In AAUP Trial, State Dept. Official Says Criticizing Israel Could Be Grounds for Visa Revocation

A senior State Department official testified Friday that some claims and phrases common to pro-Palestine campus advocacy — including criticism of the state of Israel and calls for universities to divest from Israel — all “could be” grounds for revoking a noncitizen’s visa.

John L. Armstrong, who oversees a State Department bureau tasked with issuing visas, spoke during the trial for a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s immigration policies that was filed by groups including the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard chapter. Armstrong was the only government official to testify who had direct input in revoking the visas of five noncitizen student and faculty protesters central to the case.

The plaintiffs claim the protesters were targeted for their pro-Palestine speech. But in court, Armstrong defended the visa revocations, arguing that they were made to combat antisemitism, a goal that he said is part of United States foreign policy.

Armstrong said “a single statement might not be enough” to revoke a person’s visa. But when pressed during cross-examination, Armstrong answered that several common pro-Palestine statements all “could be” sufficient cause to revoke a visa.

The statements included criticisms of Zionism, criticism of the Israeli state’s actions in Gaza, calls for an arms embargo to Israel, allegations that Israel is an “apartheid state,” and the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

At the case’s heart is an executive order by President Donald Trump that makes combatting antisemitism part of the U.S. government’s foreign policy. The visa revocations cite provisions from the Immigration and Nationality Act, including one that allows the State Department to revoke visas of those it deems “adverse to U.S. foreign policy.”

The executive order does not define antisemitism. It does, however, refer to an earlier executive order, signed by Trump during his first term, that instructs agency officials to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and its accompanying examples, which classify certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic.

Armstrong said that his agency relied on a “common understanding” of antisemitism, which he defined as speech or conduct against Jewish people and the state of Israel.

“In my understanding, antisemites will try to hide their views and say they’re not against Jews, they’re just against Israel. It’s a farcical argument, in my opinion. It’s a dodge,” Armstrong said in the Friday hearing.

Over two weeks of trial, federal officials have repeatedly testified that the arrests of the five protestors were justified because they were illegally in the country after their visas had been revoked — without explaining why those documents had been canceled in the first place. Armstrong’s testimony provided a new, strikingly blunt description of the Trump administration’s rationale for revoking them.

Armstrong gave a particularly revealing look at the reasoning behind the decision to arrest Tufts University Ph.D. student Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national on an F-1 student visa, whose revocation he personally ordered. Ozturk co-authored an op-ed in her campus newspaper with pro-Palestine views — speech which many have long speculated was the cause for her arrest.

But Armstrong disputed that claim in court, saying that her article “was not a key factor” and that the decision to revoke her visa was based on her alleged affiliation with Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine.

It is unclear whether Ozturk was a member of the student group. Armstrong continuously pointed to Ozturk’s “association” with the group, but could only concretely reference the op-ed she co-authored as evidence. The article backed SJP’s criticism of Tufts administrators’ refusal to engage with student protesters who demanded divestment from Israel.

Armstrong testified that association with pro-Palestine groups like SJP “may undermine foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and dedicating support for a terrorist organization.”

Armstrong was able to directly order the revocation of Ozturk’s visa under a wide-sweeping provision of the INA that allows consular officers to initiate a revocation for any reason. For the four other noncitizen protesters, Armstrong made recommendations to Secretary of State Marco Rubio based on the INA provision regarding U.S. foreign policy — a final determination that only Rubio could make.

Armstrong’s testimony came during the penultimate day of the trial for the case, which has become a critical test of the Trump administration’s efforts to deport noncitizen students and faculty involved in pro-Palestine advocacy.

The plaintiffs — the American Association of University Professors, the organization’s Harvard, New York University, and Rutgers University chapters, and the Middle East Studies Association — have argued that the government instituted an “ideological deportation policy” that violates the First Amendment.

The policy, whose existence the government disputes, involves attempting to arrest and deport noncitizen university affiliates for their pro-Palestine speech — which the AAUP argues violates the First Amendment rights of its members.

Armstrong’s statements Friday were not the first revelations to come out of the trial. A Department of Homeland Security official testified last week that the department had created reports on more than 100 student protesters using a list created by Canary Mission, a pro-Israel doxxing website.

The trial has been delayed by an ongoing dispute over what government evidence can be admitted. The First Circuit Court of Appeals imposed a temporary stay, allowing lawyers for the federal government to bar certain evidence from entering the trial under the presidential communications privilege — which includes any correspondence about decision making from the President.

Though the judge overseeing the case at the district level, William G. Young ’62, asked the First Circuit to lift the stay on Monday, they have yet to do so.

Young will hear closing arguments on Monday.

Correction: July 22, 2025

A previous version of this article stated that an executive order that officially designates combating antisemitism as the foreign policy of the United States does not instruct agency officials to use a specific definition of antisemitism. In fact, the executive order does reaffirm and refer to an earlier executive order that tells agency officials to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Laurel M. Shugart can be reached at laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com. Follow them on X @laurelmshugart.