This is completely unconstitutional. The journalist author fails the reader not explaining how the First Amendment works, or quoting a law expert who does.
> "The guidance is likely to raise due process and privacy concerns in light of the Trump administration's recent attempts to deport pro-Palestinian students. The attempts have faced legal challenges."
By "faced legal challenges" they should write they were ruled unconstitutional.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-william-youngs-ruling-agains... ("[T]his Court rules that here the Plaintiffs have shown that Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaged in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated. Such conduct is not only unconstitutional, but a thing virtually unknown to our constitutional tradition.")
> "The guidance is likely to raise due process and privacy concerns in light of the Trump administration's recent attempts to deport pro-Palestinian students. The attempts have faced legal challenges."
By "faced legal challenges" they should write they were ruled unconstitutional.
https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-william-youngs-ruling-agains... ("[T]his Court rules that here the Plaintiffs have shown that Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaged in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech, and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated. Such conduct is not only unconstitutional, but a thing virtually unknown to our constitutional tradition.")