British journalist and political commentator Sami Hamdi was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at San Francisco International Airport in late October 2025 after his visa was revoked. U.S. authorities allege Hamdi supports terrorism and poses a national security threat, claims denied by his supporters and free speech advocates. The incident has triggered sharp condemnation from international journalist organizations and civil rights groups, highlighting tensions between security policies and freedom of expression.
Details of the Detention
Incident Overview
Sami Hamdi, known for his commentary on Middle Eastern affairs and UK politics, was taken into custody on October 26, 2025, during routine entry processing at San Francisco International Airport. His visa was revoked shortly before the detention, abruptly ending his speaking tour in the United States. Hamdi had been participating in events organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, including a recent engagement in Sacramento, California. He was scheduled for another public appearance in Florida before his detention.
Official Position
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and State Department justified the detention as a national security measure. Officials stated the United States does not have an obligation to provide entry or residence to individuals who endorse terrorism or threaten American safety. However, no evidence supporting these allegations against Hamdi has been publicly disclosed. Hamdi remains in ICE custody awaiting deportation.
Reactions from Journalistic and Civil Rights Communities
International Federation of Journalists and National Union of Journalists
The International Federation of Journalists, representing over 600,000 journalists worldwide, condemned Hamdi’s detention as a violation of fundamental rights and a severe threat to freedom of expression. The federation criticized the apparent misuse of anti-terror legislation to silence a journalist, warning it sets a dangerous precedent for democratic debate. The UK-based National Union of Journalists echoed these concerns, emphasizing the lack of evidence for any terrorist offenses and calling for Hamdi’s immediate release.
Civil Rights Advocacy Groups
The Council on American-Islamic Relations described the detention as political retaliation for Hamdi’s outspoken criticism of Israeli government actions in Gaza. The group called the arrest a blatant affront to free speech and a suppression of legitimate political discourse. CAIR leaders argued that Hamdi’s longstanding record of lawful speaking engagements contradicts the accusations against him and warned of the chilling effect such detentions could have on activists and journalists critical of U.S. allies.
Broader Context: Press Freedom and Security Measures
Global Trends in Journalist Detentions
This case is part of a global pattern where journalists face growing risks of detention, harassment, and restrictions. Reports indicate a steep rise in arbitrary detention of journalists worldwide, with a 20 percent increase to nearly 500 journalists held in detention as of 2021. These actions raise alarms about efforts to suppress press freedom and restrict critical voices, especially those covering conflicts and politically sensitive issues.
Impact on Democratic Rights
The use of anti-terrorism laws and immigration controls to detain journalists like Hamdi raises profound questions about balancing security concerns with civil liberties. Observers warn this practice may suppress dissent and lead journalists to self-censor to avoid repercussions. Such developments undermine democratic principles that rely on open public debate and transparency, increasing fears about government overreach and erosion of free speech protections.
The detention of Sami Hamdi by U.S. immigration authorities illustrates the complex intersection of national security policies and press freedoms. With no public disclosure of evidence supporting terrorism accusations, Hamdi’s arrest has galvanized global journalist and civil rights organizations to demand his immediate release and protection of journalistic rights. The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by journalists worldwide, who seek to report and comment on politically sensitive matters without censorship or legal intimidation.
