Trump visa policy ‘far more restrained’ than Biden policy targeting Israelis that flew under the radar: expert

Visa Policies and Political Bias: A Tale of Two Administrations

The debate over visa policies and their implications on political freedoms has reached a fever pitch in the United States, with accusations flying between the Trump and Biden administrations. Legal experts, including Eugene Kontorovich, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, have weighed in on the matter, pointing out what they describe as a double standard in how each administration has approached visa restrictions. While the Biden administration rolled out a policy targeting Israelis in 2023 with little resistance, the Trump administration’s recent efforts to revoke visas and green cards of pro-Hamas students and activists have been met with fierce backlash from Democrats and liberal activists. Kontorovich argues that Trump’s actions are not only within legal bounds but also more restrained compared to Biden’s policies, which he claims were politically motivated and vaguely worded.

The Biden Administration’s 2023 Visa Restriction Policy

In December 2023, just months after the outbreak of war in Israel on October 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced a new visa restriction policy targeting individuals believed to have undermined peace, security, or stability in the West Bank. The policy included restrictions on immediate family members of such individuals, citing actions such as violence or undue restrictions on civilians’ access to essential services. Kontorovich criticized the language of the announcement as vague, arguing that it allowed the Biden administration to punish individuals who simply disagreed with its policies on a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He noted that opposing the two-state solution is not a criminal offense and that Hamas, a designated foreign terror organization, is a separate and far more serious matter.

The Trump Administration’s Visa Revocation Policy

The Trump administration, on the other hand, is currently working to revoke visas and green cards belonging to pro-Hamas students and activists in the U.S. who participated in anti-Israel protests and riots on college campuses during the last school year. Democrats have accused Trump of attacking the First Amendment rights of individuals who protested Israel, but legal experts argue that the case is not about free speech but about national security and immigration laws. Kontorovich explained that Trump’s actions are far more restrained than Biden’s policies, as they specifically target individuals with ties to a designated terrorist organization, Hamas, rather than those who simply hold opposing political views.

The Case of Mahmoud Khalil: A Flashpoint in the Debate

The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Hamas protest organizer, has become a flashpoint in the debate over visa policies and political bias. Khalil, a green card holder born in Syria in 1995, was detained by ICE agents in March 2024 for his alleged ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. While liberal lawmakers and activists have condemned his detention as an attack on free speech, the Trump administration and legal experts argue that the case is about national security and immigration violations. Kontorovich noted that the Trump administration likely chose to take on Khalil’s case first because it is the most challenging, as revoking permanent residence (green card) requires a higher standard of evidence than revoking a visa.

The Political Motivations Behind the Silence

Kontorovich also pointed out that Democrats and activist groups were largely silent when the Biden administration introduced its visa restriction policy in 2023, targeting Israelis. He described the policy as a “Jew ban,” drawing parallels to the “Muslim ban” label for Trump’s earlier travel ban policies. Kontorovich argued that the silence was due to the Biden administration’s broader anti-Israel actions, which were seen as less priorities for rebuke. However, Democrats are now “going to bat” for Khalil, a pro-Hamas activist, which Kontorovich described as manufactured outrage. He emphasized that Trump’s actions are not unprecedented but are instead more restrained compared to previous administrations’ politicized visa policies.

The Legal and Political Implications

The legal and political implications of these visa policies are far-reaching. While presidents have broad authority to deny entry to foreign nationals, the language and intent behind these policies have sparked intense debate. Kontorovich argued that Biden’s policy was a clear example of using the visa system to punish political enemies, while Trump’s actions, though controversial, are more narrowly focused on individuals with ties to a designated terrorist organization. The case of Mahmoud Khalil has brought these issues to the forefront, highlighting the tension between national security, immigration laws, and political freedoms. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how these policies will shape the future of U.S. visa laws and the balance between security and civil liberties.