This Is How You Interview a Government Official

Michel Martin's relentless questioning of Troy Edgar revealed there may be no evidence behind the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil.

When a government arrests someone, we expect officials to be able to clearly explain why. It's a foundational principle of a functioning democracy: the state must justify its power when it detains people.

That's what makes NPR's Michel Martin's recent interview with Troy Edgar, the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, so remarkable and disturbing. Martin repeatedly asked a seemingly straightforward question: What specifically did Mahmoud Khalil do to warrant his arrest? Edgar couldn't — or wouldn't — provide an answer.

---

---

For those who missed it, on March 8th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Khalil, a Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student. He's a legal permanent resident with a green card, married to a U.S. citizen who is eight months pregnant. The Trump administration has claimed Khalil supported terrorism or Hamas but has provided zero specifics about what actions justified stripping him of his legal status and detaining him.

The administration has not charged him with any crime. The closest thing to an explanation came from DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, who claimed Khalil "led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization," without specifying what those activities were.

And that brings me to Martin's interview with Edgar, which is reminiscent of Jake Tapper's 2016 interview with Donald Trump that I wrote about back in September 2023. In both cases, the journalists simply refused to move on until they got an answer to their question. This is the way.

Here's the exchange between Martin and Edgar:

MICHEL MARTIN, NPR: Mahmoud Khalil says he acted as a spokesperson for pro-Palestinian demonstrators and as a mediator with Columbia University, where he was a graduate student. As you know, Mr. Edgar, any conduct that can be legally sanctioned must be described. So, what is the specific conduct the government alleges that Mr. Khalil engaged in that merits removal from the United States.

TROY EDGAR, DHS: I think what you saw there is you've got somebody that has come into the country on a visa. And as he's going through the visa process, he is coming in to basically be a student that is not going to be supporting terrorism. So, the issue is he was let into the country on this visa. He has been promoting this antisemitism activity at the university. And at this point, the State Department has revoked his visa for supporting a terrorist type organization. And we're the enforcing agencies, so we've come in to basically arrest him.

MARTIN: A White House official told the Free Press that there's no allegation that he broke any laws. So, again, I have to ask, what specifically constitutes terrorist activity that he was supporting? What exactly do you say he did?

EDGAR: Well, like I said, when you apply for a visa, you go through the process to be able to say that you're here on a student visa, that doesn't afford you all the rights of coming in and basically going through this process, agitating and supporting Hamas. So, at this point, yeah, the Secretary of State and the State Department maintains the right to revoke the visa, and that's what they've done.

MARTIN: How did he support Hamas? Exactly what did he do?

EDGAR: Well, I think you can see it on TV, right? This is somebody that we've invited and allowed the student to come into the country, and he's put himself in the middle of the process of basically pro-Palestinian activity. And at this point, like I said, the Secretary of State can review his visa process at any point and revoke it.

MARTIN: He's a permanent resident. He's not a visa holder. He's a legal permanent resident. He has the green card, at least he did, until it's alleged that it was revoked. If the allegation is that Mr. Khalil organized protests and made speeches after which other people engaged in prohibited activity, or, say, violent activity. Well, Mr. Trump gave a political speech on January 6, 2021, after which some individuals engaged in violent and illegal acts. How is this any different?

EDGAR: President Trump's a citizen and the president of the United States. This is a person that came in under a visa. And again, the secretary of state at any point can take a look and evaluate that visa and decide if they want to revoke it.

MARTIN: He's a legal permanent resident. I have to keep insisting on that. He is a legal permanent resident. So what is the standard? Is any criticism of the Israeli government a deportable offense?

EDGAR: Like I said, I think that at this point when he entered into the country on a student visa, at any point we can go through and evaluate what his status is.

MARTIN: Is any criticism of the United States government a deportable offense?

EDGAR: Like I said, if you go through the process and you're a student and you're here on a visa and you go through it, at any point …

MARTIN: Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?

EDGAR: Let me put it this way, Michel, imagine if he came in and filled out the form and said, 'I want a student visa.' They asked him, 'What are you going to do here?' And he says, 'I'm going to go and protest.' We would have never let him into the country.

MARTIN: Is protesting a deportable offense?

EDGAR: You're focused on protests. I'm focused on the visa process. He went through a legal process ...

MARTIN: Are you saying he lied on his application? He's a lawful permanent resident, married to an American citizen.

EDGAR: I think if he would have declared he's a terrorist, we would have never let him in.

MARTIN: And what did he engage in that constitutes terrorist activity?

EDGAR: I mean, Michel, have you watched it on TV? It's pretty clear.

MARTIN: No, it isn't. Well, explain it to those of us who have not or perhaps others have not. What exactly did you do?

EDGAR: Well, I think it's clear or we wouldn't be talking about it. I mean, the reality is that if you watch and see what he's done on the university …

MARTIN: Do you not know? Are you telling us that you're not aware?

EDGAR: I find it interesting that you're not aware.

MARTIN: I think you could explain it to us. I think others would like to know exactly what the offenses are, what the propaganda was that you allege, what the activity was that you allege. Well, perhaps we can talk again and you can give us more details about this. We really appreciate your coming to join us, and we do hope we'll talk again.

EDGAR: Thank you.

What we just witnessed is the perfect execution of what I described in my 2023 article about Tapper's interview with Trump: a journalist who simply refuses to move on until they get an answer to their question.

Martin pressed Edgar at least ten times to provide a specific example of what Khalil did that constituted supporting terrorism, and Edgar couldn't offer a single concrete example. Not one.

Instead, he kept pivoting to claiming Khalil was on a visa (he wasn't — he's a legal permanent resident with a green card, which Martin had to correct multiple times), vague hand-waving (“I think you can see it on TV, right?”), and suggesting that simply participating in “pro-Palestinian activity” is somehow equivalent to supporting terrorism.

To be absolutely clear: believing that people shouldn't be arrested and potentially deported without clear explanations doesn't mean endorsing their protests or political views. This isn't about supporting or opposing Khalil's stance on Gaza or Israel. It's about basic due process. And since the government refuses to specify what Khalil actually did, it's literally impossible for any of us to judge whether his actions crossed any legitimate legal line.

At one point, Edgar actually tries to turn the tables on Martin herself, saying, "I find it interesting that you're not aware" when she asks him to explain what Khalil did. It's the interview equivalent of saying "Do your own research!" when you've got absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

The parallels to Tapper's 2016 interview with Trump about Judge Gonzalo Curiel are striking. In both cases, a government official (or candidate) made a damning accusation without evidence, and when pressed repeatedly to provide specifics, they simply couldn't.

Let's remember what I wrote about Tapper's approach: "Trump repeatedly tried to redirect the conversation to something unrelated (Hillary! Eric Schneiderman! He's Mexican!), but Tapper would not move on. It's an excruciatingly uncomfortable interview, but Tapper didn't flinch."

Martin deployed the exact same strategy. Edgar repeatedly tried to redirect to visa processes and vague accusations, but Martin wouldn't let him slide. She kept bringing it back to the central question: What. Did. He. Do?

The fact that Edgar couldn't answer this most basic question speaks volumes. It strongly suggests that Khalil's arrest has nothing to do with actual terrorist activity and everything to do with silencing a Palestinian voice critical of Israeli policy and U.S. support for the war in Gaza.

As Charlie Warzel of The Atlantic perfectly put it on Bluesky: "Everyone should listen to this in its entirety, but journalists should listen to it multiple times. This is how you ask questions. You just keep asking simple, easily answerable stuff, and the evasiveness becomes that much more glaring."

This is what journalism should be. Not letting officials hide behind vague claims and procedural jargon. Not allowing them to redefine terms mid-interview. Not permitting them to change the subject when the question gets uncomfortable.

Martin's approach should be the standard, not the exception. This is how you interview government officials when they're trying to justify actions that might violate someone's fundamental rights. You stay focused, you correct misstatements, and you don't move on until you get a real answer — or until the official's non-answers make it abundantly clear that there isn't one.

In a political climate where government officials increasingly offer vague accusations without evidence, expecting journalists to just move on to the next question, we need more Michel Martins who simply refuse to play that game.