The U.S. State Department revoked the green card of Kuwaiti lawful permanent resident Tareq Alkhudari after officials say a trail of social media posts and public writings showed repeated hatred for America, praise for terrorists, and calls for violence, leading to his detention and imminent deportation.
The case centers on a man who arrived on a student visa in 2014 and later gained permanent resident status in November 2024, only to have that status terminated by the Secretary of State after federal review. Republican leaders and State Department officials argue that living here is a privilege and that foreign nationals who openly call for violence or praise terror do not deserve protection or residency in the United States. The files assembled include posts on newer platforms and opinion pieces abroad that national security officials say paint a clear picture of intent and hostility.
The reporting that surfaced the evidence credited several investigative pieces and social posts compiled into a dossier used by immigration authorities. That compilation includes statements calling the U.S. “the enemy,” and public support for the group behind the October 7, 2023 terror assault. These items were considered so serious that they prompted prompt federal action once citizenship status was confirmed and legal avenues to remove him were available.
https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/2074876141744116222
WASHINGTON — A Kuwaiti man who obtained a green card in the U.S. is being sent home after he called America “the enemy” and expressed support for terrorists.
Tareq Alkhudari entered the country on a non-immigrant student visa in 2014 to attend San Jose State University, a source familiar with the situation said. He gained lawful permanent resident status in November 2024, but is now in federal custody pending removal from the United States after Secretary of State Marco Rubio terminated his legal status.
Investigators say Alkhudari used platforms that still reach broad audiences, and that he did not limit his rhetoric to private messages. Public posts and op-eds in foreign outlets amplified his views and drew the attention of U.S. officials. For those running immigration policy under Republican leadership, the response was swift: revoke privileges for anyone who endorses terror or urges violence against American leaders and civilians.
One prominent thread of posts shared by a reporter shows repeated attacks on American values and people, with explicit references to systemic violence and exploitation. The tone of some entries is confrontational and unapologetic, which policymakers cite as a threat to public safety and social cohesion. Officials argue this is not about silencing dissent but about upholding the condition that residency comes with a baseline of non-hostility.
Some of the public messages also targeted specific demographics and leaders, characterizing the United States as engaged in “planned genocides, colonization, and exploitation” while denouncing those who participate in mainstream politics. These passages drew alarm from authorities who saw a pattern of radicalization rather than academic debate. When posts move from critique into calls for or praise of violent acts, deportation becomes a legitimate and enforceable outcome under immigration law.
Alkhudari also expressed an intense hatred of Americans, even those who agreed with his political causes.
“You satiate your desperations from theatrical representations with more American consumerism, as the country continues its planned genocides, colonization, and exploitation of Black, Brown, and indigenous bodies,” he wrote in a post on Bluesky.
Authorities highlighted a separate post that endorsed Hamas’s October 7 operation by name and suggested a conspiratorial view of Western supporters of Palestinians. Praising or celebrating mass-casualty terror is a red line for U.S. immigration policy, especially when the praise is public and persistent. Republican officials framed the case as an example of enforcing rules that protect American lives and allies.
In another post he speaks positively of the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” the code name given by Hamas for their bloody terror attack, rapes and murders on October 7, 2023.
The post questions whether Western supporters of Palestinians are genuine and whether their support is “consequential and coincidental, or has it been prepared for this inevitable time?”
Additional posts included graphic expressions of rage toward world leaders and violent fantasies that officials found particularly disturbing. One post linked to a news item and contained a wish for the deaths of President Trump and an allied head of state, language that agencies flagged when deciding on revocation. That content, in the view of immigration authorities, crosses from protected expression into statements that warrant removal.
Here is the exact wording authorities cited from a post in which the subject referenced both U.S. and Israeli leaders, showing the kind of explicit violent imagery that influenced the decision. Republican leaders used the language as further justification that residence must be contingent on basic respect for the host nation and its leaders. The administration emphasized there would be no tolerance for foreign nationals who openly call for or celebrate violence.
As he lamented reports of a deal between Iran and the United States, Alkhudari posted a photo of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, saying: “Hope whatever the other carries is contagious and they both perish from a comet striking them just before they take their final breaths suffocating on white phosphorous [sic] and their own blood.”
Officials noted the subject also criticized certain Western progressive figures in foreign commentary, arguing they were too aligned with American institutions to be genuinely oppositional. That piece landed in a regional newspaper and was included in the evidentiary packet. For the administration enforcing these standards, it was another piece of a consistent public record of hostility.
The State Department framed the move as protecting American sovereignty and public safety while underscoring the message that entering the United States is a privilege, not an open invitation to incite or support violence. The outcome here is deportation proceedings and a scheduled removal, reflecting a decisive application of immigration law to conduct deemed incompatible with residency.
The controversy has predictably sparked debate, but the central facts driving the action were the posts and publications themselves, which officials say amounted to reiterated praise for terror and threats to the homeland. As policymakers continue to apply existing statutes, this case is being presented by Republican leaders as a clear-cut example of enforcing the rule of law on immigration and national security grounds.
Add comment