Abstract
Excerpted From: Michael K. Park, Anti-Racism as a National Security Imperative: The Safeguarding of Core Democratic Values, 130 Penn State Law Review 599 (Spring, 2026) (157 Footnotes) (Full Document)
In early 2024, campus protests erupted nationwide over the Israel-Hamas war.1 The protests pitted supporters of Palestinians in Gaza against those that supported the Israeli invasion of Gaza after Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, conducted a violent attack on Israeli citizens on October 7, 2023.2 While campaigning for the presidency in 2024, Donald Trump promised to deport "violent radicals" enrolled in U.S. colleges, explaining: "If you come here from another country and try to bring jihadism or anti-Americanism or antisemitism to our campuses, we will immediately deport you."3 On the day of his inauguration to start his second term, President Trump issued an executive order titled, "Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats," which directs the Secretary of State to promptly "vet and screen" all noncitizens "to the maximum degree possible."4 Soon after, President Trump signed another executive order, titled "Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism," which states that it is the policy of the United States "to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence."5 Federal agencies, pursuant to the executive orders, began a nationwide campaign of vetting and revoking student visas, and arresting and deporting noncitizen students whose presence the Secretary of State has determined would have "adverse foreign policy consequences."6
As of August 2025, over 6,000 student visas have been revoked, the majority of which--according to the U.S. State Department--were for visa overstays, violations of law and without elaborating, "support for terrorism."7 Moreover, across the United States, many noncitizen university students (including lawful permanent residents) who expressed pro-Palestinian views or participated in pro-Palestinian protests have been targeted for deportation.8 For instance, noncitizen students have been arrested and detained for writing an opinion essay in a university newspaper critical of Israel,9 participating in a pro-Palestinian campus sit-in,10 or leading campus demonstrations in support of Palestinians--such as the case of Mahmoud Khalil.11 The Trump administration asserts that it has authority to remove these noncitizen students under section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).12 Specifically, if the Secretary of State makes the determination that a noncitizen is deportable based on the noncitizen's "beliefs, statements or associations that are otherwise lawful," then the Secretary of State must make a personal determination that the noncitizen's presence "would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest."13 Yet a compelling foreign policy interest is one that is intimately tied to national security,14 and public officials in the Trump administration have construed the deportation policies targeting noncitizen student protestors for alleged antisemitism as a national security matter.
In addition to executive orders invoking national security,15 administration officials have tied the arrests of student protesters (such as Mahmoud Khalil) to the enforcement of orders prohibiting antisemitism and ""protecting U.S. national security."16 During an interview on Fox, Vice President J.D. Vance, in reference to noncitizen student deportations of pro-Palestinian protesters, stated: "American citizens have different rights ... from people who have student visas. And to me, yes, it's about national security, but it's also, more importantly, about who do we as an American public decide who gets to join our national community."17 Explaining the justification for the student arrests and visa revocations, Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued:
[I]t's not in our foreign policy interest, it's not in our national security interest, to invite people onto our university campuses ... who are also going to go there to foment movements that support and excuse foreign terrorist organizations .... So we have a right to deny visas before you get here, and we have a right to revoke them if we believe your presence in our country undermines our national interest, our national security, and our foreign policy.18
The executive branch has claimed that their recent actions to address antisemitism and racial injustice were pursuant to a compelling foreign policy interest, without offering a strong link as to how the campus protests adversely affect that interest.19 In American Association of American Professors v. Rubio, a federal court recently held that the Trump administration's policy of arresting noncitizen protestors under the INA was in furtherance of chilling disfavored political speech.20 The court noted that federal officials intended to target a select few protestors "and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act ... to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests ... because their views were unwelcome."21
Yet the implementation of these policies also raises the specter of future executive action under the guise of anti-racism and national security to silence dissent or to deny other civil liberties. Furthermore, courts have often afforded a high degree of deference to government policies premised on national security interests, prompting concerns of the abuse of the national security rationale to enact policies that are mere pretext for political expediency or retaliation. This Article attempts to address the question: What makes anti-racism an issue of national security? It embarks on a modest exercise in contextualizing the issue of race and national security and makes the case that the government's legitimate commitment to anti-racism is a national security imperative. This Article begins in Part II with a short historical review of the judicial deference afforded to the security decisions of the government, especially the executive branch--even when national security arguments demanded race discrimination and the denial of other liberties--due to separation of powers concerns. Part III offers an examination of how the government officials, the courts, and scholars, have recognized that national security is not only tied to the protection of sovereignty but is intimately tied to foreign affairs and the protection of core democratic values. Part IV examines how the issue of racial injustice and the unrealization of core values affected foreign policy during the previous era of great power competition (in essence, the Cold War). Furthermore, it argues that the commitment to anti-racism--in today's era of great power competition--must also be perceived as a genuine duty to uphold core democratic values in order to enhance national security.
[ . . . ]
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger argued that the vitality of an international order depends upon the balance of hard power and legitimacy,156 but as Joseph Nye adds, "legitimacy depends on values."157 Racial injustice, and the failure to properly address it, strike at the heart of a core democratic value centered on equality--a value that serves as an important feature of U.S. foreign policy and American influence abroad. Previous presidential administrations, particularly in the postwar years, were concerned that American racial inequality--and the propaganda it enabled--would undermine U.S. credibility and national security at a time when the United States was dissuading other nations from adopting communist doctrine. Pursuant to a global competition of ideas and to control the narrative about race, American political leadership pursued anti-racist policies as a national security matter.
In today's era of great-power competition, the United States's foreign adversaries recognize that internal divisions, and the degradation of social cohesion, can undermine democratic institutions and U.S. influence abroad. Adopting the Soviet propaganda strategies of the past, both Russia and China have shown a propensity to exploit racial divisions to amplify mistrust, sow civil unrest, weaken U.S foreign influence, and--in the case of the CCP-- portray the U.S. democratic system as inferior to the communist system of governance. Moreover, while this article submits that anti-racism is a national security imperative, recent executive actions raise the specter that the government's invocation of national security to pursue anti-racist policies are but a pretext for political retribution and expediency. What is needed is greater--not less--judicial scrutiny that demands strong linkages between compelling foreign policy or national security interests and purported government actions pursuant to those interests. Finally, anti-racist government policies must also be perceived as a legitimate commitment in upholding core democratic values. Otherwise, the credibility of government anti-racist policies is undermined, both internally and abroad, adversely affecting American security interests. In other words, the United States must not only espouse liberal democratic values but prove it lives up to them.
Jerry and Karla Huse Endowed Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
