France Accuses Trump of Booting Space Researcher Over 'Personal Opinion'
Border officials reportedly barred the academic from visiting Texas after finding anti-Trump messages on his phone.

Houston, the French have a problem. A space researcher flying into Houston for a conference was kicked out of the United States after border officers searched his phone and found him expressing an unfavorable "personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy," French Minister of Higher Education and Research Philippe Baptiste told Agence France-Presse on Wednesday.
It's not clear exactly what the offending content was. One "diplomatic source" told Agence France-Presse that the unnamed scientist, who works for France's National Center for Scientific Research, was accused of messages "that reflect hatred towards [President Donald] Trump and can be described as terrorism." Another source, who placed the incident on March 9, said the scientist was threatened with an FBI investigation for "hateful and conspiratorial messages."
Asked about the report, the FBI's Houston office referred Reason to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which declined to discuss "specific cases" due to privacy rules but gave a general statement on policy.
"If an individual has material discovered on their electronic media that raises flags during an inspection, it can result in further analysis," CBP spokeswoman Hilton Beckham said. "Claims that such decisions are politically motivated are completely unfounded."
The Trump administration claims that student visas are a privilege granted at the administration's discretion, and that foreign academics simply don't have the same First Amendment rights as American-born scholars.
"The Secretary of State at any point can take a look and evaluate that [student] visa and decide if they want to revoke it," Deputy Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar told NPR, adding that the administration "would have never let" in someone who said "I'm going to go and protest."
Trump has portrayed his visa crackdown as a way to keep out terrorist agitators. His first target was Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian international relations student and a spokesman for protesters at Columbia University. The administration has also touted its expulsion of Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese doctor at Brown University who allegedly attended a Hezbollah leader's funeral.
But the case of the French space researcher is quite different. Rather than public activism on a sensitive national security issue, the scientist was allegedly kicked out over a private discussion of domestic policy—which the authorities only discovered after searching his phone. The case was egregious enough that his own government felt compelled to speak out.
The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Agence France-Presse that, although the U.S. is a "sovereign country" with control over its borders, France "deplores this situation" and stands by "freedom of expression" and "scientific cooperation."
Baptiste took the opportunity to pitch Europe as an alternative destination for academics. "Many well-known researchers are already questioning their future in the United States," he wrote on March 9, the same day the space scientist was reportedly kicked out. "We would naturally wish to welcome a certain number of them."
After all, what attracts so much innovation to the United States is its nearly unlimited academic freedom. Houston may be the headquarters of one of the world's first space programs, but it's not the only one. Future astronauts on cutting-edge spaceflights may be calling into Toulouse instead.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
difference between citizens and nons still matters to opponents of the New World Order
>Border officials reportedly barred the academic from visiting Texas after finding anti-Trump messages on his phone.
Like France does?
I traveled around Europe for a few weeks a few years ago.
7 countries, no one wanted to search my phone or laptop
(France was one of those countries)
Oh, come on Reason. You should know that rights are not something that government protects. Rather they come from government. Foreigners and non-citizens do not have any rights because government has not given them those rights. So if they have opinions that Trump doesn't like then they can be kicked out of the country. Because government has not given them any rights.
This is one more thing that Trump defenders have in common with the leftists they hate. They both reject the notion that all people have rights and it's the job of government to protect them, and instead view government as the granter, and revoker, of rights.
And they both absolutely hate libertarians who say that rights are inherent because of our humanity and it's the job of government to protect those rights. THEY FUCKING HATE THAT.
Yeah the mask has really been slipping of late. They've been quite open lately that:
- Foreigners don't have any rights at all. None. The only reason why the government doesn't murder them all on the spot is due to grace and mercy on the part of the government. Not because they are in any way entitled not to be murdered.
- Citizens have more rights, but they depend on where the citizen falls in the moral hierarchy. Real Murican patriots have all the rights. Transgender people, gay people, 'childless cat ladies', the (presumed) welfare bums who live in the big cities, they don't have many rights at all.
It's pretty amazing what Trump has done. Before Trump conservatives tended to be principled people who understood economics and believed in natural rights. Now they've got no principles, are willfully ignorant of economics, and reject natural rights. Just like the leftists they hate.
Well, not so fast. I agree that they had a better grasp of economics in the pre-Trump years. However, they were never firm believers in natural rights. All of these statutes that Trump is now using to go after his opponents, they are anti-terrorism statutes or Cold War-era statutes that conservatives loudly supported. They have *always* believed in a hierarchy of rights, and that government should grant more rights to some and fewer rights to others. Terrorists and communists don't deserve many if any rights. Trump is in essence just merging together the 1950's McCarthy playbook and the 2000's Bush anti-terrorism playbook and updating it.
I never said "firm" believers. But they did make noises that affirmed natural rights. Now they are loudly against them.
Go get a room for your little circle jerk. All you’re missing for your retard ménage a trois is Pluggo or White Mike.
At this point they're firmly on board with leftists who read the Bill of Rights as "Government grants freedoms that it can take away" except the 2A of course. But all the other rights, like speech and due process, to them are things that they want the government to revoke if they don't like the person. No principles at all. Just like the leftists they hate. And no concept of "me today, you tomorrow."
Principles, like those you supposedly have, Sarc?
Ah so. Lay internationar sociarist armost eggzactory same thing as kkkhristian internationarr sociarist... good2know. Is resurrt of monoforament rine extending from Hitler (to litght of zelo) to Stalin (to reft of zelo) on holizontarr abscissa extending from Hitler to Stalin with all mixed economy rooter kleptoclacies arrayed in between. No Noran chalt, no arternatives to sociarism... no choice.
"Foreigners don't have any rights at all."
They have to agree to things to get visas. Just because the government did not enforce them in the past did not change what they agreed to.
If you cannot abide by your agreements, then do not make them.
"Transgender people, gay people, 'childless cat ladies', the (presumed) welfare bums who live in the big cities, they don't have many rights at all."
What rights, EXACTLY, are they missing? Specifics please.
>>If you cannot abide by your agreements, then do not make them.
every NBA player agent on line 2
Right, so foreigners don't have rights, they only have the privileges that the government bestows upon them in the agreement that they sign.
Trump defenders and leftists are in full agreement that rights come from government. They reject the founding principles of this nation, that government exists to protect rights, and instead embrace the notion that government is the source of rights. This is because Trump defenders and leftists like to abuse people they don't like, and they rationalize it by telling themselves that those people have no rights. They're exactly the same in that regard. I-fucking-dentical.
So... this is like a scene from an Isaac Asimov trilogy, where--like some sort of logical identity--Bayta observes in Trantor that if two things are identical to a third thing, they turn out to be the same as each other. Q.E.D. Nicely done!
I know, expecting people to abide by what they agree to abide by is something only Nazis do.
Do foreigners have, say, Fourth Amendment rights? Should law enforcement be legally allowed to search a foreigner without a warrant? Should law enforcement be legally allowed to enter a foreigner's house and search it without a warrant?
Are you high or something? Of course foreigners have no rights. Government is the giver of rights, not the protector of rights. All leftists and Trump defenders agree on that.
I'm pretty sure that's the answer, I just want to hear it from damikesc.
The last thing looters of the leftanrite persuasion will ever admit is that a right is a moral claim to freedom of action. It's like the Wallace supporter said on talk radio: Yew thank ize sum sorta damn fool whut caint readnerite? Well ah kin readnerite jes fine, goddamit!
Do they agree that their visitation to the US comes with restrictions on certain rights, or the removal of those rights based on certain actions? If yes, I don’t see the problem. Note that I’m not saying they don’t have the rights (being natural rights it’s not like they can), just that they agree that abridgment of them is okay.
I know when I’ve traveled abroad that other countries (like Germany and Ukraine) absolutely said I had to agree to those terms to receive the travel visa.
the government bestowsthe citizenry votes to allowApparently, among these clowns, there is no such thing as unalienable rights and all men are created equal, etc., etc.
One of them told me that flat-out.
Another one said "well, sure, we have natural rights IN THEORY, but..."
The masks keep falling off.
Do you have a link to that?
I ask because the only person I’ve ever seen asserting that is Tony.
Uh hilk, uh hilk...
You idiots at act blue get dumber by the day.
Budget cuts. It's not pretty.
Apparently, among steaming piles of lefty shit, the US may place no limits on the actions of a visitor.
“Foreigners don't have any rights at all. None. The only reason why the government doesn't murder them all on the spot is due to grace and mercy on the part of the government. Not because they are in any way entitled not to be murdered.”
I don’t believe anyone has said this here.
Also spracht Green Hackworth: State Dept bureaucrat Green Hackworth sought to ignore extermination camps and Jewish genocide and--supported by Brit Anthony Eden--blinkered the concept of crimes against humanity. FDR's pal Herbert Pell (looked like Peter Sellers in Pink Panther) was the nemesis of this bureaucratic cowardice. By machinations Pell was fired, but went to the press, and there found vindication as Christian National Socialist death camps came to light. History does rhyme.
Very well said.
Yes, academics can go to Europe. Because it's so welcoming to non-mainstream thought and academic freedom . .
After all, what attracts so much innovation to the United States is its nearly unlimited academic freedom.
This is horseshit and you know it.
There hasn't been non-partisan academic freedom in this country for a long long time.
And frankly, with so much crap being published on the intersectionality of gender mutilation and racist mathematics, the academic output hasn't been worth squat in a long long time either. Let me know when they can out-do SpaceX innovation and progress.
Or when "Scientific American" is again scientific.
Sounds as though you would just as soon see the US Constitution and Bill of Rights relegated to the shit-bin because there are many who have differing opinions than yourself.
Uhhh. What part of the non-diversity non-equity non-inclusive drama have you missed over the past few years? Or were you part of it, and are now resentful that you aren't in charge any more?
Pretty sure that's a standard-issue steaming pile of lying lefty shit.
Academic freedom is not limited by government force. It's limited by the culture of the people in academia. Not the same thing.
It’s limited by what the government will fund in a grant, and by those who approve of the grant. Thus, yes, it is limited by soft government force.
Idiot. Academia long ago traded in its academic freedom for government subsidies. All they care about now is keeping the money coming.
Subsidize students and you get the marginal ones who would flunk out and stop borrowing to pay tuition if schools didn't dream up new useless fields which require nothing beyond attending protest rallies and signing the tuition loan forms.
Subsidize "research" and you get 57 gender fluidentity studies of racism in math.
That's where your precious academic freedom went.
I wouldn’t say there’s NO government force, since most schools are owned and operated the state. And through the DoEd, there’s a fair amount of federal “do as I say”.
"that reflect hatred towards [President Donald] Trump and can be described as terrorism."
Sounds perfectly legit.
Of course, if there had been two assassination attempts - - - - - - - - -
Zero assassination attempts. The first one intentionally missed and the second one never even fired a shot.
Lol. Congrats. You have made the bookmark of retards group.
in hockey it would be zero shots on goal
How do you know, out of curiosity, that the first one "intentionally" missed a shot.
And assassination ATTEMPTS do not specify success. There were assassination attempts against Ford. He survived them.
Yeah he intentionally waited until Trump turned his head and murdered an innocent bystander instead. That's some James Bond shit right there.
So that’s where you’ve been hiding!
"...Zero assassination attempts..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
And should fuck off and die.
Intentionally? Boy howdy you are ignorant! Not just about the reality, but about the simple fact that the bullet tagged his ear only because he turned his head just before then, and not even the best robotic super marksman can aim that well.
Good god you are stupid. Way out of your depth. How to tell us you are afraid of guns and have never shot one without actually palpitating in fear.
Good grief. Stupid doesn't come close to it.
"intentionally" gave the election to Trump.
"Intentionally" you are a retard.
I've been waiting for some brainless dumbfuck to say that was an intentional miss. No one shoots that precisely, with the target moving no less. Especially not some dumb kid.
If you think it credible that a fake assassination attempt fires a live round at the target's head so close that it nicks his ear, then you have been watching too many movies.
Oh, okay. But then:
So it IS politically motivated then. They flat-out admit that they aren't going to let in people whom they claim want to protest against the government.
Can we say now that he was denied entry because of his speech? Is that okay?
Yes, we are not going to invite in as a GUEST somebody coming in to protest us.
You know, like literally every other country on Earth.
You can say whatever you want. You being wrong is expected, after all.
Who is this "we" you are talking about?
Maybe "we" are not so thin-skinned that we are not afraid of others offering criticism.
Maybe "we" genuinely support free speech as a matter of principle.
Maybe "we" understand that if we permit the government to punish anyone for speech, it's only a matter of time until they punish you and I for speech.
We are not afraid of citizens criticizing.
If you're not a citizen, shut the fuck up as your opinion does not mean a damned thing. Why the hell would we bring them in as a guest if they intend to shit on the floor?
I know, you do not have friends to invite inside your cardboard box, but try and imagine.
If you're not a citizen, shut the fuck up as your opinion does not mean a damned thing.
Why is criticism invalid if it comes from a foreigner?
Why the hell would we bring them in as a guest if they intend to shit on the floor?
Why do you equate all criticism with "shitting on the floor"? Outside perspectives are frequently what's needed for an individual or an organization to clearly see what's wrong and to make necessary corrections. If only the people on the inside get to criticize, then the organization will very likely suffer from groupthink.
Besides, why is criticism from a foreigner equivalent to "shitting on the floor", but *the exact same criticism* from a citizen is not?
Apparently youdon’t understand. All genocidal Zionists interpret criticism as “shitting on the floor”.
"Why is criticism invalid if it comes from a foreigner?"
Because they are not us. I could give the tiniest iota of a shit if a Frenchman does not like the USA. He wants to come here and protest? Go the fuck back home. Your input was not requested.
"If only the people on the inside get to criticize, then the organization will very likely suffer from groupthink."
Oh noes. Sounds horrible.
Feel free to bitch about the USA. Back at home. Do it here and you, again, can go happily fuck yourself.
"Besides, why is criticism from a foreigner equivalent to "shitting on the floor", but *the exact same criticism* from a citizen is not?"
Because the citizen is a citizen and the foreigner is not. If I think somebody's home decor looks like shit, they are not going to give two shits as it is not my house.
Um... what new idea has any of these totalitarian mystical altruists contributed lately?
IFFF everything went down as this article says, that's pretty damned stupid.
But Petti lost his credibility long ago. I will wait and see what else surfaces before believing Petti. Or Reason at this point. This morning's Roundup was what I'd expect from Salon, not a libertarian publication. Much more of this and I won't waste time even reading the headlines.
My thoughts exactly.
Agreed. That’s why I just head straight for the comments first.
We've now had more stories on visas being revoked for ties to terrorism than we had for the Arrest and conviction of Mackey.
Weird.
Guess visitor immigrant speech rights are more important than citizens.
How is this guy a terrorist?
It’s actually quite simple. Because according to genocidal Zionist all speech that disagrees with their perspectives originates from terrorists. They choose to wipe their keisters with the US constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as with the principles under which this nation was founded.
'Nother Nazi shitbag.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
All of the Villarreal articles make up for the lack of Mackey coverage.
The point of this story is not rally if one could make a technical argument as to if is legal or not. The point is that it is a fascist move either way. "You can't come into the US if you speak out against Trump."? Bullshit.
Borders are fascist yells the retard.
Democrats did it first so it's ok.
Fuck off, troll.
Suck it up, some opinions here may conflict with your own.
That DOES settle all issues for socialists to the "left" of Hitler and to the "right" of Stalin along a monofilament abscissa with no units of anything to go by other than the exclusion of libertarian rights from the universe of discurse.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
And should fuck off and die, asshole.
All true statements. But my point is still valid.
I hate to have to tell you this but if some opinions here disturb you so terribly that you feel so compelled to run around telling people to fuck off and die rather than contributing compelling dialogue yourself, you should probably up the dosages on your psychotropics or find another doctor.
The opinion that a bullet that passed within a half inch of a man's skull a second after he unexpectedly turned his head was an intentional miss is worthy only of mockery and derision. Even Jacob Sullum isn't that stupid. Or is he...?
Dunno, but this shit is.
This is Sevo we're talking about. He is the 300-year-old guy that Trump mentioned in his speech to Congress.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Get a dictionary, or even look it up on Wikipedia. You know less about fascism than guns.
Odd statement, coming from a guy who chooses to wipe his keister with the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles under which nation was founded.
Ah, the DEI specialist who doesn't understand that real diversity, equity, and inclusion come from individuals spontaneously organizing and cooperating rather than government dictating. You sound like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr --
No. Civilization is cooperation, not coercion, and government is nothing but the biggest gang.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lying lefty shit.
We don't have the story. We have the claim of one side.
So, it is currently illegal for citizens to "support terrorism". If what this guy said on his phone, about hating Trump, is "terrorism", then wouldn't that mean there are currently a whole lot of citizens who are guilty of "supporting terrorism"?
No. But given that your side applauds fire bombing Teslas, your side is laden with terrorists.
It's just a matter of time before a state of emergency is declared that will allow Trump to go after citizens who express opinions he doesn't like. And his defenders will all be totally coo wit dat.
You do like to make strawmen, false equivalencies, and major mental leaps for things either highly unlikely to happen, or will never happen due to your extreme TDS.
He really should apply for a strawman permit at the rate he builds them.
When anyone pointed out the Deep State (read unelected bureaucrats) and Biden regime were in the middle of actual efforts to censor “covid misinformation” it was all conspiracy theory this and tin foil hat that.
I wonder what changed?
Well, as in 1939 Germany and Anslinger's USA... yes.
"The administration has also touted its expulsion of Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese doctor at Brown University who allegedly attended a Hezbollah leader's funeral."
Given that you cannot get this simple fact correct, why the fuck would I believe anything else you write?
Denial of entry is not expulsion. Fucking moron.
Really not enough information here to form an opinion, or write an article for that matter, but for the French to lecture the US about freedom of opinion is pretty hilarious.
rendez-nous notre Statue, perdants!
Aw, le fuck-off to them!
Oui.
Something tells me there's more to this story than what's being reported.
Where "something" is the byline "Matthew Petti".
Yeah, it’s called the new McCarthyism and it’s not coming from Petti.
You're right, he's just another useful idiot. It's coming from the woke crowd, who never met a coercive bureaucrat they didn't like, as long as it was their woke coercion.
That would be our new Molly sock.
It is called "past experience".
Look, you're either a frog or you're a prince. This guy was a frog.
"Future astronauts on cutting-edge spaceflights may be calling into Toulouse instead."
Not likely. After ramping up their defense spending in response to Europe handling (more of) their own defense, Frenchie's discretionary spending is gonna tank.
Did they reportedly bar him, or reportedly report that he may have …..
The reporter seems to have nothing to report, so in-your-end-o is the word of the day
France, do yourself a favor - shut up. You have no idea how much you're flirting with being nuked right now. Just in general.
It's not clear exactly what the offending content was.
Well then what are we talking about here. You've assumed it's something innocuous, others have assumed it's got some terroristy vibes. But, we don't know.
And it doesn't really matter. We suffer a tourist at our own discretion. We don't have to provide any reason at all to say, "Nope, turn around, get off my porch." No different than closing your front door on a solicitor when he's in mid-sentence. Maybe a little bit rude - but entertaining them only encourages them to keep doing it. (And it's not like America elected President Politeness in the first place.)
And even when we invite them to stay awhile, like the dude said - we can revoke at any time for any reason. I invite you in, you take a look at the photos of family and declare them all ugly, and I say, "Well thanks for coming, but get out."
Followed by, "And don't come back, *racks shotgun*"
Totally 100% legal and unobjectionable.
Observe with what facility mystical totalitarians pontificate on what "we" do not know...
So the questions here are: What exactly was the offending content? Was it innocuous or a credible threat?
Assuming that it was innocuous, does the response represent official government policy? Or does it represent an overzealous agent who is a Trump fan or sucking up to the new administration?
Messages that can be described as terrorism!? I'd love to see one of those, but it might be too dangerous.