British Muslim political commentator Sami Hamdi entered the U.S. on a visitor visa on October 19, 2025. However, his visa was revoked on Friday, October 25 due to his “past and current statements … about the Middle East.”
He was on a speaking tour and had addressed the Council on American‑Islamic Relations on Saturday. Afterward, he was taken into custody at San Francisco International Airport by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Homeland Security wrote that “those who support terrorism and undermine American national security will not be allowed to work or visit this country.”
As a result, he was unable to board his United Airlines flight to Tampa, where he was scheduled to keynote the Council on American-Islamic Relations annual gala.
We've said it before, we'll say it again: The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who support terrorism and actively undermine the safety of Americans.
We continue to revoke the visas of persons engaged in such activity.
Thank you to our partners at @DHSgov for… https://t.co/PXfIDEvle6
— Department of State (@StateDept) October 26, 2025
Hamdi is now in ICE custody pending removal proceedings. Several groups including CAIR have condemned the detention, calling it an affront to free speech. Hamdi celebrated the Black Saturday attacks by Hamas against Israel and encouraged other Muslims to do the same. He has falsely denied sexual violence by Hamas — which has been used by critics as justification for his visa revocation.
We are pitying a people who brought a huge victory since 1948. Don’t pity them – they don’t want your pity – celebrate the victory. … How many of you felt it in your hearts when you got the news that it happened? How many of you felt the euphoria? Allahu Akbar!
British Political Commentator Sami Hamdi Speaking at London Mosque: Don’t Pity the Palestinians – Celebrate the Victory; How Many of You Felt the Euphoria When You Got the News of October 7? #Hamas #Gaza #Palestinians @SALHACHIMI pic.twitter.com/vw3Wear5mn
— MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) December 14, 2023
ICE detained Muslim commentator Sami Hamdi who celebrated October 7 – here’s a compilation showing Hamdi also praising Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Marjorie Taylor Greene as useful tools for Islam. pic.twitter.com/hHHihy3hJc
— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) October 27, 2025
Legally, the Department of State is almost certainly correct. There’s very little grounds for challenging discretion in visa revocations, and few courts will question their judgment with respect to an individual’s providing material support for terrorism.
As a policy matter, I believe this is unwise. Hamdi is clearly guilty of being a jackass. However, I am not aware of anything public that ties him directly to support for terrorism. And doesn’t the U.S. just look silly for granting the visa and then saying oops?
I continue to believe that exposing such people is better than using the power of the state to silence them. Frankly, it’s better to see him speak at CAIR events because that tells me a great deal about CAIR that I might not have known otherwise.
What was Gary’s stance on free speech during COVID days?
Ship his terrorist & mysognist ass back to his native shithole. Now!
Permanent ban
Gary, I can get this kind of news on CNN & MSNBC. We don’t need it here.
Good riddance and great job by ICE.
@James – I was full throated free speech during the pandemic, why do you think otherwise? Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I believe the state should block your expression.
The peaceful religion…
We should have wiped gaza from the face of earth
Good riddance to bad rubbish, bravo President Trump
I have no problem with this.
“I continue to believe that exposing such people is better than using the power of the state to silence them.”
Well said, Gary. This is the way. Calls to ‘ban’ people you disagree with are silly, and ultimately fail. The US Constitution applies to all people, including visitors, not just citizens, and the 1st Amendment is one of the best parts, lest we forget.
Good job by ICE. Now do something with the terrorist support network in America (CAIR).
Wish we could at least celebrate return of the hostages, a hope for regional peace and actual recovery. Instead, naw, wishing more ill on others. Folks, that ain’t healthy.
@Michael Madden, @Kirk, @Dave Flaat, @Thing 1 — What you are suggesting is un-American.
@Doug — You meant ‘Hamas,’ not innocent civilians. C’mon. Don’t literally admit to war crimes.
@H2oman — Naw, it’s overreach. Think if it were the other ‘team’ doing this to a foreign ‘conservative’ Christian activist. I suspect you’d’ve already attempted another J6 coup….
Freedom of speech is about freedom of unpopular speech. Let the slime speak.
This isn’t the suppression of speech IMO. And if it is, at least it is out in the open for all who don’t like it to disagree unlike the last administration strong arming their lapdogs at google, YouTube, Twitter, facebook.
Thank you, @Loren. Well said!
Fascism alive and well in the good ‘ole U S of A.
If someone openly supports the war crimes committed by Hamas or the war crimes committed by the IDF, we should let them speak and challenge them. My neighbor actively supported the genocide against Palestinian civilians (and still does), I remind myself every day that it is his right to do so, whether I like it or not.
@1990: You don’t think there is a limit to free speech? A. You are wrong (as far as I know) that it applies to visitors. Especially when their visa can be revoked for any reason and then they can’t be here. Period.
Any speech that is not directly a call to active terrorism should not be suppressed.
Apparently, British nationals are under the assumption that the US constitution affords them the same protections as actual US citizens.
He can go back to the 3rd world shithole muslim country he came from… the UK. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
@Aaron Gold — It’s a really difficult topic, because there is very much a ‘paradox of tolerance’ (if we as a society extend unlimited tolerance to those who are intolerant, then the tolerant are often eliminated by the intolerant.) So, the goal is to be intolerant of the intolerant initially through rational argument (non-violence), but if the intolerant resort to violence, then it is reasonable to ‘suppress’ the intolerant.
So, if your neighbor merely vocally supports ‘genocide against Palestinian civilians’ that’s one thing (and that position is abhorrent, just as the murder of 1,195 people in the October 7th attack was also abhorrent); but, if your neighbor started acting upon his or her hatred, say, by engaging in violence against you or others, then that must be stopped, obviously.
This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff more than half of the country voted for. Bring on more of it, faster, please.
The 30% increase in our retirement accounts is a welcome bonus.
@Common Sense — Woah, I never said that. First Amendment absolutely has limits to speech. None of these rights (including the Second Amendment) are unlimited. Less strawman, please.
Celebrating others’ deaths is abhorrent, but (perhaps surprisingly) not a violation of the First Amendment, at least as far as current jurisprudence would suggest. This court can change their mind, of course, so we’ll see (maybe they’ll decide, ‘any we deem a terrorist has no rights, including due process to challenge being ‘coined’ a terrorist.’ Yikes.)
Recall the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), leading to the deaths of others via the resulting stampede, is not ‘protected’ speech.
@Kevin — Many portions of our Constitution, including the First Amendment, apply to all people in our country, including visitors, not just citizens. Apparently, a lot of y’all skipped civics class.
Celebrating death and destruction is just so sick!! Sounds like national security issue to me!
I’m with you Gary. I’m not a fan, obviously, just the opposite. We had a chance to stand out compared to others. Candace Owens (also not a fan) was denied an Australian visa because, sadly, their highest court feels free speech isn’t an individual’s right.
@HEIDI ESTABROOK — He’s not a legitimate security threat, yet. He’s clearly a provocateur, testing whether this administration will overreach, and they clearly are taking the bait, willing to violate the Constitution to censor him. *sigh*
@This comes to mind — Thank you for bring up that example (Owens). Important to distinguish that Australia does not have an explicit First Amendment equivalent enshrining the protection of freedom of speech. So, apples to oranges. And, having recently visited Oz, I must say, they are indeed strict about who they let in, and you better not accidentally bring in fruit, or that’ll be a $1,000 AUD fine. Their country, their rules. I suppose only Outback Steakhouse has ‘no rules.’ (Just right.)
I must have missed the freedom to travel in the constitution. He could have found a different way to make the speech. A good job by the government. Freedom of speech is not absolute. It doesn’t protect false statements that cause a “clear and present danger” of public harm.
The law may well support the actions taken here. And I may actually agree with the idea of not allowing people in that are publicly at odds with American values. But we can’t be picking and choosing based on the whims of the administration in power. If we’re going to block people, we need to be consistent and measured. Outspokenly anti-Semitic? Visa revoked. Outspokenly anti-democratic? Visa revoked. Internationally censured war criminal? Visa revoked.
@jns — Interstate travel (between states) is actually protected, but international travel is not (it’s a privilege, even for citizens.) If the government let him in, which they did, then his freedom of speech, within the scope of the US Constitution, is still protected. The government is simply overreaching here, as this administration has done repeatedly since it came into office. If it were the other team doing this, you’d lose it.
@Mallthus — We already do not allow people in that are publicly at odds with American values. And, they already let this guy in, so, it seems someone messed up with that vetting process; so, now that he’s in, the US Constitution applies, and under the current law and jurisprudence, this administration likely violated his First Amendment rights. If we want to change our laws, then we need to actually do that (see School House Rock for how to do so). I agree that we should be consistent. Equal protection under law.
We abhor the calls to violence by this man yet have no issue with extrajudicial killings, mass shootings, politicians calling for their critics to face the firing squad, or our “allies” threatening to exterminate entire populations of people. Good to know we’re not hypocritical in our approach to things that represent a threat to the security of the country.
@1990: I would argue that his actions and speech count as material support for terrorism. It’s possible that what you’re reading about him is not the full picture.
I would also say that a visa granted under mistaken terms can be revoked, even if it the US government is just so darned bad at vetting.
First, the decision to revoke Sami Hamdi’s visa and move toward deportation is entirely consistent with both U.S. law and common sense. A visa is not a constitutional right; it is a conditional privilege extended to foreign nationals who pose no threat to the safety or security of the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the government has broad discretion to deny or revoke entry if a person’s words or actions align with or promote terrorist activity. When Hamdi publicly urged Muslims to “celebrate” the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians, he crossed from political commentary into advocacy of violence by a designated terrorist group. The First Amendment protects speech from government punishment, but it does not obligate the United States to host foreign nationals who cheerlead for mass murder. This was not censorship. It was a lawful act of sovereignty and a rational measure to protect American citizens.
Second, tolerance does not mean national suicide. The American ideal of free expression has limits when it comes to foreign nationals whose speech celebrates murder and terrorism. A nation that refuses to distinguish between dissent and the glorification of violence will not survive long as a free society. When a noncitizen cheers on the slaughter of innocents and calls it a victory, he is not participating in democratic discourse; he is rejecting the moral foundations that make discourse possible. The government therefore has not only the authority but the moral duty to show him the door. The right to exclude those who reject the nation’s basic moral compact is a core aspect of sovereignty. A country that cannot control who enters its borders or remains within them ceases to be a nation at all. The United States can, and must, be both free and self-preserving. Protecting liberty requires defending it from those who openly sympathize with its enemies and would exploit our freedoms to destroy them. Period.
“However, I am not aware of anything public that ties him directly to support for terrorism.”
I’m sorry, what? This is the quote from the Twitter post you pasted in this very article: “Don’t Pity the Palestinians – Celebrate the Victory; How Many of You Felt the Euphoria When You Got the News of October 7?”
How can it tie him more directly to support for terrorism?
This has nothing to do with free speech. He is not being silenced, he is being removed. Nobody has a right to a visa. How many other countries would tolerate this?
So, apparently for State, his Visa turned into a Discover?
Jokes aside, my $0.02 is that this article really doesn’t fit here. I get that immigration policy is generally related to travel, but it’s really not why most of us come here. As someone else said, we can get stories like this (versus general policy decisions and so on) from elsewhere.