According to Ars Technica, on December 25, 2025, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order to Imran Ahmed, founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), blocking the Trump administration from deporting him. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had announced visa bans for five individuals, including Ahmed and former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, on December 23, 2025, accusing them of being part of a “global censorship-industrial complex.” Ahmed, a legal permanent resident who lives in the US with his wife and young child, both US citizens, was the only target physically in the country at the time. His lawsuit, filed against officials including Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, argues the deportation attempt is unconstitutional punishment for his protected speech and research into online disinformation. The judge agreed the move risked “irreparable harm,” setting a hearing for December 30, 2025.
The Musk connection
Here’s the thing: this feels like a political sequel to a failed corporate lawsuit. Ahmed’s biggest legal foe until last week was Elon Musk, whose company X sued the CCDH in 2023. A judge dismissed that suit, mocking X’s arguments as “vapid.” Now, the Trump administration’s Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, is citing that very litigation as evidence for the visa bans. She claims it shows a pattern of “extraterritorial censorship.” But that’s a huge logical leap. Basically, they’re arguing that because CCDH researches hate speech and supports laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), they’re part of a scheme to “censor” platforms. By that definition, any watchdog group could be a foreign policy threat.
A constitutional fight over speech
Ahmed’s lawsuit cuts to the core of the First Amendment. He’s arguing the government is wielding immigration law as “a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration.” And he’s got a strong paper trail. The suit cites DHS guidance from 2021 that explicitly states a noncitizen’s exercise of First Amendment rights should never be a factor in enforcement. The law also prohibits removal based on beliefs or associations. So what’s Rubio’s evidence of a “compelling US foreign policy interest”? The complaint alleges he hasn’t provided any, and may have even skipped legally required notifications to Congressional committees. It looks like they just don’t like what he’s saying.
A broader political battle
This isn’t just about one researcher. It’s a shot across the bow at European tech regulation. Thierry Breton, the “mastermind” behind the DSA according to Rogers, told Bloomberg that the US “cannot force us to change laws that we voted for democratically.” As Le Monde noted, these EU laws had wide support. The Trump administration seems to be framing any support for stricter platform accountability as an attack on American free speech. It’s a clever, if cynical, political framing. But can it hold up in court? The speed of the temporary restraining order—granted on Christmas Day—suggests the judge has serious doubts.
What happens next
All eyes are on the hearing scheduled for Monday, December 30. The court will demand to know exactly what steps officials have taken. Ahmed’s legal team, led by attorney Roberta Kaplan, will push to have Rubio’s entire visa ban announcement declared unconstitutional. If they succeed, it could stop what the lawsuit calls a broader pattern of “targeting noncitizens for removal based on First Amendment protected speech.” The administration’s defense will likely mirror Musk’s failed playbook, painting CCDH as a “foreign dark money” group. But after one judge already laughed that argument out of court, it’s a tough sell. America’s checks and balances are being tested, and so far, they’re working.
