What did mahmoud khalil say in suport of HAMAS

1. What Khalil actually said about October 7 and Hamas

Khalil publicly described the October 7 attacks as, in his words, “a desperate attempt to tell the world that Palestinians are here, that Palestinians are part of the equation,” and he linked that reading to the absence of a political process and the imminence of a Saudi–Israel deal, while also calling the attacks “obvious were not right” and a violation of international law ^[1]. That phrasing situates Khalil not as celebrating the killings but as offering an explanation for why militants acted, a rhetorical frame that critics say rationalizes or excuses violence even when he labels it wrongful ^[1].

2. Actions and rhetoric that critics point to as support for Hamas

The Trump administration and allied commentators point to Khalil’s role organizing large pro‑Palestine protests at Columbia, alleged distribution of “pro‑Hamas propaganda,” and appearances at events alongside controversial figures as evidence he “led activities aligned to Hamas” and showed tangible support for the group ^{[4] [6] [7]}. Media Line quoted a critic saying Khalil and his group were handing out literature “approved by Hamas,” and that this conduct crossed from political criticism into support for terrorism in the view of some legal experts ^[2].

3. Khalil’s refusal to explicitly condemn Hamas and how it has been read

In interviews Khalil repeatedly affirmed opposition to civilian killing—“I condemn the killing of all pal– all civilians, full stop”—but, when pressed, did not directly say “I condemn Hamas,” a reticence that DHS and other critics used to claim sympathy for the militant group ^[3]. Observers who demand explicit denunciations say his failure to name Hamas is meaningful; defenders argue that refusing to parrot language chosen by political opponents is not the same as endorsing violence ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Legal and evidentiary posture: what’s been asserted versus what’s been shown

Government statements alleged Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas” and accused him of organizing events where pro‑Hamas materials were distributed, but reporting and Khalil’s lawyers say the government has not publicly produced evidence that he provided material support to U.S.‑designated terrorist organizations, and his legal defense contests the characterization as political speech ^{[4] [5] [8]}. Independent outlets and legal analysts note a difference between rhetorical sympathy, organizing protests, and the criminal standard for providing or procuring support to a terrorist organization ^{[8] [2]}.

5. Source context, motives and competing narratives

Claims that Khalil “expressed support for Hamas terrorism” come from watchdog outlets and commentators like Canary Mission and right‑leaning legal analysts, sources that have clear political aims and selective documentation practices; conversely, Khalil’s supporters, Columbia faculty signatories, and civil‑liberties advocates frame his conduct as protected protest and free speech absent proof of material support ^{[7] [1] [5]}. The federal government’s actions and public framing have unfolded against a politically charged backdrop in which nationwide pressure to crack down on campus protests shapes both investigative and rhetorical priorities ^{[6] [4]}.

6. What remains unproven in public reporting

Public reporting documents Khalil’s explanatory comment about October 7 and records of his campus leadership and detention, but it does not contain a publicly verified admission or clear contemporaneous statement by Khalil saying “I support Hamas” as an endorsement of the group’s violent tactics; major outlets record his contextualizing remark, his condemnation of civilian deaths, and disputed allegations about propaganda distribution without producing evidence of material support to Hamas ^{[1] [3] [5] [4]}.