A senior State Department official testified on Friday that his office, tasked by the Trump administration with vetting foreign students' social media posts and revoking student visas, has operated without a clear definition of "antisemitism" this year. The official indicated that criticism of Israel is routinely considered in their assessments.
This testimony was part of a two-week trial focused on the Trump administration's efforts to deport students, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk. The academic groups behind the lawsuit argue that the government systematically targeted students based on their comments regarding Israel.
During a tense exchange in Federal District Court in Boston, John Armstrong, a senior official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, acknowledged that the State Department often considers speech perceived as hostile toward Israel in its decisions.
When asked for examples of statements that might influence visa decisions, Mr. Armstrong mentioned calls to limit military aid to Israel and denouncing Zionism as potential factors. He confirmed that criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza could be considered, depending on the nature of the statement.
Mr. Armstrong admitted that the State Department lacks a concrete definition of "antisemitism," stating, "I cannot remember a concrete piece of guidance." He emphasized that his office considers "the totality of the situation" when making recommendations to the Secretary of State.
Judge William G. Young, presiding over the trial, sought clarity on how Mr. Armstrong determines whether statements or actions are antisemitic. Mr. Armstrong defined antisemitism as unjustified views or actions against Jewish people or Israel arising from hatred.
While he did not claim that his office sought to deport noncitizens solely for criticizing Israel, he acknowledged that such commentary is regularly factored into their evaluations. He also noted that antisemitism includes prejudice against Israel and Israeli people.
The focus on antisemitism in higher education originated from a Trump executive order in January, which directed federal agencies to report activities by foreign students and staff that could be considered antisemitic or supportive of terrorism, potentially leading to investigations and deportations.
At times during the testimony, Mr. Armstrong expressed frustration with the cross-examination, emphasizing the seriousness of the issues at hand. He warned that missteps could have severe consequences, referencing past terrorist incidents.
Mr. Armstrong's testimony supported claims made by the American Association of University Professors, which argues that the arrests of students like Mr. Khalil and Ms. Ozturk are indicative of a broader policy. In court, Judge Young expressed his view that the comments discussed do not constitute support for Hamas and are likely protected speech under the First Amendment.
He stated, "Criticism of the state of Israel... does not constitute pro-Hamas support," asserting that such criticism is a form of political speech.