U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement force-fed Kurdish asylum seeker Gabar Choli repeatedly over an eight-month period while he was on a hunger strike protesting detention conditions, according to court records and interviews.

Choli, a 40-year-old filmmaker and activist from Iraqi Kurdistan, legally entered the United States from Canada in 2022 and lived in Los Angeles while his asylum case was processed. An immigration judge denied his asylum claim in 2024 but granted him protection from deportation to Iran, where his advocacy for Kurdish independence could put his life at risk. He was arrested in February 2025 during a routine ICE check-in and initially detained at the Desert View Annex in Adelanto, California, a facility operated by the private prison company GEO Group.

Beginning March 24, 2025, Choli refused food while in custody, first at Desert View Annex and later after being transferred to the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Texas, where he was placed in solitary confinement. On May 23, 2025, ICE and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas requested court authorization for forced medical procedures, including tube feeding. U.S. District Judge Rolando Olvera approved the request the next day without allowing Choli to speak in court. Court records indicate Choli did not have legal representation during these proceedings, and his request for a public defender was denied because civil cases do not guarantee one.

According to Choli, guards restrained him while medical staff inserted feeding tubes through his nose and throat, sometimes twice daily, from late May 2025 until his deportation in January 2026. He reported that a nurse once pushed the tube so hard it tore his nose internally, after which he was placed in a medical isolation cell and choked on blood. Additional injuries included swollen sinuses, esophageal damage, stomach problems, a feeding tube accidentally entering his lung, and rib injuries that made breathing painful for weeks. Choli also reported losing consciousness at one point and being revived.

Medical experts who reviewed limited court records described the treatment as inhumane and potentially torture. Dr. Chanelle Diaz of Columbia University estimated that over 100 nasogastric tube placements occurred during the eight-month period. Dr. Parveen Parmar of Physicians for Human Rights emphasized that patient autonomy is a core principle of medicine and that hunger strikers of sound mind have the right to refuse treatment.

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to specific questions about Choli’s case. A DHS spokesperson stated that ICE respects an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment where appropriate but may seek court-ordered intervention in cases involving risk of death or serious harm. ICE stated in court filings that a social worker acknowledged Choli was acting voluntarily, but the agency argued his condition posed a health risk and could threaten facility security. Judge Olvera described the hunger strike as an attempt to manipulate the immigration system.

Choli was deported to Canada on January 6, 2026, where he reunited with his siblings. He reported ongoing physical and mental health issues, including damage to his kidneys, gallbladder, intestines, and bladder, stating that every movement causes pain. He described the experience as mentally devastating and said he wrote an apology letter to his own body.

Sources within DHS indicated that between January 2025 and August 4, 2026, ICE obtained court orders for the forced treatment of 18 hunger strikers in total. The report notes that hundreds of people have gone on hunger strike at ICE detention centers during the Trump administration to protest conditions including overcrowding, unsanitary environments, inadequate medical care, and delays in immigration proceedings.

Original Sources/Tags: theguardian.com, theguardian.com, theguardian.com, rawstory.com, ua.news, theguardian.com, commondreams.org, politicalwire.com, (canada), (texas), (nurse), (dhs), (asylum), (interviews), (liberation)

The article offers no actionable steps for a reader to take immediately. It does not explain how to prevent force-feeding, seek legal help during detention, or find support after deportation. It does not list organizations, hotlines, or resources that a person could contact. It does not describe how to file complaints, challenge court orders, or protect oneself from similar treatment. A reader cannot use this article to change their situation or take any concrete action.

The educational depth is limited. The article states that force-feeding occurred and that medical experts called it torture, but it does not explain the medical procedures, the legal standards for involuntary treatment, or how court orders for medical care are typically issued. It does not describe the difference between medical necessity and punitive treatment. It does not explain how hunger strikes are handled in detention systems or what legal protections exist. The statistics about 18 hunger strikers are mentioned but not explained, and no context is given for how common this practice is or how these cases are decided.

Personal relevance is narrow. The article affects a very small group of people, specifically those detained by ICE who choose to go on hunger strikes. Most readers will never face this situation. The story is about a specific individual in a specific detention center, and it does not connect to broader experiences that ordinary people encounter in daily life. The relevance is limited to those directly involved in immigration detention or advocacy work.

The public service function is weak. The article does not offer warnings about detention conditions, guidance on how to seek legal representation, or information about rights during medical treatment. It does not explain how to report abuse or where to find help. It does not provide emergency contact information or resources for people facing deportation. The article recounts a story but does not help the public act responsibly or protect themselves.

There is no practical advice in the article. It does not give steps for staying safe during detention, maintaining health during a hunger strike, or navigating the legal system. It does not suggest ways to communicate with lawyers, document mistreatment, or appeal court decisions. The guidance that might exist is absent, leaving readers with no tools to apply the information.

The long term impact is minimal. The article focuses on a single case that lasted eight months and ended with deportation. It does not explain how to prepare for future detention, avoid similar situations, or build resilience against coercive treatment. It does not offer habits, planning methods, or preventive measures that could help people in the future. The story is historical and does not translate into lasting benefit.

The emotional impact is harmful. The article describes graphic details of force-feeding, internal injuries, and solitary confinement without offering any way to respond or cope. It creates fear and helplessness rather than clarity or constructive thinking. Readers may feel distressed without gaining any understanding of how to protect themselves or others. The tone is shocking and leaves no path forward.

There is no clickbait language, but the article relies on dramatic details to maintain attention. It repeats descriptions of violence and suffering without adding substantive analysis. The focus on graphic injuries and emotional breakdowns serves to shock rather than inform. The article does not overpromise, but it does emphasize extreme outcomes without balancing them with context or solutions.

The article misses major opportunities to teach or guide. It could explain how legal representation works in immigration cases, how to access counsel during detention, or how to document medical abuse. It could describe the role of federal courts in approving medical treatment and how people can challenge those decisions. It could offer basic steps for finding legal aid, reporting mistreatment, or connecting with advocacy groups. Instead, it presents a problem without any pathway for learning more or taking action.

To add value the article failed to provide, consider these general principles. When facing any legal or medical situation, start by understanding your rights. If you are detained, ask for a lawyer immediately and write down the names of anyone who witnesses mistreatment. Keep records of dates, times, and details of what happens, even if it seems minor at the time. These records can help later if you need to file complaints or seek help.

For health and safety, trust your instincts. If something feels wrong or dangerous, speak up. Ask for a second opinion from a medical professional if possible, and do not hesitate to request help from human rights organizations or legal advocates. Know that you have the right to refuse treatment in many situations, though the rules vary depending on where you are and what laws apply.

When planning for travel or relocation, research the laws and practices of the destination country. Look for independent reports about detention conditions, medical care, and legal protections. Contact local advocacy groups or embassies for guidance before you arrive. Having a support network in advance can make a critical difference.

Build simple contingency habits that apply to any situation. Carry contact information for trusted lawyers, doctors, or advocacy organizations. Know the emergency numbers in the country you are in. Stay informed through official sources rather than relying on rumors or unverified information. If you are in an unfamiliar system, ask questions and seek clarification until you understand your options.

Most importantly, remember that help exists even when it is not obvious. Legal aid societies, human rights organizations, and community groups often assist people in difficult situations. You do not have to face problems alone. Taking reasonable steps to protect yourself and your rights costs little but can prevent serious harm.

The text uses soft words to make force-feeding sound like medical care. It says "ICE and the Department of Homeland Security sought judicial authorization for involuntary medical treatment" to make the act seem legal and proper. These words hide that the treatment was forced and painful. The bias helps readers not see the cruelty.

The text uses strong words to make the treatment sound like torture. It says "Medical experts, including Dr. Chanelle Diaz of Columbia University, have reviewed similar cases and described the practice as torture rather than medical care." These words push readers to feel horror. The bias helps one side see the act as evil.

The text uses passive voice to hide who did the harm. It says "Choli was force-fed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials" but later uses "ICE and DHS did not respond to specific questions." These words hide that the same agency caused the pain. The bias helps the government look neutral.

The text picks facts to make the victim look weak. It says "Choli described the process as mentally devastating, stating it broke him and led him to write an apology letter to his own body." These words make him seem fragile. The bias helps readers feel sad but not angry at the real cause.

The text uses guessing as if it were facts. It says "ICE and the Department of Homeland Security sought judicial authorization" without showing the court papers. These words make the claim sound true. The bias helps readers trust the story without proof.

The text uses order to make readers judge first. It starts with "force-fed" and "hunger strike" before saying "requested asylum." This order makes readers think the harm came first. The bias hides that the asylum request was the real reason for detention.

The text uses sources that help one side. It quotes "Dr. Chanelle Diaz of Columbia University" but not ICE doctors. These sources hide that other experts may disagree. The bias helps the anti-ICE story win.

The text uses numbers to make the harm seem big. It says "18 hunger strikers in total" to show many victims. These numbers hide that the text does not say how many were force-fed. The bias helps readers think the problem is huge.

The text uses strong words to push fear. It says "death threats" and "mentally devastating" to make readers feel scared. These words hide that the text does not prove the threats were real. The bias helps readers feel the victim was in real danger.

The text uses soft words to make the apology letter seem weak. It says "led him to write an apology letter to his own body" to make him look broken. These words hide that the letter shows deep pain. The bias helps readers feel pity but not justice.

The text uses passive voice to hide who put him in solitary. It says "he was placed in solitary confinement" without saying who ordered it. These words hide that ICE guards did it. The bias helps the guards look invisible.

The text uses strong words to make the nurse look cruel. It says "a nurse once pushed the tube so hard it tore his nose internally." These words push readers to hate the nurse. The bias helps readers blame one person, not the system.

The text uses guessing as if it were facts. It says "ICE and DHS did not respond to specific questions about his case" without showing the questions. These words make the silence seem guilty. The bias helps readers think the agency is hiding something.

The text uses order to make the apology letter seem like surrender. It places the letter after the nose injury and solitary confinement. This order makes readers think he gave up. The bias hides that the letter may show resistance.

The text uses soft words to make the general statement seem caring. It says "ICE and DHS did not respond... but issued a general statement affirming their commitment to the safety and well-being of individuals in custody." These words hide that no one was held responsible. The bias helps the agency look kind.

The text carries a deep sense of suffering and pain, especially in how it describes Gabar Choli’s experience. Words like “mentally devastating,” “broke him,” and “choke on blood” show that he went through terrible emotional and physical harm. These feelings are very strong and help the reader understand how badly he was hurt. The purpose of showing this pain is to make people feel sorry for him and to see that what happened was wrong.

There is also a feeling of anger and injustice. The text says that Choli was not given a lawyer and that a judge refused to help him, even while letting the force-feeding continue. Words like “denied his request” and “not provided legal representation” make the reader feel upset about how unfair this was. This anger pushes the reader to question the system and to think that something needs to change.

Fear is another emotion that appears, especially when the text mentions death threats and the risk of dying. Phrases like “imminent harm or death” and “death threats” create a sense of danger. These words make the reader feel worried about what could happen to someone in detention. The purpose is to show that the situation was life-threatening and that the actions taken were extreme.

The text also brings a feeling of helplessness. Choli was held against his will, and even when he tried to protest by going on a hunger strike, the system did not listen. Words like “restrained,” “force-fed,” and “solitary confinement” show that he had no control over his own body. This helplessness makes the reader feel sad and powerless, which helps build sympathy for Choli.

There is a tone of betrayal as well. The text says that ICE and DHS claimed they cared about the safety of people in custody, but their actions hurt Choli instead. Words like “did not respond to specific questions” and “issued a general statement” suggest that the agencies were not being honest or open. This feeling of betrayal makes the reader lose trust in the system and feel that the agencies are not telling the truth.

The text also carries a sense of resilience and courage. Even though Choli was hurt badly, he still spoke out after being sent back to Canada. Words like “spoke publicly” and “calling the treatment inhumane” show that he did not give up. This feeling of strength helps the reader see Choli as brave and gives hope that his voice can make a difference.

These emotions work together to guide the reader’s reaction. The pain and anger make the reader feel sympathy for Choli and upset about what happened. The fear and helplessness make the reader worry about others who might go through the same thing. The betrayal makes the reader lose trust in the system. The courage gives the reader hope that change is possible. All of these feelings push the reader to care about the issue and to think that something needs to be done.

The writer uses several tools to make these emotions stronger. First, the writer tells a personal story by focusing on Choli’s experience. This makes the issue feel real and close to the reader. Second, the writer uses strong, vivid words like “tore his nose internally” and “choke on blood” to make the harm feel extreme. Third, the writer repeats ideas like “force-fed” and “involuntary medical treatment” to keep the reader focused on the cruelty. Fourth, the writer compares the treatment to torture by quoting medical experts, which makes the reader see it as something very wrong. Finally, the writer uses facts and numbers, like “18 hunger strikers,” to show that this was not just one bad case but a bigger problem. All of these tools help the reader feel the emotions more deeply and make the message harder to forget.