In late January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14188, titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, aiming to address what the administration described as a rise in anti-Jewish harassment on U.S. college campuses. The order directs federal agencies — including the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Education — to develop and implement tools to “combat anti-Semitism” and to review civil rights complaints and potential enforcement actions related to campus incidents following the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023. It also builds on prior directives from the administration’s early months in office to expand how federal law addresses alleged ideological threats.

A central and controversial aspect of the order is its potential use of immigration law to target noncitizen students whose campus activities are considered disqualifying under U.S. immigration standards. The fact sheet accompanying the order made clear that the government would cancel visas of “Hamas sympathizers” and deport resident aliens identified as joining protests or activities classified as supportive of terrorism. The order invites federal agencies to encourage universities to monitor and report activities by foreign students that might violate immigration law, including participation in demonstrations.

According to U.S. officials, the policy has already led to visa revocations for hundreds of international students nationwide. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reported that at least 300 foreign student visas have been revoked as part of these enforcement efforts, including cases where students were involved in or associated with protests or activism. High-profile incidents, such as the detention of a Turkish doctoral student and visa cancellations without clear explanations, have intensified debate over how broadly the policy is being applied.

The executive order’s enforcement has had a chilling effect on campus activism. Many international students report fear of expressing political views — including peaceful protest participation, petition signing, or social media engagement — because they believe it could jeopardize their visas. Some students have withdrawn from organizations, stopped attending rallies, or altered research topics out of concern about immigration consequences. Critics argue this response shows how the policy is deterring speech and participation beyond the specific context of alleged harassment.

Civil rights organizations, legal advocates, and academic groups have strongly criticized the order. The American Civil Liberties Union and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee have condemned the policy as an infringement on First Amendment free-speech rights and an unconstitutional effort to suppress dissent by equating political expression with hostility or terrorism. They argue that conflating criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism threatens academic freedom, undermines open discourse, and subjects protected speech to punitive immigration consequences. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging aspects of the order, with courts set to examine whether deportations or visa revocations for political expression violate constitutional protections.

The order has also sparked international and institutional concern about the United States’ commitment to free expression. Universities face legal and ethical challenges as they balance compliance with federal directives against protecting student rights. Some institutions and administrators have raised alarms that the order undermines the educational mission of fostering debate and inquiry. Meanwhile, proponents of the policy argue it is necessary to deter intolerance and protect Jewish students from harassment, asserting that immigration enforcement tools are justified in addressing threats to campus safety. The broader debate now centers on how to uphold democratic values — including free speech and due process — while combating discrimination, and whether using immigration policy to regulate political activism sets a troubling precedent for future governance.