On January 29, President Trump issued an executive order prescribing “additional measures to combat anti-Semitism.” Its “most significant provision,” according to Tal Fortgang, is the requirement that the relevant departments “develop a process that would lead, ‘as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove’ non-citizens who support terrorism in various ways.” The measure takes aim at foreign students who have been involved in violent or intimidating anti-Israel demonstrations, especially on college campuses.

In addition to the protests from the usual quarters, such a policy has drawn criticism from good-faith defenders of free speech. Fortgang, however, is not impressed by their arguments:

As a legal matter, these objections miss the mark. Not all behaviors that are expressive in nature are protected speech, and with good reason. There are other important considerations, like preventing violence or prohibiting perjury, that warrant limiting speech, even based on its content. The Immigration and Nationality Act has long given the executive branch broad authority to exclude or remove foreign nationals who endorse or espouse terrorist activity. Courts have consistently upheld these provisions.

If explicit statutory authorization isn’t persuasive enough, consider it perjury. Foreigners seeking visas must disavow support for terrorism as part of their application. Subsequent expressions of support for terrorism, therefore, amount to a form of fraud regarding their visa eligibility. No constitutional principle protects deliberate misrepresentation in immigration proceedings. The statute authorizing deportations for speech that has certain disfavored content is on solid ground, not just because it is a rational law narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate governmental interest, but because it simply authorizes punishment for lying to get into the country.

For more than a year, the Iran-backed Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at ships traversing the Red Sea, as well as at Israeli territory, in support of Hamas. This development has drastically curtailed shipping through the Suez Canal and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, driving up trade prices. This week, the Trump administration began an extensive bombing campaign against the Houthis in an effort to reopen that crucial waterway. Burcu Ozcelik highlights another benefit of this action:

The administration has a broader geopolitical agenda—one that includes countering China’s economic leverage, particularly Beijing’s reliance on Iranian oil. By targeting the Houthis, the United States is not only safeguarding vital shipping lanes but also exerting pressure on the Iran-China energy nexus, a key component of Beijing’s strategic posture in the region.

China was the primary destination for up to 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports in 2024, underscoring the deepening economic ties between Beijing and Tehran despite U.S. sanctions. By helping fill Iranian coffers, China aids Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in financing proxies like the Houthis. Since October of last year, notable U.S. Treasury announcements have revealed covert links between China and the Houthis.

Striking the Houthis could trigger broader repercussions—not least by disrupting the flow of Iranian oil to China. While difficult to confirm, it is conceivable and has been reported, that the Houthis may have received financial or other forms of compensation from China (such as Chinese-made military components) in exchange for allowing freedom of passage for China-affiliated vessels in the Red Sea.