College students have long served as the moral compass of American society, frequently at the forefront of protests challenging government policies and actions. Many participate in demonstrations with the expectation that their civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and assembly, are constitutionally protected.
However, not all students attending U.S. colleges and universities are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States. Many are international students in the United States on F-1 or J-1 nonimmigrant visas, including at prestigious Ivy League institutions that we’ve been reading about in the news of late. These students deserve the same fundamental rights and protections as their U.S. citizen peers. Yet, recent immigration enforcement actions under the Trump Administration have raised
concerns about whether international students truly enjoy those rights, especially when engaging in political activism.
What’s Happening?
We know that political perspectives on immigration continually evolve, from administration to administration, and recent enforcement efforts under Trump 2.0 have emphasized stricter adherence to immigration law, including removal of individuals deemed to have violated their visa terms or who (purportedly) posed national security risks. Over the past several months, there has been a marked increase in arrests and removals, some involving international students participating in high-profile
campus protests.
In one such case, federal authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, without a judicial warrant, prompting alarm among immigration advocates and legal observers about the potential for overreach.
Executive Order 14188 and Its Broader Reach
On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14188, titled Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism. While the order publicly aims to address antisemitism on college campuses, it includes directives that go beyond that scope. It instructs federal agencies to educate colleges and universities on grounds of inadmissibility under Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), which includes security-related grounds.
More concerning to some, the order emphasizes closer monitoring of foreign nationals, including students and faculty, at U.S. institutions of higher learning. These measures, coupled with public statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have led to a new enforcement focus: visa revocation for individuals who express support for groups such as Hamas. Secretary Rubio announced that such individuals would have their visas revoked, highlighting the executive branch's wide latitude in visa-
related matters.
Visa Revocation: Legal Mechanics and Expanding Use
The Department of State (“DOS”), under INA § 221(i), has broad discretionary authority to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time. This can occur even without a criminal conviction, often based on derogatory information like an arrest or intelligence reports. DOS can revoke a visa even if the individual is physically present in the United States.
However, there are some procedural guardrails. Under federal regulations, consular officers at embassies and consulates overseas are generally prohibited from revoking a visa if the individual is already in the U.S., except in DUI-related cases. In such situations, revocation authority lies with the DOS’s Visa Office of Screening, Analysis, and Coordination (“CA/VO/SAC”) at DOS’s headquarters. This office may act based on derogatory information received from other federal agencies, including intelligence or law enforcement sources.
In practice, pursuant to federal regulations, the DOS can execute what is called a “prudential revocation”, which means a visa may be revoked when an ineligibility is suspected, even without definitive proof. Once a visa is revoked, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) can initiate removal proceedings under INA §237(a)(1)(B) (i.e., being present in violation of law). In some rare cases, the government may invoke INA §237(a)(4)(C)(i) (i.e., deportability based on the Secretary of State’s belief that a person’s presence could have serious foreign policy consequences). While this latter provision has been used sparingly, it underscores the wide latitude available to the executive branch, especially in politically sensitive or high-profile cases.
What This Means for International Students
The growing intersection between immigration enforcement and campus activism places international students in a vulnerable position. While students may expect First Amendment protections, those on visas must also consider the discretionary power the federal government holds over their immigration status. A single protest, arrest, or public statement, regardless of whether it leads to a conviction, could trigger scrutiny or even revocation of a visa.
In this climate, international students should be vigilant. Monitoring changes to immigration policy and seeking legal counsel when faced with potential enforcement actions is essential. Proactive planning can help protect against abrupt visa revocation or removal proceedings.
Final Thoughts
While the United States has long welcomed international students and benefited from their contributions, the current political and legal environment is chaotic and poses new challenges. Activist students on visas now face the delicate task of balancing civic engagement with immigration compliance. Understanding the legal landscape, and knowing your rights, is more critical than ever.