In a fiery exchange on *CBS’s Face the Nation*, Secretary of State Marco Rubio locked horns with anchor Margaret Brennan over the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a radical pro-Palestine activist who had his green card revoked. The incident, which has sparked protests across the nation, has further divided America’s political landscape, with Democrats, including Brennan, voicing their disapproval, while conservatives like Rubio stand firm in their defense of the deportation.
Khalil, who has been linked to radical activism and has openly supported controversial groups, was subject to the deportation under Cold War-era laws designed to protect the U.S. from foreign radicals. Rubio didn’t mince words when defending the decision, calling Khalil a “dangerous foreign radical” and explaining that his green card was always conditional, subject to revocation based on his actions. Rubio argued that there’s no benefit to allowing such individuals to remain in the country and that this deportation is a step toward protecting the nation from foreign influence that seeks to destabilize American values.
The confrontation reached its peak when Brennan attempted to deflect the conversation toward party politics, accusing the U.S. government of using the deportation as a political tool rather than a security measure. “Is there any evidence of a link to terrorism, or is it just his point of view?” Brennan asked, implying that Khalil’s political views were the real reason behind his deportation.
Rubio, staying calm but clearly frustrated, shot back with a pointed rebuttal: “You should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings. They vandalize colleges. They shut them down.” When Brennan continued to interrupt, Rubio, unshaken, further elaborated on Khalil’s past actions, including his involvement in campus takeovers and violence. He stated, “He was the negotiator for people who took over a campus and vandalized buildings. That’s a crime in and of itself.”
The Secretary of State went on to explain that America does not need individuals like Khalil, whose radical activism threatens the stability and safety of the country. He argued that, had Khalil been upfront about his intentions when entering the U.S.—such as leading a radical movement—it would have been clear he should never have been allowed entry in the first place. “We don’t need these people in our country,” Rubio said, “and we never should have allowed him in.”
Rubio didn’t stop there, emphasizing the real-world consequences of the actions Khalil supported. He noted the havoc caused by radical activists on college campuses, from destroyed property to restricted access for students. “People can’t even go to school. Library buildings are being vandalized,” Rubio pointed out. “We never would have let him in, and now that he’s here, he’s going to leave.”
Public reaction overwhelmingly supported Rubio’s stance, with many Americans agreeing that foreign nationals engaging in disruptive activism should face consequences. One commenter wrote, “We need a law barring any foreign national from engaging in activism or political discourse. If they want to stir up trouble, they can do it in their own country, not ours.” Another echoed the sentiment, pointing out Khalil’s ties to CUAD, an organization that openly supports Hamas, saying, “That makes him deportable under U.S. law. It’s unfortunate that Margaret Brennan and others in the Democratic party refuse to recognize that.”
This tense exchange between Rubio and Brennan underscores the growing divide between those who seek to protect America from foreign radicals and those who argue that political differences should not be grounds for deportation. As the debate continues to unfold, one thing is clear: Rubio’s hardline stance against radical foreign influence will continue to resonate with a significant portion of the American public who believe the nation must prioritize security over ideological appeasement.
