity rate to criticizing Trump-era tariffs for raising consumer prices) tend to check out or reflect consensus views.
“Project 2025” and Authoritarianism: Crockett uses especially strong language to characterize the right-wing agenda for a potential second Trump term. She describes Project 2025 – a policy blueprint put forth by the Heritage Foundation and allies – as “a plan to overthrow our democracy in service of one man” and an “extremist roadmap to authoritarianism”. While those are her words, independent observers have similarly raised red flags about Project 2025. The plan openly calls for sweeping expansions of presidential power, purging of career civil servants, and curtailing of independent agencies in a way that would “dismantle America’s system of checks and balances”. Think tanks like the ACLU and Center for American Progress have published analyses arguing the plan mirrors authoritarian tactics seen in other countries. Thus, Crockett’s alarmist framing, though partisan, is backed by the content of the proposals. Her tweets even cited specific proposed actions (e.g. eliminating diversity programs, mass deportations, gutting climate policies) which indeed appear in the Project 2025 manifesto. In this case, her rhetoric serves to bring attention to real policy stakes, albeit in stark, hyperbolic terms.
Challenging Opponents’ Conduct: Crockett does not hesitate to call out what she sees as misconduct or hypocrisy from Republican officials, sometimes in blunt terms. In a House Judiciary hearing, she lambasted the GOP’s Biden impeachment inquiry as baseless, holding up photos of classified documents strewn in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago bathroom and quipping, “These are our national secrets, looks like in the sh*tter to me,” which highlighted the contrast between Trump’s document mishandling and the lack of evidence against President Biden. That clip went viral, and notably, the substance of her point was accurate: Trump was found to have retained boxes of classified files in a bathroom and other insecure locations at Mar-a-Lago, as documented in his federal indictment (photos of which Crockett literally held up). In another instance, she tweeted that House GOP hearings on alleged “FBI corruption” were themselves a sham, accusing Republican colleagues of bullying and intimidation instead of pursuing truth. Such statements reflect her view (shared by other Democrats) that certain committee investigations under the GOP majority are political stunts. While these are opinions, they are rooted in the observable fact that those hearings have revealed little new evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden and often feature combative exchanges. Crockett’s tendency to accuse rivals of bad faith reached a peak when she flatly stated on Twitter that certain officials in a hypothetical Trump cabinet (naming a “CIA Director,” “ODNI Director Gabbard,” etc.) were “lying through their teeth under oath”. This dramatic assertion was part of her Project 2025 scenario and not an actual event; it shows how far she’s willing to go rhetorically, even envisioning future officials committing perjury. Though hypothetical, it underscores her broader narrative that a Trump-aligned government would be lawless – a claim that, while speculative, is a cornerstone of her rhetoric.
Overall, Crockett’s factual claims tend to be accurate or at least supported by credible reports, even if delivered with partisan flair. She often provides “receipts” (evidence) in the form of news links or statistics in her tweets (e.g. citing data on infant mortality or quoting court rulings). However, her tone is confrontational and she doesn’t shy from impugning opponents’ motives. This has occasionally led to highly charged exchanges, such as one with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that became a mini-controversy of its own. When Greene sniped about Crockett’s “fake eyelashes” during a committee meeting, Crockett fired back and later told CNN that Greene’s behavior was “absolutely” intended to demean her as a Black woman. She labeled Greene “racist” without hesitation. While Republicans bristled at that accusation, Crockett framed it as calling out a dog-whistle insult for what it was. The episode illustrates how her rhetorical style – candid and combative – can escalate tensions but also solidify her image as a no-nonsense defender of herself and her values. In short, Crockett’s words are usually grounded in truth, but she employs them as weapons in the political fray, consistent with her identity as a progressive firebrand.
Ideological Alignment and Faction
Rep. Crockett’s positions place her firmly on the progressive end of the Democratic Party spectrum. She is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and her agenda aligns with that faction’s priorities: expanding social programs, protecting voting and abortion rights, addressing inequality, and checking corporate or authoritarian power. As a Black woman from a safely Democratic district, Crockett is also part of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and she often amplifies issues at the intersection of racial justice and economic justice. For instance, she highlights how policies like SNAP cuts or voting restrictions would hurt minority communities, and she invokes civil rights history in her speeches. This dual membership (CBC and Progressive Caucus) situates her among the progressive lawmakers of color who carry forward the legacies of both Barbara Jordan (a famous Black Texan congresswoman) and the modern “Squad.”
That said, Crockett has her own style and is not simply a token member of any clique. She has embraced the “progressive” label, but with a Texas twist – often using humor, regional colloquialisms, and a blunt directness that resonates with her constituents. During her 2022 campaign and early tenure, she was endorsed by prominent progressive organizations (the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC backed her run) and by her predecessor Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, indicating establishment acceptance of her liberal platform. Crockett’s rhetoric and voting record align with the left flank of the party: she supports Medicare expansion, student debt relief, and robust climate action, and she vocally opposed hard-right initiatives like national abortion bans or cuts to Medicaid.
In ideological terms, Crockett can be described as a progressive populist Democrat. She routinely pits “the people” against entrenched interests or “billionaires” in her talking points, echoing a populist tone. For example, she tweeted that Republicans “hate big government right until you need the check,” castigating red-state leaders who rail against federal spending but welcome funds in their districts. Such critiques of hypocrisy are common in progressive populist rhetoric. At the same time, she works within the Democratic Party structure rather than as a rogue outsider. Unlike some far-left figures, Crockett has shown willingness to partner with moderates or even Republicans on specific issues (as evidenced by her co-sponsorship of a bipartisan bill with a Republican, discussed below). This suggests she is a pragmatic progressive – ideologically aligned with the left, but focused on tangible results.
Crockett’s alignment is also evident in the company she keeps in Congress. She often cites or teams up with well-known progressives: joining Rep. Pramila Jayapal (head of the Progressive Caucus) to demand child care funding, appearing with the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin in Oversight hearings (Raskin, a progressive leader, is a mentor-like figure as the Oversight Committee’s top Democrat). However, Crockett has expressed that she doesn’t want to be pigeonholed purely as a social media “Squad” member; she told one interviewer that while she’s progressive, she aims to build a broad coalition and focus on her district’s needs rather than just chasing headlines. In practice, though, her high-profile clashes with Republicans have naturally drawn comparisons to the Squad’s style. Like them, she’s a younger Democrat (in her early 40s) who is very media-savvy and isn’t afraid to challenge party elders or the opposition.
In summary, Crockett’s ideology is solidly liberal/progressive. She is aligned with the Democratic Party’s left flank on virtually all policy matters, from economic justice to foreign policy (she supports aid to Ukraine and international human rights, consistent with mainstream Democrats, and criticizes isolationist or authoritarian-appeasing stances). Her brand of progressivism is combative and populist, and she represents a generational shift in Texas Democratic politics – from her district’s long-time representation by a more senior, traditional Democrat to this new era of bold progressivism. This ideological stance has informed her approach to congressional service and shaped her role in current U.S. politics.
Role and Influence in Current U.S. Politics
Despite being a freshman (first-term) lawmaker, Jasmine Crockett has attained a remarkable level of visibility and influence in a short time. Her influence comes less from formal power and more from strategic platforming – high-profile committee assignments, media exposure, and social media reach – all of which she has leveraged effectively. Key aspects of her role include:
Committee Assignments and Legislative Activity: Upon entering Congress in January 2023, Crockett was assigned to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, a prominent forum for investigative hearings. This was a coveted spot for a newcomer and put her on the front lines of partisan battles over Biden administration oversight and Trump’s legacy. She quickly made a mark there (as described, her questioning in impeachment inquiry hearings went viral). By 2024, Democratic leadership further elevated her: Crockett was appointed to the House Judiciary Committee as well, another high-profile committee dealing with legal and constitutional issues. In 2025 (her second year), she was named the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight – meaning she is the top Democrat on that subpanel – and also the Vice Ranking Member of the full Oversight Committee (essentially the second-highest Democrat after the Ranking Member, Rep. Raskin). These roles are significant; they indicate party leaders trust her to be a leading voice countering Republican narratives in committee. Legislatively, Crockett has begun to make her mark as well. Notably, she co-authored the Grant Transparency Act of 2023 with Republican Rep. Russell Fry, which President Biden signed into law in December 2024. This bipartisan law aims to make federal grants more accessible and transparent – a practical achievement that addresses constituent concerns about navigating federal funding. Securing a passed law as a freshman is no small feat, and it showcased her ability to work across the aisle when interests align. In addition, she has co-sponsored numerous Democratic bills on issues like voting rights, policing reform, and social services, positioning herself as an active legislator, not just a gadfly.
Within the Democratic Caucus: Crockett’s high profile has made her something of a rising star in the party, though she’s still navigating internal dynamics. In late 2024, she even ran for a minor leadership position – chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC) – challenging Rep. Debbie Dingell, a much more senior colleague. This bid was ambitious and ultimately unsuccessful (Dingell was favored by leadership and won). Colleagues reportedly respect Crockett’s communication skills but felt she hadn’t built up enough tenure or relationships for the post. The attempt, however, signals her aspirations to influence party messaging. Indeed, communication is where Crockett shines: she has become a go-to Democrat for television appearances and sharp one-liners against the GOP. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries included her among the cadre of members frequently defending the party on cable news. With the Democrats in the minority (as of the 118th Congress, 2023–24), her role has been that of a vocal defender of the Biden administration and a critic of the Republican majority, rather than a bill-passer on the governing side. In that capacity, she holds significant influence as a messenger. Her large social media following (nearly 250,000 followers on X/Twitter by early 2024, one of the biggest among Texas representatives) and her knack for generating viral content give her outsize sway in shaping the narrative. Younger and progressive voters see her as an emerging voice for their values, and party leadership benefits from her ability to energize the base and draw attention to Democratic talking points.
Media Visibility: Few freshmen lawmakers manage to become “cable news mainstays,” but Crockett has done just that. She is a regular guest on MSNBC programs and has appeared on national broadcasts such as ABC’s This Week and even late-night shows (she was invited on Jimmy Kimmel Live to discuss the state of Congress and Texas politics). Her media appearances often feature her quick wit and candid assessments of political events, which has made for good television. For example, during the tumultuous process of electing a new House Speaker in fall 2023, Crockett live-tweeted and gave colorful commentary (at one point tweeting “Welcome to preschool… I mean our prestigious Congress (darn autocorrect)” to lampoon the chaos). Such commentary endeared her to many following the drama. MSNBC’s Ali Velshi and Lawrence O’Donnell have hosted her to give the Democratic rebuttal to Republican claims, effectively positioning her as a “Democratic firebrand” on TV. This media presence amplifies her influence beyond what a lone freshman’s vote would normally entail. It’s worth noting that her background as a lawyer and former public defender likely contributes to her poise in debates and on camera – she can articulately deconstruct arguments (as she did in committee hearings) in a way that plays well on television.
Public and Party Influence: Within her party, Crockett is seen as both an asset and, to some moderates, a potential lightning rod. Progressives laud her for forcefully pushing back on Republican narratives at a time when Democrats are in the minority. Her viral moments have often served to rally the Democratic base – for instance, her fiery speech during the Biden impeachment hearing not only garnered social media virality but also prompted praise from figures like actor Mark Hamill, who shared the clip saying “Omg is an understatement!”. This kind of crossover pop-culture approval boosts her profile. She has also become somewhat of a folk hero in liberal circles for standing up to controversial Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene. The Congressional Black Caucus has embraced her as well; when Crockett tangled with Greene, the CBC’s official account echoed Crockett’s sentiments, condemning Greene and effectively backing the freshman’s stance. On the other hand, Republicans have seized on Crockett’s prominence to paint her as a face of what they call the “radical left.” GOP operatives and conservative media occasionally single her out, likely in hopes of making her well-known positions seem like liabilities for Democrats. So far, Democratic leadership doesn’t appear fazed by this – Jeffries and others continue to give her a platform, indicating that they see more benefit than harm in her outspoken style. In Texas politics, she’s also becoming a key Democratic voice. With a state party often beleaguered by a dominant GOP, Crockett’s national profile gives Texas Democrats a boost. She has forged alliances with fellow Texas Democrats in Congress (like Rep. Colin Allred and Rep. Greg Casar, another progressive freshman) and has been active in state party events. Looking ahead, her influence is likely to grow if Democrats retake the House or if she pursues higher office down the line. For now, she’s a high-impact minority-party member whose rhetorical punches land on national headlines.
In terms of public following, Crockett’s savvy use of social media and relatable communication style have built a significant audience. She often tweets in an engaging, conversational tone, using emojis and pop culture references, which helps her connect with constituents and followers outside Texas. During the Speaker Kevin McCarthy ouster and subsequent Speaker election saga, for example, her running commentary read like live sports commentary – making complex parliamentary maneuvers accessible (and entertaining) to the public. This skill at “translating” Congressional chaos into plain, punchy language has bolstered her profile as a next-generation communicator in the party. It is a form of influence that is hard to measure in traditional terms but is very much recognized in modern politics.
Notable Moments and Controversies
In her short tenure, Rep. Crockett has been involved in several viral moments and a few controversies that have shaped her public profile – earning her both praise and criticism:
Viral Committee Confrontations: The most defining moments for Crockett have come from congressional hearings. One widely circulated clip (mentioned earlier) showed her scolding GOP colleagues during the first impeachment inquiry hearing against President Biden on September 28, 2023. In that hearing, Crockett forcefully noted the irony that Republicans were ignoring Trump’s egregious mishandling of classified files while pursuing thin accusations against Biden. Holding up blow-up photos of documents piled in a bathroom next to a toilet, she memorably remarked, “It looks like our national secrets got stored in the sh*tter,” sending the room into astonished silence before Democrats chuckled. The candid rebuke went viral online, amassing millions of views on TikTok and X. It even drew supportive shout-outs – Mark Hamill’s tweet, liberal talk shows highlighting it – instantly elevating Crockett’s fame. Another viral confrontation came in a House Oversight hearing in May 2024 between Crockett and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Greene made a snide remark about Crockett’s appearance (“she’s got those fake eyelashes”), and Crockett did not let it slide. She retorted with an acidic quip of her own about Greene’s appearance, and the two had to be gaveled down. The next day, reporters swarmed Crockett; she doubled down, stating “She is racist… I have no doubt” in reference to Greene. This exchange, too, spread widely on social media and cable news, exemplifying the raw personal animosity between the two camps in Congress. While some criticized the spat as unbecoming, many Democrats rallied to Crockett’s side for standing up to Greene’s provocation. These moments solidified Crockett’s reputation as someone unafraid to speak her mind and “clap back” even in nationally televised settings.
Floor Speeches and Media Soundbites: Crockett has had notable moments outside of hearings as well. During House floor debates, she’s delivered impassioned speeches – for instance, during the vote to expel Rep. George Santos for ethics violations, she wryly anticipated a “cat fight” and commented on the spectacle, injecting humor. In media interviews, she’s produced memorable lines: on ABC’s This Week, she once called former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (who has echoed Russian propaganda) a “national security threat,” causing a stir. She has referred to the MAGA wing’s actions as those of “insurrectionists” and praised Vice President Kamala Harris for presiding over the Senate certification of 2020 electors by saying Harris “did her job… this is what a patriot looks like,” implicitly contrasting Harris with those who tried to overturn the election. Each of these comments courted attention. Not all went over without pushback – calling a onetime colleague (Gabbard) a security threat, for example, is strong language – but they reinforced her image as a truth-teller in the eyes of supporters.
“Governor Hot Wheels” Gaffe: The most significant controversy Crockett has faced so far came from a deliberate joke that many found offensive. In March 2025, while speaking at an LGBTQ rights event in Los Angeles, Crockett mocked Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s disability. Referring to Abbott, who has used a wheelchair since an accident in 1984, she quipped: “Y’all know we got Gov. Hot Wheels down there… And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey.” The comment drew immediate backlash. Republicans (and even some Democrats privately) condemned the remark as ableist and inappropriate. Texas’s Republican Attorney General called her “despicable,” and Sen. John Cornyn labeled it “shameful”. Within days, a Texas GOP congressman moved to introduce a censure resolution against Crockett in the U.S. House for the insult. The episode was a public relations stumble for Crockett. It handed her opponents ammunition to claim she exemplifies the “unhinged left,” and right-wing outlets amplified the story. Crockett’s defenders noted that Abbott himself often shows little empathy for vulnerable Texans (for example, his policies on healthcare and disability services), trying to contextualize the frustration behind the joke. Nonetheless, Crockett’s “Hot Wheels” jab was broadly criticized as crossing a line of decency, and she faced pressure to apologize. (As of that incident, she expressed regret that her words caused offense, though she also shifted focus back to Abbott’s “harmful policies.”) This controversy illustrated a potential pitfall of Crockett’s blunt approach – a sarcastic aside meant to rile up a friendly crowd ended up causing a distraction and personal controversy that could detract from her message. It stands as a reminder that while her boldness wins applause in many circles, it can also backfire if it comes off as mean-spirited.
Other Noteworthy Engagements: Crockett has been involved in various other notable actions, though on a smaller scale. She took part in the Texas legislative quorum break of 2021 (fleeing to D.C. to block a restrictive voting law) as a state representative, which first put her on the radar as a voting rights advocate. In Congress, she and fellow CBC members made news by hosting Kenyan President William Ruto for a Capitol visit after Speaker Mike Johnson did not extend the usual invitation for Ruto to address Congress – a diplomatic gesture showing Crockett’s willingness to step up on the international stage and work through caucus channels to show respect to African leaders. She has also engaged constituents through creative means, like launching a podcast and sharing personal touches (she once posted a cooking recipe video when discussing reproductive rights with a colleague, blending the personal and political). These engagements haven’t been controversial per se, but they round out her profile as a modern politician who uses every platform – formal and informal – to connect and advocate.
Through these episodes, Rep. Jasmine Crockett has crafted an image as a fearless, if occasionally brash, progressive fighter. Her viral moments in committee helped establish her credibility among Democrats as someone who can go toe-to-toe with Republican firebrands. Conversely, incidents like the Abbott quip have given her critics material to question her maturity or respect. It’s a balance many outspoken politicians navigate, and so far Crockett has largely capitalized on the attention to increase her influence. Within barely two years in Washington, she went from a freshman backbencher to a national name discussed on cable news – a testament to how effectively she has leveraged key moments.
Conclusion
In summary, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s political profile is defined by her progressive policy focus, factual yet fiery rhetoric, alignment with the left wing of the Democratic Party, growing influence, and headline-grabbing style. She consistently advocates for issues like voting rights, reproductive freedom, economic equity, and accountability for abuses of power. Most of her bold claims stand up to scrutiny, even if couched in partisan punchlines. Ideologically, she is a proud progressive and CBC member, part of a cohort pushing the Democratic Party to be more aggressive in confronting the GOP.
As a freshman in a minority party, her formal power is limited – but she has made the most of her committee roles and communication skills to become an important Democratic voice on oversight and justice issues. Her ability to connect with audiences (both on social media and TV) has given her an outsized profile, and Democratic leadership has rewarded her with positions that indicate trust in her leadership potential. At the same time, her unabashed approach courts controversy, as seen in confrontations with Republican colleagues and the ill-considered “Hot Wheels” remark about Gov. Abbott. These incidents show that her passion can sometimes overflow into personal attacks that detract from her message.
Nevertheless, Jasmine Crockett’s early tenure suggests she is on a trajectory to be a significant player in U.S. politics. In an era where sharp contrasts are drawn and viral moments can shape public perception, she has demonstrated a knack for both. Supporters view her as a breath of fresh air – an authentic, relentless advocate unafraid to call out injustice – while detractors cast her as a provocateur. Either way, at just over a year into her congressional service, Rep. Crockett has made herself known well beyond her Dallas district. She continues to leverage her platform to “speak truth to power,” as she sees it, ensuring that her viewpoints (and by extension those of the progressive base) are part of the national conversation. How she balances attention-getting tactics with coalition-building and legislative substance will determine her long-term impact, but it’s clear that Jasmine Crockett has arrived on the political scene with a bold entrance and is poised to be a noteworthy figure in the Democratic Party moving forward.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process of law to all “persons” within the United States, not only to citizens. The Fifth Amendment (binding the federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (binding the states) both use the term “person,” which courts have long interpreted to include citizens and non-citizens alike. In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly affirmed that “aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Similarly, once a non-citizen is physically on U.S. soil (even if unlawfully), “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens” regardless of legal status. In short, non-citizens inside the U.S. have a constitutional right to due process of law.
In practical terms, due process for non-citizens means that immigration enforcement and deportation decisions must follow fair procedures. The Supreme Court has stated that “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
This entails at minimum the right to a fair hearing before an impartial adjudicator, the right to present evidence, and the right to challenge the government’s evidence before being expelled from the country. Most individuals facing removal are entitled to a proceeding in immigration court where a judge decides if the law permits their deportation or grants relief. As the International Rescue Committee notes, due process requires just and fair treatment of everyone, regardless of status, whenever life, liberty, or property is at stake – including the opportunity to defend their rights in court. In the immigration context, this typically means having a chance to go before a judge to contest removal; indeed, “non-citizens facing deportation have a right to due process, which usually includes a hearing before a judge.”
However, how these rights play out can be complex, and immigration proceedings do not always mirror the full procedural protections of criminal trials. Immigration law is civil, not criminal, so certain rights (like government-appointed counsel) do not automatically apply. Non-citizens have the right to legal counsel in deportation proceedings, but at their own expense, as courts have not recognized a right to free appointed counsel in immigration cases. This lack of appointed counsel is significant because immigration law is complex and many immigrants speak limited English; one study found that having a lawyer makes an immigrant five times more likely to win the case than an unrepresented person. Additionally, immigration courts allow evidence that would be excluded in criminal courts (such as hearsay),and many immigrants in detention proceed without representation, raising concerns about the robustness of their due process protections.
There are also statutory shortcuts in the immigration system that limit due process, such as expedited removal. Under laws first enacted in 1996, certain undocumented immigrants who are caught near the border or who recently entered can be deported quickly without seeing a judge. In expedited removal, a single immigration officer can order removal unless the person expresses an intent to seek asylum or fear of persecution. As a safeguard, asylum seekers subjected to expedited removal must be given a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer and an opportunity for review by an immigration judge if they fail the screening. But beyond that limited process, there is no routine court hearing for others in expedited removal. This procedure has been criticized for its minimal process. Even so, the government defends it as legal, arguing (as a White House spokesperson did) that “just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process.” In essence, the legal baseline is that all non-citizens on U.S. soil have due process rights, but Congress and the executive have some leeway in structuring immigration procedures, as long as basic fairness is maintained. When truncated processes like expedited removal are used, they are often challenged as denying “full” due process, especially if they result in erroneous removals.
It’s important to note that even undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers have constitutional protections – although those who have never entered U.S. territory (for example, people stopped at airports or outside the border) are accorded more limited rights. Courts have drawn a distinction between non-citizens who have effected an entry into the U.S. (even if unlawfully) and those who are held at the border or in transit. Non-citizens “within the United States” are protected by due process, but someone seeking initial entry may only have whatever procedural rights Congress provides by statute. In recent cases, the Supreme Court has upheld some limits on court review of expedited removal for recent entrants, indicating that Congress can deny full judicial review in that narrow context (as in the 2020 case DHS v. Thuraissigiam, which found that an asylum seeker who was caught right after crossing had no constitutional right to a full habeas corpus hearing on his asylum claim). Nevertheless, once individuals are inside the country and living under U.S. jurisdiction, they are entitled to fundamental due process protections in any proceeding that could deprive them of liberty.
In summary, U.S. law recognizes that non-citizens have due process rights. Undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers have the right to fair proceedings and cannot be arbitrarily detained or deported without some legal process. The exact procedures can differ from criminal trials, and expedited methods exist, but the Constitution’s guarantee that no “person” shall be deprived of liberty without due process applies to all individuals on American soil.
As the ACLU of Kentucky emphasizes, the fundamental protections of due process and equal protection are “not limited to citizens,” and the Framers understood the importance of shielding non-citizens from governmental abuse.
Documented Instances of Denial of Due Process in Immigration
Despite these legal protections on paper, there have been numerous instances where individuals were detained, deported, or otherwise denied legal protections without full due process. These examples highlight how deviations from due process can lead to serious injustices:
Wrongful Deportation of U.S. Citizens: Perhaps the most stark examples are cases of American citizens being mistakenly detained or deported by immigration authorities. By law, U.S. citizens should never be subject to deportation, yet immigration enforcement errors have occurred. For instance, Mark Lyttle, a North Carolina-born U.S. citizen with mental disabilities, was wrongfully detained by ICE and deported to Mexico in 2008 despite “ample evidence” of his U.S. citizenship. Lyttle spoke no Spanish and had no ties to Mexico, but because of his disability and a breakdown in procedures, he was coerced into signing a statement conceding to being Mexican and was removed without access to a lawyer. He spent months wandering homeless in Central America until a U.S. embassy official helped him return; it took a lawsuit for this grievous mistake to be acknowledged. Tragically, Lyttle’s case is not isolated. A 2021 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that ICE may have unlawfully deported as many as 70 U.S. citizens from 2015 to 2020. In that period, ICE agents “arrested 674 potential U.S. citizens, detained 121, and deported 70” of them before the errors were discovered. These mistakes occurred in part due to inadequate procedures and database errors, and they underscore that when due process is rushed or absent, even citizens can be swept up and permanently expelled. Such cases vividly illustrate the claim that denying due process to some endangers everyone – if a U.S. citizen can be deported without a fair hearing, anyone’s rights can be called into question.
Mass Deportations Without Hearings (Expulsions under Wartime Pretexts): In extraordinary situations, authorities have bypassed normal legal processes entirely. A recent example took place in March 2025, when the administration of President Trump (following his reelection) orchestrated a mass expulsion of nearly 300 immigrants to a foreign prison without standard legal proceedings. Under the pretext of invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act – a rarely used wartime law – officials rounded up Venezuelan and Salvadoran nationals in the U.S., accused them of gang affiliations without court adjudications, and put them on planes to El Salvador. Over **130 of the Venezuelans had pending immigration court cases and had never been ordered removed by a judge, yet they were suddenly deported en masse. None of these individuals were given any opportunity to challenge their removal in court or plead their case – according to reports, they “were not told what was happening nor given any opportunity to raise objections in a court of law” before being sent away. They effectively had zero due process. Once in El Salvador, they were imprisoned in harsh conditions, and as of the report their fate remained unknown. This incident, now under legal challenge, demonstrates how easily normal legal safeguards can be cast aside. It is a dramatic illustration of due process being denied wholesale to a group, and civil liberties groups argue it was an “unprecedented and unlawful” abuse of power. The fact that a law used to justify World War II internments was repurposed to deport people in peacetime, without hearings, underscores the dangers of loosening due process constraints.
Detention Without Hearings or Access to Attorneys: There have also been patterns of immigrants being held in prolonged detention without adequate procedural safeguards. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, for example, hundreds of non-citizens (mostly Muslim or Middle Eastern men) were arrested and detained for months without charges or proper hearings under a sweeping dragnet, ostensibly for minor immigration violations while authorities investigated them for terrorism ties. Many of those individuals were cleared of any wrongdoing but only after enduring lengthy detention with limited access to counsel and secret hearings, a process the Department of Justice’s own Inspector General later criticized as violating basic due process. Another systemic issue is the lack of appointed counsel: studies in immigration detention centers (for instance, in California) have found that the majority of detainees go through deportation proceedings without legal representation, which advocates say results in people being deported without a meaningful chance to present a defense. Especially vulnerable populations – such as asylum seekers, children, or people with mental disabilities – may be effectively denied due process if they cannot understand the legal proceedings. In fact, the ACLU has filed class action suits on behalf of detained immigrants with mental disabilities who were unable to represent themselves; in one such case, a federal judge noted that holding these individuals without providing counsel was tantamount to denying them due process, leading to court-ordered reforms. These instances show that even when the law formally affords due process, in practice people can be denied meaningful due process through lack of information, lack of legal help, or rushed and inaccessible proceedings.
Historical Examples – Japanese American Internment: History provides a sobering example in the World War II internment of Japanese Americans. In 1942, about 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast – the majority of them U.S. citizens – were forcibly removed from their homes and incarcerated in camps without trial or individual review. This mass deprivation of liberty was done by executive order and upheld by the Supreme Court at the time (Korematsu v. United States, 1944), even though those affected were not accorded any hearings or due process to contest their loyalty. Decades later, this policy is widely recognized as a grave injustice and a denial of constitutional rights. It stands as a cautionary tale of how easily the rights of a minority group can be suspended, and how courts and the public may later regret such actions. The Korematsu case was formally repudiated by the Supreme Court in 2018, but its legacy fuels vigilance against repeating similar due process violations. Justice Robert Jackson’s famous dissent in Korematsu warned that approving such a racial exclusion “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need”. In other words, once a precedent is set that a certain group can be stripped of due process, that power can be used again in the future against others.
Each of these examples reinforces the idea that when legal protections are shortcut or ignored for some people, mistakes and abuses occur. Innocent people (including citizens) have been caught up in enforcement due to inadequate process, and disfavored groups have been targeted for harsh measures outside the normal judicial system. These real-life cases illustrate the concrete meaning of denying due process – prolonged detentions without hearing, deportations without a day in court, and entire groups being deprived of liberty based on blanket executive fiat. They also set the stage for why many jurists and advocates insist that upholding due process for non-citizens is essential to safeguarding everyone’s rights.
Warnings about Eroding Due Process for Some Groups
Legal experts, judges, and civil liberties organizations have frequently warned that if due process protections are eroded for one group, it creates a dangerous precedent that can erode the rights of all. This idea – that the denial of due process to anyone threatens everyone – is supported by historical experience and legal reasoning. A number of authoritative voices have articulated this warning:
Civil Liberties Organizations: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long emphasized that protecting the rights of “the most unpopular groups” is necessary if we want to preserve those rights for society as a whole. In a historical reflection, the ACLU noted its famous defense of a Nazi group’s free speech in the 1970s, explaining it as a commitment to the principle that constitutional rights must apply even to those we despise, otherwise those rights won’t endure for anyone. This principle applies equally to due process: the ACLU of Kentucky, for example, states plainly that “[w]hen the government has the power to deny legal rights and due process to one vulnerable group, everyone’s rights are at risk.” Non-citizens are often a vulnerable or politically unpopular group, and the ACLU warns that if we permit government agencies to bypass the Constitution in dealing with immigrants, that “power to deny legal rights” can expand to affect citizens as well. In advocacy against certain immigration policies, civil rights groups argue that measures like indefinite detention without trial, expedited removal without hearing, or suspension of habeas corpus for certain categories can quickly metastasize. Today it might be “terror suspects” or “illegal immigrants,” but tomorrow it could be protesters, dissidents, or other marginalized citizens labeled as threats.
Jurists and Judges: Members of the judiciary have also cautioned against creating carve-outs to due process. A vivid example is Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu (1944), mentioned above, where he warned that legitimizing the denial of rights based on ancestry would become a “loaded weapon” for future authorities to use in other contexts. His prediction proved prescient; although Korematsu was specific to wartime internment, its underlying logic (deference to executive claims of security over individual rights) could have been used to justify other mass deprivations. More recently, in the context of the War on Terror, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) (a case about a U.S. citizen detained as an “enemy combatant”) that a state of war is not a “blank check” for the President when it comes to the rights of citizens. This sentiment pushed back on the idea that certain individuals could be denied basic due process (like a fair hearing to contest their detention) even in the name of national security. Lower court judges have similarly sounded alarms. For instance, when the Supreme Court in 2020 (DHS v. Thuraissigiam) upheld limits on judicial review for an asylum seeker’s expedited removal, the dissenting justices argued that the decision undermined a cornerstone principle that even those on the margins are entitled to petition courts for relief. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent lamented that the ruling risked “leaving [individuals] without recourse to any judicial forum” and cautioned against “handing the keys to the Liberty Kingdom” entirely over to the political branches for certain groups – a scenario that could erode liberty for all in the long run (paraphrasing her argument).
Legal Scholars and Commentators: Constitutional scholars often emphasize the slippery slope that comes with carving out exceptions to due process. The rule of law, they argue, functions only if it applies evenly. As one commentator put it, due process isn’t just about protecting the accused individual – it also gives the public confidence that the government can’t arbitrarily detain or punish someone. If we begin cheering the denial of due process for people we dislike (say, undocumented immigrants or those accused of terrorism), we set a precedent that weakens the universal shield of the law. This perspective is summed up by the maxim that “the Constitution isn’t a privilege for citizens only.” Indeed, Charles Kuck, a past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, remarked in response to attempts to strip immigration detainees of legal protections: “When a government begins to argue that due process and basic constitutional protections do NOT apply to a portion of the population living in the United States, … it could easily be extended to another portion of the populace.” In other words, once we accept that some people on U.S. soil have no right to a fair hearing or other constitutional safeguards, we open the door to the government applying the same logic to others. This warning was issued when certain 2000s-era policies attempted to deny effective counsel to immigrants; legal experts saw it as a harbinger of broader erosions if not corrected.
National Security Context: After 9/11, many experts warned that policies like the PATRIOT Act and detentions in Guantánamo Bay would set dangerous precedents. For example, when the government claimed the power to hold even U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without charges, scholars noted that this was a radical departure from due process. Organizations ranging from the ACLU to the Cato Institute cautioned that sacrificing due process in the name of security would normalize government overreach. The ACLU’s history highlights its opposition to “the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without charge or trial”, arguing that such practices “expand the government’s power to … imprison people without due process” and thus threaten fundamental freedoms. The underlying concern is that once the public accepts that certain people can be locked up with no trial (whether they are non-citizens abroad or even citizens deemed enemies), the basic restraint on government power – the requirement of due process – is weakened for everyone. This concern materialized in debates over the NDAA of 2012, where a provision was criticized for potentially allowing military detention of American citizens on U.S. soil without trial if accused of terrorism. A bipartisan array of civil libertarians sounded alarms that such authority, once in law, could be misused in the future against political dissidents or others, far from the original context of Al Qaeda.
In sum, there is a broad consensus among civil liberties advocates and many jurists that eroding due process for any group of people sets a precedent that endangers all people’s rights. Today’s denial of due process to immigrants at the border, or to detainees at Guantánamo, can become tomorrow’s justification for denying due process to citizens in some domestic context. This is why court rulings often take the long view: for instance, when the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) granted Guantánamo detainees (non-citizens) the right to file habeas corpus petitions, it was not out of sympathy for enemy fighters but out of recognition that denying judicial review entirely would gut a fundamental check on executive power. Justice Kennedy wrote that the laws and Constitution are designed to endure and protect liberty in both good and bad times; hence the judiciary must ensure that fundamental rights like habeas (and by extension due process) are not arbitrarily suspended for a subset of individuals. The common thread in these warnings is clear: a government that can dispense with due process for some can eventually dispense with it for anyone, unless firmly restrained by the Constitution and courts.
Constitutional and Legal Arguments for Universal Due Process
The claim that “due process must apply universally to protect everyone” is grounded in bedrock constitutional principles and has been supported by numerous legal arguments. Key points supporting this claim include:
Text of the Constitution: Both the Fifth Amendment (“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) and the Fourteenth Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”) explicitly extend due process protections to “persons” – not just to “citizens.” The choice of wording was intentional. The framers of the post-Civil War amendments, in particular, ensured that basic rights would cover every person within U.S. jurisdiction. This universality in text is a strong argument that due process is a general guarantee: the law must treat anyone subject to a deprivation fairly, whether or not they are a citizen. The Equal Protection Clause likewise protects any “person” within a state’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Constitution’s language itself supports the notion that due process is an inalienable right for all under U.S. authority, forming a bulwark against arbitrary government action. Denying due process to a subset of people would contradict this inclusive language and violate the principle of equality under the law.
Supreme Court Precedent: As discussed, the Supreme Court over many decades has consistently affirmed that non-citizens are protected by due process. Cases from the 19th century to today (e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896), Knauff (1950) in part, Plyler v. Doe (1982), Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)) have built a doctrinal foundation that the government cannot simply label someone an “alien” and strip away all legal rights. Even when upholding restrictive immigration laws, the Court has often inserted cautionary notes that “the Fifth Amendment protects every [alien] within the U.S. from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law” (as Justice Scalia wrote in Reno v. Flores). Furthermore, when some justices have suggested limits (for instance, that unlawfully present immigrants might have lesser rights), the controlling opinions have reinforced that basic procedural fairness is required. The judiciary’s role in enforcing due process for non-citizens has also been justified as critical for maintaining the rule of law: if the courts do not ensure a baseline of fair procedure for non-citizens, they would effectively be sanctioning unchecked executive or legislative power, which the Constitution’s separation of powers is designed to prevent.
Universal Application as a Check on Government Abuse: A core rationale for universal due process is that it checks government overreach and abuse of power. Due process is essentially about the how of government action – it demands notice, a chance to be heard, and an impartial decision-maker before the government can punish or detain an individual. If the government can exempt certain people from these requirements, it concentrates power in its own hands to target those people arbitrarily. Today it might be non-citizens, tomorrow some other group. Due process exists to protect everyone from abuse of power. As an ACLU legal director stated in response to recent uses of the Alien Enemies Act, “No president is above the law. Due process exists to protect everyone from abuse of power.” This captures the idea that due process is a safeguard of liberty for all: even if you personally are not an immigrant or a suspect today, you rely on the constitutional guarantee that if you ever were accused or targeted, the law would require fair procedures. Selective denial of due process undermines that guarantee. It effectively places some government actions outside of judicial scrutiny, which is contrary to American constitutional design. The founders were wary of unchecked governmental authority – that is why rights like due process, jury trial, habeas corpus, etc., were enshrined. Those rights were meant to apply to anyone facing the wrath of the state, lest the government create classes of people who have no legal protections.
Precedent and Slippery Slope Arguments: Legally, once a precedent is set that due process can be suspended for one category, it can be cited and expanded. Courts and scholars argue for a principled, not piecemeal, approach to constitutional rights. As one immigration judge turned attorney described immigration courts handling of deportation cases as “death penalty cases in a traffic court setting,” highlighting the high stakes and limited protections involved. This disparity has led many to call for stronger due process in that realm precisely because the consequences (deportation, which can be life-altering or life-threatening) are so severe. The universal application of due process is seen as a moral and legal imperative: the justice system should not create a second-class procedure for certain people. If it does, it risks normalizing lower standards. For example, military tribunals for non-citizen terror suspects were initially justified as exceptions; now some politicians have floated using similar approaches for U.S. citizens labeled as gang members or drug kingpins. Each time due process is watered down for a group, it becomes easier to apply the same to others. Constitutional lawyers often invoke the famous quote (attributed to various sources) that “the Constitution is made for times when passions are high, as much as for calm times,” meaning we must enforce rights even when it’s hardest (e.g., when fear or anger at a group is strong). Otherwise, temporary exceptions tend to become permanent powers.
Equal Justice and the Rule of Law: Another argument is rooted in the ideals of equal justice and the rule of law. The rule of law means the government must govern through known, consistent rules, not arbitrary decisions. If due process is denied to some people due to who they are rather than what they did, that starts to resemble arbitrary rule. It also violates basic fairness that like cases be handled alike. The universal application of due process is a statement that the law’s protections are for all who stand before it, preventing the government from hand-picking who must follow rules and who does not. In constitutional theory, rights like due process are sometimes called “structural” or “systemic” protections – they maintain the integrity of the legal system itself. If we allow exceptions, we undermine the credibility of our justice system. This is why even very unsympathetic defendants (terrorists, heinous criminals, etc.) are given fair trials in the U.S.; it’s as much about upholding our legal principles as it is about them. As Justice Hugo Black once suggested, the Constitution’s safeguards “are not watered down” for some individuals because of their status; doing so would betray the values the nation strives to uphold.
In conclusion, the claim that denying due process to anyone opens the door to denying it to everyone is supported by robust constitutional text, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and the considered warnings of judges and advocates. Non-citizens in the U.S. undeniably possess due process rights, and when those rights have been ignored or abridged, it has led to serious injustices that often proved the wisdom of the principle. History and contemporary events furnish painful examples of people who suffered because procedures were shortcut – from U.S. citizens exiled in error, to asylum seekers summarily expelled, to minority communities interned or surveilled without cause. Each of these deviations from due process has prompted backlash and lessons that such power cannot be unchecked. The universal application of due process is ultimately a protection for all members of society: it keeps the government accountable and ensures that no matter who you are – citizen or not, popular or marginalized – you cannot be deprived of freedom except through a fair and established process of law. As one immigration attorney aptly put it, “Due process for immigrants is due process for all Americans”. The Constitution’s promise is most secure when it is extended to the least powerful; by upholding due process for each person, we affirm the safeguard for ourselves.
Seeking Truth 