(UNITED STATES) — A U.S. State Department official said on June 11, 2026 that the government has “no plans” to revoke Trita Parsi’s green card “at this time,” after reports that the Trump administration examined whether it could move against the Iran-born analyst over his criticism of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

The official paired that assurance with a warning about permanent residency. “The State Department has no plans to revoke the green card of Mr. Parsi at this time,” the official said.

The same official added: “However, no foreign national is guaranteed a right to be in our country, and this Department will unapologetically terminate the legal status of any foreign national who participates in activities that undermine America’s national security.”

A senior administration official described a broader policy of scrutiny under Secretary Marco Rubio in similarly blunt terms. “The secretary has been very clear. Anyone who seeks to undermine the US, we’re taking a hard look at. [This includes] people who support adversaries of ours and whose work furthers their agenda and undermines our security.”

Trita Parsi, 51, is a Swedish citizen born in Iran who has lived in the United States for over 25 years as a lawful permanent resident. He is the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a co-founder of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC.

Parsi has become one of the most visible advocates for diplomacy with Tehran during a war that has been underway since February 2026. His calls for military restraint and a negotiated ceasefire placed him in the middle of a widening clash over dissent, immigration status, and national security during wartime.

The legal authority under discussion is an older provision of immigration law, INA Section 212(a)(3)(C), which allows deportation proceedings against a non-citizen if the government concludes that the person’s presence carries “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Administration officials have reportedly examined whether that language could apply to Parsi.

Those reviews did not produce an immediate revocation plan, according to the State Department’s statement. Still, the language used by officials made clear that permanent residency remains conditional in the administration’s view, not a shield against action tied to foreign policy or national security claims.

Investigative accounts described a “hard look” at Parsi’s activities and at whether his advocacy could be framed as advancing the interests of an adversary. That scrutiny centered on his public push for negotiations with Iran rather than on any announced criminal charge or formal immigration filing.

The case sits inside a broader crackdown on non-citizens of Iranian descent during the conflict. In April 2026, the administration reportedly revoked the green cards of two women wrongly identified as relatives of the late Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

Those moves sharpened concerns among immigration lawyers and civil liberties advocates that deportation tools are being used against political speech. Critics have called the approach a “bureaucratic temper tantrum” and argue that legal residents do not lose First Amendment protections because they are not U.S. citizens.

That argument has practical force for green card holders, who can live and work in the United States indefinitely but remain vulnerable to removal under parts of immigration law that citizens do not face. The State Department’s statement underscored that distinction by stressing that “no foreign national is guaranteed a right to be in our country.”

Parsi now faces a position that is formally unchanged but materially uncertain. The government says it has no current plan to revoke his status, while also declaring that it will “unapologetically terminate” legal status when it decides a foreign national has crossed a national security line.

At the Quincy Institute, that uncertainty has already carried institutional consequences. An internal memo said the organization began preparing a legal defense fund to “fight a deportation attack” on Parsi.

That step suggests the institute sees the threat as more than rhetorical, even without an active revocation move. It also places a Washington foreign policy organization into a fight that could test how far the executive branch can go in using immigration law against a prominent critic of U.S. policy.

The chill may extend well beyond one analyst. Other permanent residents and non-citizens who oppose U.S. foreign policy now have a public example of how dissent can draw official scrutiny when it intersects with a declared national security interest.

Administration language points in that direction. The senior administration official did not describe a narrow review tied only to one person, but a standing posture toward “people who support adversaries of ours and whose work furthers their agenda and undermines our security.”

That wording leaves wide room for dispute over where advocacy ends and support begins. A ceasefire argument, an academic paper, a media appearance, or work inside a policy institute can all become evidence in such a framework if officials decide the speech aligns with an adversary’s interests.

No formal public action against Parsi had been announced as of June 11, 2026. The clearest government position remained the State Department official’s statement that there are no current plans to revoke his green card.

Even so, the combination of that assurance and the warning attached to it marked out the administration’s line: residency can continue, and residency can also be taken away if officials conclude that a foreign national’s conduct undermines national security. In wartime, that message lands far beyond one man, one institute, or one case file.