Courage, as they say, is not the absence of fear but the judgment that something else is more important than fear. The question before us now is whether that principle applies equally to those who would silence the speech of others.
A federal judge in New York has thrown a wrench into the Trump administration’s efforts to remove a foreign national whose organization has made a business of pressuring American technology companies to censor conservative voices. Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued a temporary restraining order on Christmas Day preventing the deportation of Imran Ahmed, the British citizen who heads the Centre for Countering Digital Hate.
The timing alone raises eyebrows. Ahmed, a former adviser to Britain’s Labour Party and current Green Card holder residing in the United States, was among five European citizens sanctioned by the State Department this week. The charges against them are serious and straightforward: conducting organized campaigns to pressure American platforms into censoring, demonetizing, and suppressing viewpoints with which they disagree.
The facts of the case deserve careful examination. Ahmed’s organization, founded with involvement from Morgan McSweeney, who now serves as chief of staff to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has targeted conservative news outlets for years. Internal documents from the group revealed a stated mission to eliminate what they called threats to their vision of acceptable discourse, including explicit goals to undermine social media platforms that refused to comply with their censorship demands.
Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers made the administration’s position crystal clear when announcing the visa bans. Those who dedicate their careers to suppressing American speech, she declared, are not welcome on American soil. It is a position that resonates with fundamental questions about sovereignty and the First Amendment.
Yet here we have a federal judge blocking the deportation of a foreign national, not a citizen, who stands accused of precisely such activities. Ahmed’s legal team argued that his removal would be both unlawful and unconstitutional, claiming ironically that deportation would infringe upon freedom of speech. The argument requires considerable mental gymnastics. A foreign citizen on a Green Card asserting that his deportation for allegedly suppressing others’ speech somehow violates principles of free expression tests the boundaries of logical coherence.
Judge Broderick’s order restrains Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Under Secretary Rogers from detaining Ahmed while the legal proceedings continue.
The broader implications extend beyond one individual. This case strikes at the heart of whether foreign nationals can coordinate campaigns to restrict the speech rights of American citizens while claiming protection under the very freedoms they seek to curtail. It raises questions about the power of the executive branch to enforce immigration law when national interests and constitutional principles intersect.
Ahmed was the only one of the five sanctioned individuals actually residing in the United States when the deportation orders were issued. The others remain in Europe, their visa bans preventing future entry.
As this legal battle unfolds, Americans would do well to remember that freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences, particularly for those who are guests in this country. The courts will ultimately decide whether the administration acted within its authority, but the fundamental question remains: Should those who actively work to silence American voices enjoy the privilege of living among us?
Related: Minnesota Senate Candidate Wears Hijab During Market Visit as Fraud Scandal Engulfs State
