The way the Left is handling Mahmoud Khalil’s case—framing it as a legal and human rights issue— completely misses the broader media narrative going on. For Trump’s team, Khalil has been ideal candidate to monopolize media coverage across the political spectrum. His name, his status as a Green Card holder, his affiliation with Columbia University—the birthplace of the modern anti-genocide movement—all amplify the administration’s message: “We’re not targeting American citizens, just those who pose a threat.”
The left’s response is built around three arguments that, in this context, are largely irrelevant. Consider the media narratives emerging in these headlines: “Can Trump Legally Deport Mahmoud Khalil? What About Free Speech?”; “Absolutely Unacceptable and Illegal: Lawmakers Demand Release of Mahmoud Khalil from ICE Jail.”
While these legal and ethical questions are important, they are easily dismissed by those seeking to justify the detention and they do nothing to counter the discriminatory propaganda machine that the admonstration has unleashed. Arguments about free speech, human rights, and legality, while sound, are often countered with points of fact, historical precedents, and assertions of national security. I could, for instance, dismiss all three in under a minute:
Free Speech: Mahmoud exercised free speech and led protests. But as we all know, free speech comes with consequences.
Human Rights: Mahmoud has a lawyer handling his case.
Legality: The U.S. has a long history of detaining individuals without due process. Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII. People have been held in Guantánamo Bay for decades without trial. The legality argument is nothing new.
A New Strategy
Instead of engaging in legal and moral debates that fail to capture mainstream attention, let’s play the media game as it should be played. Here’s a proposal, for instance:
Offer Trump’s team a deal: release Mahmoud, and we’ll pause our campaign against Tesla for a month. Refuse to release him, and we’ll double down: protest in front of Tesla stores, encourage Tesla workers to strike, push Congress to block funding to Musk-affiliated companies, and pressure international governments—like Poland—to reject Starlink contracts.
This is the kind of spectacle the media thrives on. It reflects the spirit embodied by ActUp in the 80s — bold, disruptive, and impossible to ignore.
At the same time, we must reframe Mahmoud Khalil not as a victim, but as an American hero—standing up for justice like many before him. The struggles of women for the right to vote, the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., the activism of Native leaders like Dennis Banks and Russell Means— these movements challenged the status quo, demanded a more just society, and shaped America. By doing so, they made it possible for the U.S. to claim the moral authority to preach democracy and human rights abroad.
As has been demonstrated, the current political landscape is heavily influenced by media spectacle.As I wrote in a previous article, “Trump is the figure who successfully merged reality TV with politics. With decades of experience in broadcasting and media, he understands that what is ‘real’ is what happens live, in front of cameras. Nothing else truly exists outside of that space.”
Mahmoud Khalil’s case is not just a legal battle—it’s a media battle. And it must be fought live, on camera, in a way that educates and mobilizes the public.
