About nine years ago, a new organization called Canary Mission released a YouTube video describing their mission: maintaining a blacklist of anti-Israel college students.
American campuses, the video warns, had become hotbeds of anti-Israel extremism: safe spaces for students to attend “Jew-hating conferences and anti-American rallies.” To fight this, Canary Mission would build an extensive database of students and professors who engaged in anti-Israel activity. The primary intent, per the video, is to ensure that anti-Israel students cannot find gainful employment after graduation.
“These individuals are applying for jobs within your company,” the Canary Mission video warns. “It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees.”
Over the course of the next decade, Canary Mission — which takes its name from the expression “canary in the coal mine” — delivered on its promise.
Its database now contains mini-profiles of thousands of students and professors, and has expanded to include professionals like doctors and nurses. People listed in the database have been harassed, disciplined, and even fired. Israeli intelligence has used Canary Mission profiles as justification for detaining listed visitors at the border.
And since the second Trump administration began, Canary Mission’s targets have started to be deported from the United States.
After plainclothes officers arrested Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk on the streets of Boston in late March, Öztürk’s attorneys claimed the sole reason for her arrest was her Canary Mission profile. While the Trump administration claims she had engaged in activity “in support of Hamas,” the private Homeland Security memo justifying her detention only cited an op-ed she had written in support of boycotting Israel, using language very similar to her Canary Mission page.
The organization, for its part, is happy to take the credit (though it did not respond to my request for comment). After Ozturk’s arrest, Canary Mission’s X account posted a celebratory tweet claiming “sources point to her Canary Mission profile as the primary cause.” It currently maintains a list of seven other students and professors who it believes should be targeted for deportation. Two of these, Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, are currently in ICE custody. Mahdawi was arrested after his name appeared on this list (Khalil was arrested before it was published).
Canary Mission’s rise is not really a story about one organization, or even the toxic climate of America’s Israel-Palestine debate. Rather, it is a case study in how civil society organizations — normally seen as pillars of liberal democratic life — can become agents of illiberalism. And when such groups can align themselves with a friendly government, the danger rises exponentially.
The mysterious rise of the Canary Mission
There are many pro-Israel activist in groups in the United States, and many that focus on college campuses specifically. But Canary Mission is unusual in two respects: its opaque structure and extremely aggressive tactics.
Canary Mission’s website does not list a president, board, or a staff directory. On paper, its headquarters are in Israel — specifically Beit Shemesh, a medium-sized city near Jerusalem. Yet the address listed on its paperwork is in a padlocked, seemingly abandoned building.
Over the years, reporters have identified some of the Canary Mission’s revenue streams — including significant donations from some prominent American Jewish philanthropies. But much of the Canary Mission’s funding remains anonymous due to its use of a pass-through group, called Central Fund of Israel (CFI).
American donors can give to CFI without having to disclose whether the money is earmarked for Canary Mission, and CFI can disburse funds to Canary without noting their original source. It’s an unusual setup that effectively allows Canary Mission to keep its funding sources fully anonymous.
“It really stands out when you look at other similar organizations in the same ecosystem,” says Yousef Munayyer, the head of the Israel-Palestine program at the Arab Center think tank in DC. “I can’t think of another one that hides their funding like this.”
The obvious irony — that an organization dedicated to naming and shaming is itself so opaque — is palpable. But it is necessary, in part, because Canary Mission has been a lightning rod for controversy even within the pro-Israel community.
No matter what you think about pro-Israel groups’ views of American college campuses, they clearly have the right to express their views and organize around them. And many of these groups engage in political activity — like documenting Jewish students’ concerns about campus antisemitism or creating new right-leaning Middle East studies journals — that are within the confines of legitimate debate and activism in a democratic society.
But Canary Mission represents a different, and more aggressive, strain of campus pro-Israel activism, one that aims not to debate pro-Palestinian students and scholars but to silence them.
Lila Corwin Berman, a historian of Jewish philanthropy at New York University, dates this approach to roughly the early 2000s. During that time, pro-Israel organizations like Campus Watch and the David Project began publicly targeting professors and students that they believed had engaged in unacceptable speech.
These efforts were haphazard at the outset, publishing specific attacks on allegedly problematic scholars rather than maintaining a full-on blacklist. Canary Mission’s database, first unveiled in 2014, represented a qualitative escalation — one explicitly aimed at creating professional problems for anti-Israel activists.
This was highly controversial. In 2018, pro-Israel campus groups at five major universities published a joint op-ed calling on the movement to repudiate Canary Mission.
“We are compelled to speak out against this website because it uses intimidation tactics, is antithetical to our democratic and Jewish values, is counterproductive to our efforts and is morally reprehensible,” they wrote.
This internal criticism did not do much to stop the Canary Mission’s growth, fueled as it was by unaccountable backers. Today, Canary Mission’s searchable database is vast — containing entries for over 2,000 individuals across 38 states, DC, and five Canadian provinces.
How the Canary Mission works
To understand why Canary Mission is so controversial, start by looking at how its blacklist works.
Each individual listing contains both a dossier documenting the target’s alleged offenses and their contact information, including direct links to their social media accounts that can facilitate targeted harassment campaigns. The only official way to get an entry deleted is to release a public apology with evidence of new pro-Israel beliefs; these testimonials are then posted on the “ex-Canary” segment of the Mission’s website.
Some Canary Mission targets have said or done something that many would find offensive, such as endorsing the October 7, 2023, massacre. But the vast majority of profiles I could find were individuals who either attended a pro-Palestinian rally or wrote something critical about Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.
Canary Mission will describe this banal activity in threatening terms, like “attending a pro-Hamas rally.” But the speech in question is more than just legally protected: It is exactly the sort of political activity that people in a democracy are supposed to use as a vehicle for expressing their opinion. The Mission’s database isn’t primarily about identifying examples of extreme anti-Israel speech or political violence — it is about trying to silence any criticism of Israel by labeling it antisemitic or pro-terrorist.
Rümeysa Öztürk, the Tufts graduate student facing deportation, is a case in point.
The Canary Mission profile that reportedly led to her ICE arrest listed a single offense — an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper calling on the university to (among other things) “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and “divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.” Agree or disagree with these positions, advocating for them is clearly legitimate political speech. There is no plausible case that people like Öztürk constitute any kind of threat to Jews on campus. That she is listed by Canary Mission — and that the organization publicly cheered her arrest — reveals its primary interest in policing speech critical of Israel by any means necessary.
This can also be seen by the sheer number of Jewish students and professors on the Canary Mission’s database.
The American Jewish community is fairly left-wing; roughly two-thirds disapprove of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right government. While a strong majority supports Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state, large numbers of American Jews believe its occupation of Palestinian territory is both strategically unwise and morally indefensible. There is also a minority of anti-Zionist American Jews, more prominent in younger generations, who support the dissolution of Israel and its replacement with a binational state.
If you scan the Canary Mission database, Jewish students and scholars make up many of the entries. Reading their dossiers, like the profile of eminent Holocaust historian Omer Bartov, their alleged offenses include everything from criticizing the Netanyahu government’s approach to judicial reform to attending a pro-Palestinian demonstration.
If Canary Mission were truly about protecting Jews’ rights to participate freely in campus life, then it wouldn’t include them on a database explicitly designed to hurt their career prospects.
From the campus to ICE
We don’t know for a fact that the Trump administration is using Canary Mission’s database to identify deportation targets. There is suggestive evidence: The wording in the State Department memo justifying Öztürk’s deportation, for example, is very similar to what appeared on her Canary profile). But so far, there is no direct proof of a link.
Yet regardless of whether Canary Mission entries are currently directing policy, it’s clear they wish to be seen as doing so. They do this not only by maintaining their list of seven people they wish were deported, but also posting messages in support for actual deportations with slogans like “pro-Hamas extremism has consequences” and “no more safe havens for terror supporters.”
These messages demonstrate an undeniable hostility to basic liberal values. Canary Mission has graduated from “merely” advocating professional consequences for pro-Palestinian voices to endorsing outright state repression against them. They are sliding down a slippery slope at a rapid clip.
The depressing thing is that it makes all the sense in the world.
The idea of trying to silence political opponents rather than debate them is dangerous. There are certainly cases where speech merits consequences: If a professor says discriminatory things about Jewish students, for example, or an activist advocates violence against her peers. But these are generally seen as exceptions rather than rules in free societies: the “boundary cases” where toleration for political expression runs up against other important values.
Canary Mission was founded on the opposite principle: that an entire category of speech, pro-Palestinian advocacy, should be treated as presumptively illegitimate. They believe the cause of defending Israel is best served not by engaging in rigorous debate and advocacy, but by making a giant list of people who believe the “wrong” things and ensuring they suffer consequences for those beliefs.
This is illiberalism as practiced by civil society — and is, necessarily, less dangerous than illiberalism enforced by the state. But when illiberalism takes root in an influential sector of society, such as pro-Israel activism, it becomes a potential ally for an illiberal regime.
No elected leader can turn a democracy into an authoritarian regime on their own. They need partners, influential people and organizations that can operate to weaken resistance to democratic backsliding and help create a climate of fear in which anti-government activity is perceived as costly.
The go-to examples are usually people with physical power and money — generals, police chiefs, and the wealthy elite. But there’s a growing recognition that other social groups, even ones that seemingly lack soldiers or billions, can assist in undermining democracy’s foundations.
In 2001, the political theorists Simone Chambers and Jeffrey Kopstein warned of a phenomenon they termed “bad civil society.” This is a phenomenon that they describe as “civic participation that weakens liberal democracy” — weaponizing the tools of organizing and activism to oppose the very democratic principles that allow them in the first place.
At the time, it appeared that “illiberal forces are small, marginalized, and contained” in the United States. However, Chambers and Kopstein warned, this doesn’t mean they’ll always be irrelevant.
Even if “illiberal forces cannot destabilize the state,” the authors write, “they can still “contribute to an insidious erosion of values that leaves liberalism vulnerable to all sorts of threat.”
Canary Mission’s behavior in the past 10 years shows that this warning was prescient. The organization isn’t just cheering Trump on from the sidelines; they have put together a public list of potential deportation targets. They are gleefully reveling in the fact that their longtime mission of suppressing speech is now backed by force of law.
The post Canary Mission, the pro-Israel group taking credit for student deportation, explained appeared first on Vox.
