The Dispatch Podcast

Episode: Deporting People We Don’t Like
Date: March 14, 2025
Panel: Sarah Isgur, Steve Hayes, David French, Mike Warren
Note: Ads, intro/outro, and non-content sections omitted.

Episode Overview

This episode tackles two main topics:

1. The controversy surrounding the arrest and potential deportation of Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, focusing on free speech, immigration law, and the politics of deporting "people we don't like."
2. The Trump administration’s tariff threats and trade wars, examining the economic, political, and international consequences.

They wrap up with a spirited debate about the legal and cultural ramifications of viral videos that shame everyday people, touching on privacy, technology, and public standards of behavior.

Main Segment: Deporting People for Speech?

[01:25] The Mahmoud Khalil Case and Free Speech

• Sarah Isgur introduces the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia student arrested by federal immigration officials, potentially for his speech and activism tied to anti-Israel campus protests. The White House justified action by saying the U.S. “is not going to tolerate individuals... siding with pro-terrorist organizations.” FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) decried his detention as a violation of the First Amendment.

[02:47] Rubio Sets a Hardline Tone

• Sen. Marco Rubio: “If you tell us when you apply for your visa, and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, anti-Semitic activities, I intend to shut down your universities... we would deny your visa... If you actually end up doing that once you're in this country... we will revoke it.” (02:47)

[03:44] FIRE’s Stance and Historical Precedent

• Sarah Isgur commends FIRE for being consistent—even defending “speech we all hate.”
• David French recalls the Sami Al-Arian case: “I'm not taking this position because anything about him is morally defensible... [But] the First Amendment protects the right... of persons [in the U.S.], not just citizens.” (04:12)
  • Khalil’s notice cited “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” as grounds for removal, which French describes as “essentially standardless… absurd.” (05:34)

[07:10] Defining Material Support vs. Speech

• Steve Hayes asks what a legitimate case for deportation would look like.
  • French distinguishes speech from material support for terrorism: “You would really need to be getting into... the actual material support element as opposed to... just speaking and saying gross things.” (07:20)

[07:46] Immigration Law's Complexity

• Isgur clarifies:
  1. Khalil entered on a student visa, now holds a green card, not citizenship.
  2. The law distinguishes between arrest for speech (a violation) and using immigration enforcement (where the government claims broader authority).
  3. Statute language (“endorsing terrorism”) can straddle the line between speech and support, but the facts about Khalil’s actions remain unclear.

[10:08] The Actual Statute Used

• Further muddying the waters, the administration cited a different statute: allowing deportation for “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” There’s no public evidence Khalil broke the law or gave material support to terrorists.

[11:40] Policy and Political Dilemmas

• Isgur: Most Americans dislike Khalil and would prefer he be deported. But, she asks, “Should we as conservatives and as Western liberals... stand athwart saying, don't do this, this is bad policy—forget the law?”
  • Mike Warren: “The principle that you and David have been talking about… is rarely popular... Everything that's happened since they knocked on his door and arrested the guy has been... pretextual, post hoc.” (12:19)

[13:57] Political Optics and Partisan Games

• Isgur: Trump’s talent is “getting [Democrats] to take Mahmoud Khalil as their hero. Genius politically." (13:57)
  • Warren: “There are actual grownups in the Democratic Party… But Republicans and Trump... they're in the driver's seat on this politically because it's gonna be popular and it's not gonna be popular to say the truth.” (14:23)

[15:15] Comparing to Other Speech Cases

• Isgur analogizes to “Skokie Nazi” case, where U.S. protected deeply unpopular speech—but says immigration context is different. “You don’t have a right to come to the U.S.,” unlike citizens’ speech rights.

[17:11] Post Hoc Justification Problem

• Hayes: The real issue is the rationale is being constructed after Khalil’s admittance: “They're attempting to undo something they already did.” (17:11)

[18:06] Hypotheticals and Precedent

• French: “Could the Obama administration in 2015 have deported [National Review’s] Charlie Cook for excoriating Obama foreign policy?”
  • Isgur: “Legally, I think you might [have a basis]. Policy-wise, it seems like a really bad idea.” (19:07)

[19:41] Is This Policy Effective?

• Isgur: Will deportations deter pro-Hamas or anti-Israel activism on campus?
  • Hayes: “No, I don't think so.” (19:41)

[20:29] Was Khalil Actually Supporting Terrorism?

• Hayes/French:
  • Statute uses vague standard (“compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest”). Some argue that protests in the US embolden Hamas by giving them hope for concessions.
  • French: Unless Khalil’s acts provably caused foreign policy damage or included illegality, these are just unpopular opinions.

[23:12] What Has Khalil Actually Said or Done?

• A dossier by Canary Mission doesn’t show direct Hamas support—mostly shows Khalil as a leader in anti-Israel protests, not giving material support to terrorism.

[25:00] Broader Trend: Ready, Fire, Aim

• Warren: There’s a pattern in the “Trump 2” administration—act first, invent justification after. “It’s no way to run an administration or a country.” (25:16)

[26:18] Setting Troubling Precedents

• Hayes: Even if you buy the argument, “if you look at this in the context of what else the administration is doing on speech ... it’s of a piece with all of these other things ... to try to shut up opposition...” (26:18)

Segment Two: Trump’s Tariffs, Trade Wars, and Republican Politics

[29:51] Economic Consequences and Motivation

• Isgur reports: Trump’s tariff threats are hurting markets.
  • Warren: “The tariffs will continue until morale improves ... Donald Trump likes tariffs. He says, ‘I like tariffs. I love tariffs. They're great.’” (30:38)

[32:55] Will Republicans Push Back?

• Hayes: Republican leaders aren’t likely to stand up to Trump, even if they know tariffs are bad policy.
  • “He's never going to get to the point where he says, okay, now that we reached a level playing field, we've succeeded. And I think that's what makes this dangerous.” (34:42)

[36:27] The Echo Chamber Problem

• Hayes notes conservative media is largely ignoring, downplaying, or rationalizing the economic pain caused. As long as Trump receives only amplification, not pushback, from right-leaning media and Republicans, he’s unlikely to relent.

[39:17] If Real Reform is Needed, Why Not Entitlements?

• Isgur: “If we were going to redo the American economy and it's going to take a little bit of pain... why the hell aren't we doing entitlement reform?” (39:17)

[41:17] International Fallout: Damaging Alliances

• French: Allies now know: “America is one election away” from upending the entire postwar foreign policy consensus. This has generational consequences, making allies seek ways to protect themselves from U.S. political volatility.

  • “Generational damage. And here's why. Because what has happened is that our allies now know that America is one election away from... demolish[ing] that, all of that, all of that functionally.” (41:17)

• French admires Charles de Gaulle’s push for French independence in the 1960s, saying in retrospect, “de Gaulle was right. A great nation should not be dependent on another nation for its national security.” (43:59)

[46:00] Trump’s Expansionist Rhetoric and Media Caution

• Hayes: It’s hard for journalists to gauge how seriously to take Trump’s remarks (e.g., Canada as the 51st state): “It's only funny until it's not.” (46:26)

Not Worth Your Time: Recording (and Shaming) Strangers in Public

[49:48] Viral Outrage: The Window Seat Viral Video

• Isgur describes a viral incident where a passenger refused to give up her window seat to a child and was filmed, generating huge public vitriol and eventually admiration (“marketplace of ideas worked”). But such videos are easily edited, often context-free, and can ruin lives.

[52:54] Legal and Cultural Solutions?

• Hayes: No to legal restrictions, gross behavior by the filmer. Context is often lacking—see Covington Catholic case.

• French: Also opposes legal limits, noting their unenforceability—and identifies a deeper cultural issue: “We have all of this, this anger and emotion about personal circumstances of people ... that are none of our business.” (55:34)

[61:02] The Celebrity Analogy (Mike Warren)

• Cites Scarlett Johansson’s refusal to take photos in private, showing the psychological cost of constant attention. “Our worst moments or ... best moments [can be] seen by millions... too much attention... the TMZ effect—it’s bad for everybody." (61:02)

Notable Quotes & Time Stamps

• David French [04:12]: “The First Amendment protects the right… of persons… This is a long-standing doctrine… It's also the case for a very long time that we don't inhibit or restrict free speech on the basis of very vague laws that give a lot of discretion to government officials.”
• Mike Warren [12:19]: “The principle that you and David have been talking about... is rarely popular. That is what is unfortunate: the slapdash way the administration approached this."
• Sarah Isgur [13:57]: "[Trump's] genius. Getting [Democrats] to take Mahmoud Khalil as their hero."
• Steve Hayes [34:42]: “He's never going to get to the point where he says, okay, now that we reached a level playing field, we've succeeded. And I think that's what makes this dangerous.”
• David French [41:17]: “Generational damage. Because what has happened is that our allies now know that America is one election away from... demolish[ing] that, all of that… in this election is that America could elect a person who will demolish that, all of that.”
• Mike Warren [61:02]: “Too much attention, too many cameras in the faces, the TMZ effect. It’s bad for everybody.”

Conclusion

• The episode’s key theme is the enduring tension between protecting unpopular (even odious) speech and the urge to use government power—especially immigration law—to remove those expressing it. The panel broadly agrees that such power is ripe for abuse and bad policy, though not always legally prohibited.
• On trade wars and tariffs, the hosts are unanimously critical: the policies are economically illiterate, politically opportunistic, and risk long-term international harm. The unwillingness of party leaders or conservative media to challenge the president compounds the issue.
• As for viral video shaming, the consensus is cultural, not legal, reform is the solution—emphasizing empathy, patience, and refusing to judge based on out-of-context clips.

The Dispatch podcast brings a cautious but principled perspective: defending free speech even when it’s deeply unpopular, worrying about the precedents set by impulsive policies and shrinking party dissent, and urging listeners to resist quick judgment in the age of viral outrage.