Online hate researcher keeps hammering X in court

Online hate researcher keeps hammering X. The prospect of arrest and deportation hangs over his family, yet Imran Ahmed, the British founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, has spent years documenting how the biggest social platforms fail to enforce their own safety promises. Now he's fighting a government that wants him gone. And he's not slowing down.

A Green Card Holder Under Threat

Ahmed is a lawful permanent resident. He lives here with his American wife and their daughters, building a life in a country he's legally part of, and his work at CCDH focuses on one stubbornly simple question that won't go away no matter how many press releases tech companies put out. Do the safeguards actually function? They're advertised everywhere. But it's one thing to promise protection and another to prove it works.

His job, he says, is testing whether the protections hold up. Often they do not. That testing has made him a target. Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated Ahmed a national security risk over his lobbying and advocacy, clearing a path toward removal proceedings. Ahmed has called the move retaliation for being a thorn in Elon Musk's side.

Judge Loretta Preska of the US District Court called out Rubio's reasoning. She did it in a recent order. Preska noted that, "without any hint of irony," the secretary decided deporting Ahmed was necessary to protect American "freedom of expression" and to "reject encroachments" that "undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech.

"I may be British, but even I know that transparency isn't censorship and that speaking truth to the most powerful person on the planet is precisely the intention of the First Amendment," Ahmed said.

The Courtroom Fight He Did Not Choose

Preska ruled against Ahmed. But it's not because she thought his claims were weak. She found that Congress had stripped courts of the authority to block the government from starting removal proceedings, a conclusion that left his case without a path forward even though the underlying allegations were never really tested on their merits. His lawsuit, she wrote, was "premature." And she added that "Ahmed may very well have valid causes of action.

That distinction matters enormously. It suggests federal courts may never get to review the legal basis for an immigration policy tied to removal, even when that policy looks unconstitutional. Technology researchers across the country are alarmed by where that logic leads.

Preska's order gave the administration a five-day window to begin removal proceedings. Ahmed moved fast. He appealed and asked both Preska and the appeals court to extend a temporary restraining order blocking his detention or deportation. She granted it quickly, and the government is now barred from acting until the Second Circuit rules.

He remains in the country with his family.

Why the Government's Case Looks Thin

Here's the contradiction. Rubio's policy was pitched as a defense against foreign nationals who manipulate digital town squares and censor Americans, a broad claim about protecting speech from outside interference. But Judge James Boasberg, in a separate case brought by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, found the government showed no evidence linking any targeted researcher to a foreign power doing any such thing. No evidence at all. And that's the problem.

The policy, he ruled, was too broad. It's a ruling that could sweep in seemingly any noncitizen working in content moderation, and he blocked it as unconstitutional. The administration appealed that decision last week. And the coalition had anticipated that move.

Officials say Ahmed backed the EU fining X $1 billion.

That's their grounds. They've used that support for his national security designation, though no evidence has surfaced that he poses "serious adverse foreign policy consequences," and instead the government has offered what Ahmed describes as "shifting, contradictory, and unsupported rationales.

Boasberg drew a line that undercuts the whole premise. The possibility that a policy might later contribute to someone's removal, he held, does not turn a challenge to that policy into a review of a removal order.

X, Grok, and the Images Nobody Caught

While the legal battle grinds on, CCDH keeps working. Last week, the group contributed research to a major New York Times investigation into child sexual abuse material on X. The findings were grim.

• CCDH gave researchers at the Canadian Center for Children Protection access to more than four million links to Grok-generated images.
• Spot checks turned up 65 AI-generated CSAM images and 75 known CSAM images.
• Some of those images had been viewed hundreds of times.

X responded to a request for comment by pointing to an X Safety post stating, "X has zero tolerance for CSAM."

The State Department declined to comment on ongoing litigation but reiterated that it has authority to recommend removal proceedings for any noncitizen whose US activities could carry "serious adverse foreign policy consequences."

The Appeal That Could Reshape the Rules

Ahmed's appeal makes two claims. It argues the immigration policy violates the First Amendment, and it argues the policy violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Preska agreed those claims may be valid, yet she still found that the permanent injunction he sought, which would block the government from using the policy to detain or deport him, stripped the court of jurisdiction. So the court can't hear it.

Ahmed says that's not what he asked for. He wants the policy vacated and the government's actions declared unconstitutional, a demand he's pressed from the start. He has told the appeals court he doesn't seek an injunction preventing removal proceedings from starting. So what does he want resolved? The government's use of arrest and detention to punish protected speech, a question he argues can be answered without touching a removal order, because the two issues, in his view, don't have to be tangled together at all.

There is reason for optimism in his camp. The full Second Circuit took the unusual step of granting rehearing en banc before a petition was even filed, after six judges signaled they believe federal courts do have jurisdiction to provide relief in these circumstances. Ahmed's appeal points to that history as strong evidence the court will soon hold that jurisdiction exists.

Preska also bound herself to a recent ruling extending government authority over removal proceedings to "questions of law and fact" arising in challenges, not just removal orders. That ruling is itself being challenged.

Seven Years In, No Retreat

The mission, as he describes it, is making platforms safer for everyone. That work continues regardless of the pressure.

For now, the online hate researcher keeps hammering X and the rest of the industry, testing safeguards, publishing what fails, and daring the government to make good on its threat.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Imran Ahmed and what organization does he lead?

Imran Ahmed is the British founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). He is a lawful permanent resident of the United States, living there with his American wife and daughters. His work at CCDH focuses on testing whether social platforms' safety safeguards actually function.

Why did Secretary of State Marco Rubio designate Ahmed a national security risk?

Rubio designated Ahmed a national security risk over his lobbying and advocacy, clearing a path toward removal proceedings. Officials say Ahmed backed the EU fining X $1 billion, and they used that support for his national security designation. Ahmed has called the move retaliation for being a thorn in Elon Musk's side.

What did Judge Loretta Preska rule in Ahmed's case, and what was her reasoning?

Preska ruled against Ahmed, but not because she thought his claims were weak. She found that Congress had stripped courts of the authority to block the government from starting removal proceedings, leaving his case without a path forward even though the underlying allegations were never tested on their merits. She wrote that his lawsuit was "premature" and added that "Ahmed may very well have valid causes of action."

What did Judge James Boasberg find regarding the government's evidence linking targeted researchers to a foreign power?

In a separate case brought by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, Judge Boasberg found the government showed no evidence linking any targeted researcher to a foreign power doing any such thing. He ruled the policy was too broad, potentially sweeping in seemingly any noncitizen working in content moderation, and he blocked it as unconstitutional. The administration appealed that decision last week.

What research did CCDH contribute to a New York Times investigation, and what were the findings?

Last week, CCDH contributed research to a major New York Times investigation into child sexual abuse material on X. CCDH gave researchers at the Canadian Center for Children Protection access to more than four million links to Grok-generated images. Spot checks turned up 65 AI-generated CSAM images and 75 known CSAM images, some of which had been viewed hundreds of times.