Gabar Choli, a Kurdish film‑maker and asylum seeker, entered a Texas ICE detention facility in early 2025 after crossing the border near Blaine, Washington. While refusing to eat as a protest against indefinite detention, he was restrained by guards, shackled to a metal chair, and subjected to repeated nasogastric tube insertions. In a harrowing moment, a nurse allegedly “shoved the tube so hard” that it tore the lining of his nose from the inside, causing a bloody wound that persisted for days, as recounted in his testimony to The Guardian.
What Happened
The ordeal lasted nearly eight months, during which Choli was repeatedly forced to ingest a nutrient‑rich solution through a tube inserted into his nostril. Medical records show that the tube caused severe nasal trauma, including a perforated septum that bled for several days, and that he was repeatedly restrained with handcuffs and a waist belt while the procedure was carried out. The practice was authorized under a March 2025 court order that allowed ICE to seek judicial approval for involuntary medical interventions when officials deemed a detainee’s condition a serious risk of death or permanent harm. A spokesperson for ICE told The Guardian that any such treatment is conducted “only pursuant to legal authority and under the direction of qualified medical professionals,” while the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Texas declined to comment on the specifics of Choli’s case.
Choli’s experience is not isolated; court filings indicate that at least ten hunger strikers were subjected to similar forced‑feeding orders in the same facility, and the Department of Justice has yet to provide a detailed response to inquiries about the legal basis for the interventions.
Why It Matters
From a medical ethics standpoint, the forced feeding described by Choli meets many scholars’ criteria for torture. Dr. Chanelle Diaz, an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University, reviewed the limited court records and warned that “the degree of risk he was being put at, long‑term, is difficult to capture, and the procedure likely amounts to torture.” Such a designation carries profound implications for the United Nations Convention Against Torture and for U.S. obligations under international human‑rights law.
Politically, the case underscores a broader revival of aggressive immigration enforcement under President Trump, who has made the crackdown on asylum seekers a centerpiece of his agenda. By authorizing force‑feeding, the administration is effectively treating hunger strikes — a legitimate form of protest — as a security threat that justifies invasive medical procedures, thereby normalizing state‑sanctioned bodily coercion.
Legally, the practice invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b)(3), which permits the government to seek a court order for medical treatment when a detainee’s health poses a serious risk. Critics argue that the statute was never intended to justify non‑consensual feeding, and that the swift issuance of the March 2025 order reflects an expansion of executive power that could survive judicial scrutiny if the courts defer to agency expertise.
The broader impact extends beyond Choli’s individual suffering. The spectacle of a well‑educated, religious activist being physically violated in a detention cell sends a chilling message to the wider immigrant community, discouraging dissent and potentially violating the First Amendment right to peaceful protest.
Historical Context
Forced feeding has a long, contentious history in U.S. immigration enforcement. In 2005‑2006, a wave of hunger strikes at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp sparked a global outcry when officials resorted to nasogastric tubes, prompting extensive medical and legal scrutiny. The 2015 Department of Health and Human Services regulation explicitly prohibited non‑consensual feeding, a rule that was later rescinded in a 2020 memorandum that reinstated the authority for ICE to pursue medical interventions without detainee consent.
The Trump administration’s 2025 policy directive, obtained by The Guardian, instructed ICE to “seek judicial authorization for appropriate medical interventions consistent with applicable law” when a detainee’s condition presents a serious risk of death or permanent harm. This mirrors the 2014 Arizona ICE forced‑feeding episode, where dozens of detainees were subjected to similar procedures under the guise of protecting their health, and highlights a pattern of using medical rationales to sidestep due process.
What to Watch
Legal challenges are already emerging. Civil rights groups have filed a class‑action lawsuit alleging that the forced‑feeding orders violate both the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement for transparent rulemaking. The Department of Justice’s response will be pivotal; a refusal to defend the orders could force the courts to issue an injunction that halts the practice pending further review.
On the legislative front, members of Congress are drafting a bill to codify a ban on non‑consensual medical procedures in immigration detention, citing the Choli case as evidence of systemic abuse. If passed, the legislation would require ICE to obtain explicit detainee consent or a higher evidentiary standard before any forced medical intervention, potentially reshaping the agency’s operational landscape.
Key Takeaway
The Choli case is a stark illustration of how a revived, loosely defined policy can transform a medical emergency into a tool of coercive control, exposing the tension between executive authority, humanitarian law, and the lived reality of immigrant detainees under President Trump’s enforcement agenda.
