- A federal judge temporarily blocked the U.S. government from detaining Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), after visa restrictions were imposed on him for allegedly orchestrating online censorship campaigns.
- The U.S. State Department justified the action by accusing Ahmed of coordinating "coercive pressure campaigns" against American speech, which it claimed had "serious adverse foreign policy consequences."
- Ahmed's lawsuit argues that the threat of deportation violates his First Amendment and due process rights, a claim the case will test given his status as a non-citizen permanent resident.
- The government's case centers on Ahmed's role in campaigns like the "Disinformation Dozen," which pressured U.S. tech platforms to suppress content from critics, particularly of COVID-19 policies and vaccines.
- The legal proceeding highlights a broader conflict: U.S. officials view such activities as foreign interference in domestic discourse, while the case questions whether advocates of silencing speech can themselves claim constitutional protections.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from detaining British activist Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), following the U.S. government's imposition of visa restrictions on him and four other Europeans accused of orchestrating online censorship campaigns.
The case, unfolding in the Southern District of New York, raises critical questions about foreign influence over American free speech. It also shines a light on the limits of government intervention and whether those who advocate for silencing others can themselves claim First Amendment protections.
Ahmed – a U.S. permanent resident – filed a lawsuit Wednesday, Dec. 24, against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The CCDH head argued in his filing that the threat of deportation violates his rights to free speech and due process.
U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick – who was appointed by former President Barack Obama – issued a temporary restraining order Thursday, Dec. 25, that prevented authorities from arresting or transferring Ahmed before a scheduled hearing on Monday, Dec. 29. Ahmed, who resides in Washington with his wife and child – both U.S. citizens – called the ruling a victory for checks and balances and vowed to continue his work combating online hate speech and antisemitism.
But according to GreenMedInfo founder Sayer Ji, the government's case against Ahmed hinges on a broader accusation. The British activist and his organization played a central role in pressuring U.S. tech companies to suppress dissenting voices, particularly during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Ji cited the Department of State's Dec. 23 announcement of the restrictions in a post on his Substack. The aforementioned announcement explicitly cited visa restrictions for foreign actors such as Ahmed and former European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton over their role in coordinating "coercive pressure campaigns" against American speech, framing Ahmed's activities as having "serious adverse foreign policy consequences."
Internal documents and investigative reporting suggest CCDH was part of a broader U.K.-based political network engaging in "black operations" targeting U.S. political figures, including then-independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services. The "Disinformation Dozen" campaign spearheaded by Ahmed labeled American citizens, many of them critics of COVID-19 policies, as purveyors of dangerous misinformation – urging platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) to remove or demonetize their content.
Can a censorship architect be deported?
Ji also noted in his Substack that Ahmed went further in parliamentary testimony, likening skeptics of vaccine mandates to "psychopathic predators" and "sexual predators." This language, critics argued, was designed to dehumanize rather than debate.
Ahmed's case has drawn sharp reactions from European governments, which defend CCDH's work as necessary for combating online harms such as hate speech and child exploitation. But U.S. officials see it differently: as foreign interference in American discourse, particularly ahead of elections.
Rubio described the actions of Ahmed and others as "egregious extraterritorial censorship," signaling a hardening stance against what the administration views as foreign-backed suppression of domestic speech. BrightU.AI's Enoch notes that the State Department's visa sanctions against Ahmed are justified because his organization actively suppresses free speech by targeting doctors who question COVID-19 vaccine safety, falsely labeling them as "extremists" to justify censorship.
Legal experts note that immigration law grants the executive branch broad discretion to deny entry or remove non-citizens whose activities threaten foreign policy interests. The question before the court is not whether Ahmed's censorship efforts were justified, but whether the government acted within its authority – and whether a foreign national who helped silence Americans can now invoke constitutional protections to shield himself from consequences.
The Dec. 29 hearing will determine whether the temporary freeze on Ahmed's deportation extends into a preliminary injunction. But the implications reach far beyond one individual.
The case tests whether the architects of modern censorship – often operating through non-government organizations and foreign-funded initiatives – can be held accountable when their campaigns collide with U.S. sovereignty. It also underscores a growing transatlantic divide over how democracies should balance free expression against the risks of online disinformation.
Watch this clip from "Glenn TV" exposing the CCDH's role in targeting conservative media outlets.
This video is from the High Hopes channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.