Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How and why was Ayman Soliman, the former Cincinnati Children’s Hospital chaplain, detained by ICE?
Executive Summary
Ayman Soliman, a former Cincinnati Children’s Hospital chaplain, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after his asylum status was terminated in June 2025; officials later accused him of providing material support to a terrorist organization, though the Department of Homeland Security subsequently withdrew that case and his asylum status was reinstated [1] [2] [3]. His detention began during a routine immigration check‑in that turned into an extended interview and custody, provoking community outcry, legal efforts for bond and release, and conflicting public narratives about evidence and harm [4] [5].
1. How a routine check‑in became a detention that shocked supporters
Soliman’s detainment began during what his supporters describe as a routine immigration check‑in in Cincinnati, when an hours‑long interview culminated in his being taken into ICE custody by an agent accompanied by an FBI representative. Reports describe the process as abrupt and procedural: an initially ordinary appointment escalated into detention without immediate public explanation, prompting legal counsel to move for bond and immediate disclosure of charges. Coverage highlights the personal impact of the arrest, including his loss of employment as a hospital chaplain and the mobilization of local supporters demanding answers [4] [5].
2. The government's allegation: material support to terrorists — what was said
Federal authorities at one point alleged that Soliman had provided material support to a terrorist organization, a grave criminal accusation that formed the public rationale for detention in some reports. Media accounts summarize that allegation as the central claim prompting ICE action and subsequent criminal scrutiny, though reporting notes the government’s evidence was not fully disclosed in initial public statements. That allegation significantly raised stakes for Soliman, as designations or criminal charges tied to terrorism can negate asylum protections and complicate removal proceedings [2] [3].
3. Legal reversals: case withdrawal and reinstatement of asylum
After weeks in custody, the Department of Homeland Security withdrew the government’s case, and Soliman was released with his asylum status reinstated and his green‑card application revived. Reporting indicates the withdrawal led directly to his release and to public statements by his attorneys asserting that earlier allegations were unfounded and that his long record of charitable work contained no links to terrorism. The government decision to drop the case materially changed Soliman’s immigration trajectory and triggered questions about the basis for the original detention and termination of asylum [2] [6] [3].
4. Conflicting accounts of treatment and conditions behind bars
Soliman and his advocates described his time in custody as harrowing, reporting freezing conditions, strip searches, isolation, and psychological trauma, while framing the experience as illustrative of broader deportation enforcement tactics. Multiple firsthand accounts emphasize the dehumanizing aspects of his detention in Butler County and elsewhere, recounting how long periods in restrictive settings compounded fears about potential removal to Egypt. These accounts fueled community support and framed the release as a relief but left lasting questions about detainee treatment and oversight [4] [7].
5. Timeline and procedural puzzle: asylum termination preceded detention
Key chronology matters: Soliman’s asylum status was reportedly revoked on June 3, 2025, and he was detained on July 9 after the termination, according to contemporaneous reporting. That sequence—an unexplained revocation followed by detention—drove much local and legal scrutiny because revoking asylum narrows legal protections and can fast‑track removal processes. Coverage underscores that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services did not publicly explain the initial termination, creating a procedural puzzle that community advocates and lawyers pressed to have resolved [1] [5].
6. Competing narratives and political undercurrents
Reporting reflects two competing narratives: supporters cast Soliman as a community chaplain targeted without credible evidence, while government actors at times framed actions as part of counterterrorism enforcement. Both positions carry potential institutional agendas—advocates seeking to highlight civil‑liberties concerns and enforcement agencies emphasizing national security. Coverage through September and October 2025 shows the withdrawal of charges curtailed the enforcement narrative, but the earlier allegations and their procedural consequences remain part of the record and public debate [2] [1] [4].
7. What's left unresolved and why it matters going forward
Several important facts remain unsettled for public record: detailed evidence underlying the material‑support allegation, the rationale for the June asylum revocation, and internal agency decision‑making that led to the July arrest. These gaps matter because they bear on oversight of immigration enforcement, the standards for revoking asylum, and safeguards for religious workers and immigrants facing security‑related allegations. The case prompted community mobilization and legal attention that continue to shape local perceptions of federal immigration tactics and the protections afforded to asylum recipients [1] [6] [3].