Deportation as a research risk

The US is still fighting to deport noncitizen researchers who track safety problems on big online platforms. The appeals have not stopped.

A judge blocked the policy

In July, a judge ruled unconstitutional the immigration policy used to weigh detaining and deporting people who flag illegal or harmful online content as national security risks.

Rubio's stated reason

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said targeting a list of researchers stopped foreign nationals from manipulating digital town squares and censoring Americans. He said he was ready to expand the list.

“ready and willing”

No evidence of a foreign hand

Judge James Boasberg found nothing tying any targeted researcher to a foreign power trying to censor Americans. He called the policy so broad it could sweep in almost anyone doing content moderation.

The government appealed

Last week the US appealed Boasberg's ruling, which the Coalition for Independent Technology Research had expected. It landed two days after a separate case went the other way.

Who Imran Ahmed is

Ahmed founded the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate and holds a US green card. Rubio designated him a threat over his lobbying and advocacy.

Deporting him to protect speech

Judge Loretta Preska noted the government claimed removing Ahmed was necessary to protect American freedom of expression and reject encroachments on free speech.

“Without any hint of irony”

The jurisdiction trap

Preska ruled Congress stripped courts of authority to block the government from starting removal proceedings, so she could not issue a permanent injunction. She called the suit premature.

“Ahmed may very well have valid causes of action”

Why researchers are alarmed

The decision reads as saying federal courts can never review the legal basis of an immigration policy tied to removal proceedings, even an unconstitutional one.

Five days to act

Preska's order let the administration begin removal after just five days. Ahmed appealed, asked for the restraining order to be extended, and got it until the appeals court rules.

What the Second Circuit decides

His fate now rests on whether the appeals court agrees federal courts can stop the arrest and transfer of a green card holder under a policy that punishes criticism of tech companies.

CSAM still slipping through X

CCDH gave over four million Grok-generated image links to the Canadian Center for Child Protection for a New York Times review. It turned up 65 AI-generated and 75 known CSAM images, some viewed hundreds of times.

A billion-dollar grudge

Officials cited CCDH's support for the EU's record $1 billion fine against X as grounds for the national security designation, Ahmed says.

Shifting rationales

No evidence has shown Ahmed poses serious adverse foreign policy consequences. The State Department declined to comment on the litigation beyond asserting its authority.

“shifting, contradictory, and unsupported rationales”

The family at stake

Ahmed lives in the US with his American wife and daughters, who are too young to understand that his work could break up the family. He still hopes to become a citizen.

“I may be British, but even I know that transparency isn't censorship”

The work continues

CCDH was founded after a colleague was killed by a gunman radicalized online. About 90 percent of its work is testing whether promised safeguards actually function. A report on AI platforms, including OpenAI, is coming this fall.

“We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”

Punish the platform, not the messenger

Ahmed asks why the DOJ is not investigating a platform generating child sex abuse material instead of going after the person who found it.

“rather than trying to punish the person who's identifying the problem”