Loading News Article...
We're loading the full news article for you. This includes the article content, images, author information, and related articles.
We're loading the full news article for you. This includes the article content, images, author information, and related articles.
A lawsuit in the United States alleges federal agencies used information from private lobby groups to target a pro-Palestinian activist, raising global questions about state surveillance and its parallels to the growing digital crackdown on activists in Kenya.

WASHINGTON D.C. – Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has filed a lawsuit demanding the U.S. government release communications with several anti-Palestinian groups. The legal action, reported on Friday, November 21, 2025, alleges that these communications will prove a coordinated “smear and harassment campaign” that led to his arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March 2025. Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University, was a prominent participant in campus protests concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before his detention.
The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), seeks to expose what it calls “collusion between the federal government and the shadowy groups targeting people who speak out.” According to the CCR, several right-wing, pro-Israel organizations boasted about their role in Khalil’s arrest after compiling dossiers on activists. The lawsuit specifically names groups such as Betar USA, Canary Mission, and Documenting Jew Hatred on Campus as having supplied information to federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the State Department.
Weeks before Khalil’s arrest, Betar USA, a far-right Zionist group labeled as extremist by the Anti-Defamation League, reportedly included him on its “deport list.” The group claimed on the social media platform X that ICE was aware of Khalil’s “home address and whereabouts” and that it had shared this information with government officials. In the days leading up to the arrest, another group, Documenting Jew Hatred on Campus, and Columbia professor Shai Davidai also publicly called for Khalil’s deportation.
“For months, shady organizations and individuals carried out a smear and harassment campaign designed to intimidate and silence me,” Khalil stated through the CCR. “The public deserves full accountability for every bad actor who helped make that possible.”
This legal action follows a precursor claim for $20 million in damages filed in July 2025 against the administration for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. After being detained for over 100 days, a federal judge ordered Khalil’s release in June 2025.
The case highlights a growing concern worldwide over the use of digital surveillance and the collaboration between state and non-state actors to monitor and suppress political dissent. This trend has significant resonance in Kenya, where activists have faced increased state-linked online harassment, unlawful surveillance, and disinformation campaigns. A November 2025 Amnesty International report detailed how Kenyan authorities have weaponized digital platforms to stifle youth-led protests, leading to arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances. The use of private groups to gather information on activists in the U.S., as alleged in Khalil's lawsuit, mirrors the tactics of coordinated troll networks and pro-government influencers used to delegitimize protesters in Kenya.
Kenya's official foreign policy supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a position recently enshrined in law. However, the country's voting record at the United Nations has shown inconsistencies, sometimes abstaining on resolutions critical of Israeli actions. While the government maintains a diplomatic stance, there is a vibrant domestic discourse, with solidarity protests for Palestine having been held in Nairobi.
The lawsuit filed by Khalil could set a precedent for transparency regarding government partnerships with private intelligence-gathering groups. For civil society in Kenya and globally, the outcome is significant. It touches upon the universal rights to free speech and assembly, and the mechanisms of state power used to curtail them—a struggle familiar to many Kenyan human rights defenders who navigate an increasingly monitored digital landscape. The case underscores the international nature of the battle for civil liberties in an era of heightened digital surveillance.