1. United States
2. Wash.
3. Letter

INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i) grants concerning authority to deport noncitizens based on vague foreign policy grounds, raising significant constitutional concerns around free speech and due process. As highlighted in Mahmoud Khalil's case, this provision's origins in the post-9/11 Patriot Act era have enabled the government to wield it as an expansive tool for removal, often relying on minimal evidence or classified justifications. This deprives individuals of fair notice and undermines core First Amendment protections that should apply to all persons within U.S. territory. To address these issues, Congress should amend INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i) to implement clearer standards and stronger safeguards. Any invocation of this ground must require specific, credible evidence demonstrating an imminent and grave threat to compelling U.S. foreign policy interests—not merely speech or associations deemed politically unfavorable. Additionally, due process protections must be enhanced by requiring disclosure of all unclassified evidence to the individual and allowing meaningful opportunities to rebut allegations. Ultimately, this provision's extraordinary authority demands more robust constitutional checks to prevent abuse and ensure adherence to free speech principles.