November, 14 2018, 11:00pm EDT
Freedom From Facebook Files Legal Complaint with the FTC Against Facebook
Complaint Urges the FTC to Investigate Facebook’s Latest Breach, Consent Decree Compliance, and Size
WASHINGTON
Today, Freedom From Facebook filed a legal complaint with the FTC against Facebook and is urging the commission to conduct a through investigation of the corporation.
The complaint calls on the FTC to fully investigate the recent breach of 50 million users' accounts, and conduct a broader investigation into two additional issues: whether Facebook violated its 2011 consent decree and whether it has become too large and complex to be governable. The coalition is urging the FTC to seek maximum civil penalties against Facebook and require Facebook to spin off WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger.
The need for the FTC to act is even greater in light of the bombshell New York Times story yesterday outlining Facebook's massive campaign to fight making any changes.
The full complaint can be accessed here, and follows below.
Before the
Washington, D.C.
Complaint seeking | Submitted November 15, 2018
investigation, enforcement, |
penalties, and other relief |
as appropriate against |
Facebook, Inc. |
_________________________ |
I. Introduction
1. On September 28, 2018, Facebook, Inc. announced that 50 million users had been compromised in a massive data breach that put their entire accounts in the hands of unknown rogue actors. An additional 40 million users also had their accounts reset due to uncertainty about the scope of the breach.
2. While Facebook, Inc. has released few details about the attack, it is clear that virtually all the information users provided to Facebook, Inc. was potentially exposed, including personal biographical data, private messages, photographs (including those uploaded but not shared), and credit card numbers. Once inside Facebook's security wall, the attackers stood in users' shoes - with complete and total control over their profiles, accounts, and social media interactions.
3. The attackers also gained access to any apps or services that the victims had linked to their Facebook account using the corporation's "Facebook Login" feature. This put Facebook-connected users of apps like Tinder, Bumble, Spotify, Uber and thousands more at risk of having their accounts hijacked and misused.
4. This breach is the latest in a long string of Facebook, Inc. privacy violations. In 2007, the company apologized for sharing private information with user friends without asking permission. In 2011, the company made false claims that users would retain meaningful control over their privacy, leading to a landmark 2011 Consent Decree with this agency. In 2013, a bug exposed emails and phone numbers. This bug was related to uploads of user contact lists. In 2017, the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal allowed the data of 87 million user profiles to be downloaded off the platform and used to manipulate the 2016 US Presidential election and Brexit referendum.
5. The breach also comes just a few months after Facebook, Inc.'s CEO Mark Zuckerberg told the United States Congress that "we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good . . . . It will take some time to work through all of the changes we need to make, but I'm committed to getting it right."
6. Facebook, Inc. has a track record of prioritizing advertising over security. In October, 2018, academics uncovered the company was using contact information handed over for security purposes, such as for two-factor identification logins or or in order to receive alerts about new log-ins to a user's account, to engage in ad targeting. The surveillance-intensive business model of targeted advertising combined with the need to secure data presents perhaps an unresolvable conflict of interest for the company as currently constituted.
7. Facebook, Inc. is a serial privacy violator that cannot be trusted. It has grown too big and its products have become too integrated and too complex to manage. Not only can we no longer trust Facebook, Inc. to manage its system safely, the corporation no longer has the capacity to do so effectively.
8. The organizations filing this Complaint seek a thorough investigation of the "View As" breach and appropriate enforcement using all available remedies against Facebook, Inc. for its apparent breaches of the FTC Act and the 2011 Consent Decree.
9. The organizations filing this Complaint also call for a broader investigation into a far more fundamental question - has Facebook, Inc. grown so large and complex that it is no longer governable at all?
II. The Freedom from Facebook Coalition
10. The Freedom from Facebook Coalition brings together diverse, non-partisan organizations representing consumers, workers, policy experts, creative artists and ordinary citizens from all walks of life demanding strong enforcement of consumer protection laws and a healthier, more open and transparent and competitive digital economy.
11. Our members include: Open Markets Institute, Citizens Against Monopoly, the Communications Workers of America, the Content Creators Coalition, Democracy for America, Demand Progress, Jewish Voters for Peace, Move On, MPower Change, Public Citizen, RootsAction, and Sum of Us.
III. Facebook, Inc.
12. Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its operational headquarters in Menlo Park, California, was founded in 2004 in Cambridge, Massachusetts by Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz, Andrew McCollum, and Chris Hughes. Facebook, Inc. owns three significant social networks: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
13. Facebook, owned by Facebook Inc., is the largest social media network in the world with over 2 billion daily active users globally, including 214 million daily users in the United States alone. Every day its users post 55 million status updates, upload 350 million photographs, 'like' nearly 6 billion posts, and send 60 billion messages over its proprietary Messenger network. Its apps are downloaded 1.06 million times a day, and the corporation gains 400 new users every minute.
14. Much of Facebook Inc.'s growth has been fueled by mergers and acquisitions that expanded the corporation's product offerings while taking potential competitors off the field. These include the acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and the acquisitions of WhatsApp and Oculus VR in 2014. As far as we are aware, no proposed Facebook, Inc. acquisition has ever been blocked by a US regulatory authority.
15. Facebook, Inc. is currently one of the most valuable companies in the world. Fortune Magazine lists it as the 76th largest corporation in the United States by revenue, and it has a market value at the time of this filing of $406.41 billion (as of Nov. 15, 2018)].In the second quarter of 2018, the most recent for which data is available, it earned revenue of $13.23 billion, or $143.8 million a day.
16. The bulk of Facebook, Inc.'s revenue comes from advertising targeted at its users using data the corporation collects from multiple channels, including information users share with its social networking subsidiaries and data it captures by tracking and surveilling user activities across the web.
17. Facebook, Inc.'s ability to mine user data and target ads is uniquely robust in the US economy, due to the corporation's extraordinary scale, the personal nature of information its users share, and the breadth of its related products and services including Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger. Only Google has comparable scale and reach, though even Google cannot match the depth of Facebook, Inc.'s social networking data.
18. Facebook, Inc.'s data reach is further extended by its "Facebook Login" product that allows user to sign up for other apps and websites based on their Facebook credentials and without creating a new, freestanding account. Facebook captures two-thirds of the social logins for sites that use this kind of external credentialing, giving it a rich new source of data about user activities at tens of thousands of non-Facebook websites.
IV. Facebook's Repeated Breaches of its Users' Privacy and Data Security
19. The 2006 launch of Facebook's "news feed" automatically broadcast a host of user activities and updates to all their friends as a default feature without clear disclosure or consent. Mark Zuckerberg admitted at the time that "We really messed this one up" and that the corporation "didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away".
20. Facebook's Beacon advertising system, launched in 2007, tracked users' activity on third-party partner sites back to Facebook and automatically posted them to user profiles, even when users weren't logged in to Facebook and despite user efforts to opt out of the program. Facebook, Inc. ultimately paid $9.5 million to settle these claims.
21. In 2010, a Harvard Professor filed a complaint with this agency revealing that Facebook was sharing user information with advertisers including profile details and web activity without disclosure and consent.
22. In November 2011, the FTC entered into a far ranging consent decree with this agency, arising out of repeated breaches of user privacy and false claims that Facebook, Inc. would protect user information. The charges grew out of a December 2009 change to the Facebook website that made users' private information public without their consent, and repeated Facebook, Inc. misrepresentations about the information it shared with third party apps, the it shared with advertisers, and the handling of data after user deleted or deactivated their accounts.
23. In 2011, Facebook incorporated facial recognition as a default setting on its 'tag suggestions' feature without clear disclosure or obtaining consent from users for this invasive new technology. After consumer outcry, Facebook, Inc. admitted "we should have been more clear with people during the roll-out process when this became available to them".
24. In January 2012, Facebook launched a secret experiment to manipulate user moods by feeding nearly 700,000 test subjects skewed diets of positive or negative news, without any disclosure or consent. The privacy watchdog EPIC filed a complaint with this agency about this unethical "research" study.
25. In 2013, a bug made the emails and phone numbers of 6 million Facebook users public to users who had some tangential connection to them on the site (ie. 'friends of friends'), despite that information being designated 'private' or for 'friends only'. This breach was not noticed by Facebook, Inc. but only came to light after a "white hat" hacker uncovered and reported it.
26. In what should have been a wakeup call ahead of the Cambridge Analytica, a software engineer was able to automatically scrape or harvest names, profile photos, and locations of users by entering their mobile phone numbers into the platform's "Who can find me?" feature, even if the phone numbers were set to private. By generating random phone numbers, he was able to collect data on thousands of users.
27. In 2018, it was revealed that the data of 87 million Facebook users was shared with political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. 270,000 users took a quiz designed by Cambridge Analytica to extract users' profile information and in the process, exposed the profile information of their entire "friends' list". Cambridge Analytica proceeded to sell this data, via their consulting services, to various parties, including the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and the Brexit "leave" campaign.
28. Facebook has used phone numbers provided by users for two-factor authentication security purposes in order to target advertisements, a use they did not clearly disclose, explain, or obtain separate consent for. This follows an earlier scandal in which the corporation spammed users' two-factor authentication number with texts and then automatically posted their replies to that spam as status updates for all to see.
29. In the spring of 2018, Android users realized Facebook was using its Messenger app to track and log their texts and phone calls. Facebook, Inc. claimed users granted Facebook permission to do this when they synced their phone contacts list with the Facebook Messenger app.
30. On October 11, 2018, Facebook suspended the Russian firm SocialDataHub "because they were scraping people's data" from the site.
V. Facebook's Many Promises to Protect Users' Privacy and Keep Their Data Secure
31. Since its inception, Facebook, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg have promised users that their data is protected, and they have complete control over their privacy on the platform.
32. In 2005, Mr. Zuckerberg said of the platform, "We're not forcing anyone to publicize any information about themselves. We give people pretty good control over their privacy. I mean you can make it so that no one can see anything, or no one can see your profile unless they're your friend."
33. A decade later, Mr. Zuckerberg responded to the NSA PRISM program's collection and use of Facebook data, writing in a personal post, "To keep the internet strong, we need to keep it secure. That's why at Facebook we spend a lot of our energy making our services and the whole internet safer and more secure. We encrypt communications, we use secure protocols for traffic, we encourage people to use multiple factors for authentication and we go out of our way to help fix issues we find in other people's services."
34. Facebook, Inc. and Mr. Zuckerberg continue to promise data security to users, even as that data is repeatedly compromised. After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Zuckerberg wrote, "We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again... We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forwar
35. In a full-page newspaper ad purchased and placed around the same time, Mr. Zuckerberg again promised to more completely protect users' data: "This was a breach of trust, and I'm sorry we didn't do more at the time. We're now taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. . . I promise to do better for you."
36. In April of this year, Mr. Zuckerberg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasizing the responsibility of Facebook's developers to protect user data and once again stating the corporation was committed to stopping such breaches: "It's not enough to give people control of their information, we have to make sure developers they've given it to are protecting it too. Across the board, we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure those tools are used for good. It will take some time to work through all of the changes we need to make, but I'm committed to getting it right."
37. However, influential voices in tech including former Facebook insiders have questioned these statements and commitments
38. After selling his corporation, WhatsApp, to Facebook, Inc. 2014 and subsequently leaving the corporation a few years later, Brian Acton told Forbes, "I sold my users' privacy. I made a choice and a compromise. And I live with that every day."
39. Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, Inc. who left the corporation in 2007, said in response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, "The idea that this was unforeseeable seems like a stretch. The public reckoning now is very much overdue."
40. Apple CEO Tim Cook, differentiating Apple from Facebook, Inc., warned about the platform: "[Apple has] never believed that these detailed profiles of people, that have incredibly deep personal information that is patched together from several sources, should exist. [These profiles] can be abused against our democracy. It can be abused by advertisers as well."
41. Roger McNamee, an early investor in Facebook, Inc., has spoken out at length about what the platform has become, arguing that Facebook has "behaved irresponsibly in the pursuit of massive profits" and has "consciously combined persuasive techniques developed by propagandists in the gambling industry with technology in ways that threaten public health and democracy."
42. McNamee has warned about the risk of using Facebook, Inc. to user privacy, telling CNBC, "There's been an increasing understanding that when you're using Facebook, a lot of bad things are going to happen to you, as a user. That is not a 100 percent guarantee, but the risk is really, really high."
VI. The 2018 Breach of Facebook's "View As" Feature
43. On September 28, 2018, Facebook, Inc. disclosed a major security breach that had potentially affected nearly 50 million user accounts. On October 12, the company clarified that 30 million accounts appear to have been actually compromised.
44. By exploiting a vulnerability in Facebook's "View As" feature - which allows users to see how their profiles appear to others - hackers were able to harvest highly sensitive "access tokens" that could then be used, in Facebook's words, to "take over" accounts. Facebook, Inc. describes these access tokens as "digital keys" that would let hackers pose as the user online, engage with their friends and contacts, and use or share any of their information, including private messages, pictures that had been uploaded but not shared, and payment methods.
45. In addition, because these access tokens are used to verify "Facebook Login" requests, the hackers could also access and use any linked app or third-party service, including dating sites, health portals, and message boards.
46. The potential harms of this kind of data breach go well beyond the ordinary damage caused by compromise of sensitive information. In our connected culture, being impersonated online is a deeply personal invasion that could run from the merely embarrassing - like having an unflattering photo shared - to the devastating - including lost friendships or broken relationships. The Ashley Madison breach - a severe breach but one that did not raise the even more invasive specter of online impersonation - resulted in suicides, divorces, and job losses.
47. At this point, the toll of the Facebook "View As" breach is not known. Facebook, Inc. CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated on September 28 that "We do not yet know whether these accounts were misused." Several days later, the corporation reported it had "so far" found no evidence the access tokens were used to breach third party apps. On October 12, it revealed that extensive personal information had been breached along with access tokens, including "surname, gender, locale/language, relationship status, religion, hometown, self-reported current city, birthdate, device types used to access Facebook, education, work, the last 10 places they checked into or were tagged in, website, people or Pages they follow, and the 15 most recent searches."
48. FTC action is needed to ensure that Facebook, Inc. cannot sweep this matter under the rug with such vague and incomplete assurances. It is the only way to ensure victims of this breach have accurate information about what happened to them.
49. While European investigators have opened up their own review of this matter, it is vital for US enforcers to act as well. Facebook, Inc. is an American corporation and many US citizens were undoubtedly victims of this breach. The FTC has jurisdiction and a responsibility to protect US consumers and to set standards for the US-driven internet economy.
VII. Claims
50. The Freedom from Facebook Coalition asks the Commission to investigate and act on the following specific claims as well as any other potential violations of the FTC Act and all other authorities under its jurisdiction.
Claim 1
Breach of 2011 Consent Decree
51. In 2011, Facebook, Inc.'s violation of user privacy led them to settle with the FTC and agree to the terms of the Consent Decree finalized in 2012.
52. Under the agreement, Facebook, Inc. cannot misrepresent the privacy or security of users' personal information and is required, among other things, to obtain affirmative consent to privacy changes, "establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated" with the operation and development of the site and related products.
53. The latest breach was the result of several errors in Facebook's "View As" feature's code, made when Facebook updated their video uploader in July 2017 - more than a year before the breach was discovered.
54. User data was exposed for 14 months, because Facebook, Inc. failed to "maintain a comprehensive privacy program" as promised in the consent decree and as promised by the corporation and Mark Zuckerberg as detailed in paragraphs 30-34 above.
55. Furthermore, Facebook, Inc. failed to inform users that system updates may compromise their data and implemented these flawed new features without the express consent of users.
56. The penalty, outlined in the consent decree, is $41,484 per user per day. This violation affected 50 million users for nearly 430 days, calling for trillions of dollars in potential fines.
Claim 2
Breach of Section 5 of the FTC Act
57. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act prohibits "unfair" or "deceptive" acts in interstate commerce.
58. Past FTC investigations including the Ashley Madison case and the LabMD case have made clear that lax data security practices can constitute unfair business practices under the FTC Act.
59. In this case, given the gravity of the risk of loss of control of accounts due to theft of access tokens, Facebook, Inc.'s failure to prevent the "View As" breach constitutes an unfair practice that violates Section 5(a).
60. Past FTC cases including the Uber case establish that misrepresentations or omissions regarding data security and privacy and failing to live up to promises made regarding the security of customer information constitute deceptive acts under the FTC Act.
61. In this case, in light of the severe "View As" breach, Facebook, Inc.'s many promises to take appropriate security measures regarding customer information, outlined in paragraphs 30-34 above, and its assurances regarding the safety and security of the "Facebook Login" feature constitute deceptive acts or practices that violate Section 5(a).
Claim 3
Call for Expanded Investigation and Report on Facebook's
Privacy Abuses, Monopoly Power and "Ungovernability"
under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act
62. The "View As" breach raises issues that go beyond Facebook's violation of the 2012 Consent Decree and its breaches of the FTC Act.
63. Accordingly, we call for an investigation pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act of the role of Facebook, Inc.'s market power in the internet ecosystem and the unique threats to consumers posed by its massive accumulation of data - including that supplied by users, that harvested by surveilling their activities online, and that obtained from other sources such as data brokers or corporate acquisitions.
64. This investigation should cover Facebook's use of "Facebook Login" to expand its data holdings and neuter potential competitors.
65. This investigation should review the impact of acquisitions such as WhatsApp and Instagram on the health of the social media market and the failure of meaningful alternatives to Facebook, Inc. to arise.
66. Most fundamentally, this investigation should consider the unique issues raised when corporations become as large and complex as Facebook.
67. Facebook, Inc.'s scale renders it unable to effectively manage risk within its operations. It cannot meaningfully moderate content or protect users from harassment and abuse. It is unable to keep its own promises or accurately determine whether it is adhering to commitments it has made to users, business partners, and regulators. It has become so complex and deeply intertwined with other platforms, apps, and services that no executive or engineer can responsible anticipate or evaluate the real-world consequences of policy changes or product revisions.
68. In our view, Facebook, Inc. at this scale cannot be governed in a coherent or safe fashion - one that no one could manage and that no amount of AI or clever engineering will ever successfully control.
69. The result is a corporation managed by apology. One where unfair and deceptive practices are baked into the business model - and forced upon locked-in consumers who have no alternatives in the market and no real choices but those that Facebook, Inc. gives them.
Claim 4
Request for Any Other Appropriate Enforcement
Under Any Applicable FTC Authorities
70. We ask the FTC and its professional staff to additionally conduct its own independent evaluation of the legal and marketplace implications of the "View As" breach in the context of Facebook's repeated broken promises and privacy abuses and to take any additional investigative or enforcement steps that are available to it and warranted under the circumstances to protect consumers and address the harms caused by Facebook.
VIII. Remedies
71. We urge the FTC to seek maximum civil penalties for the breach of its 2012 Final Consent Order by Facebook, Inc. as well as permanent injunctive relief, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other any other appropriate relief related to Facebook's violations of the FTC Act and any other laws or requirements within the agency's jurisdiction.
72. These remedies should include specific consideration of breaking up Facebook, Inc., and separating its advertising and social networking businesses or its discrete platforms in order to resolve the inherent conflict in running a data-based advertising businesses while being responsible for vast amounts of personal customer information and to address the poor privacy incentives created when a company holds a data-derived monopoly and has no meaningful competition.
IX. Conclusion
73. The FTC is at a landmark moment. Facebook, Inc. and the other biggest tech platform monopolies are fast breaking all traditional bounds of size and behavior. Consumers as a result look to you for meaningful protection and enforcement - especially in the case of a serial privacy violator like Facebook that already has one outstanding consent decree under your jurisdiction. A healthy internet economy requires consumers to have basic trust and confidence in the corporations they deal with - and that in turn requires strong and steady enforcement of the basic rules of the road. In these circumstance, for the benefit of consumers, fair competition, and the internet economy itself, the Freedom From Facebook Coalition urges you to take strongest possible action.
Respectfully submitted
_Freedom From Facebook_________
Citizens Against Monopoly
Communication Workers of America
Content Creators Coalition
Democracy For America
Demand Progress
Jewish Voice for Peace
Move On
MPower Change
Open Markets Institute
Public Citizen
Roots Action
Sum Of Us
Freedom From Facebook, a diverse group of organizations sharing deep concerns about Facebook's extraordinary power over our lives and democracy, is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to use its broad authority to break up Facebook's monopoly and re-establish competition in the social networking space by spinning off WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger into independent businesses. Freedom From Facebook also calls on the FTC to develop interoperability standards, so users will have the freedom to communicate between competing social networks, as well as implement strong privacy rules to give users more control over the collection and utilization of personal information. Learn more at
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Deals Trump Major Loss on Illinois National Guard Deployment
"Trump is losing his grip on the dictatorial power he so covets," said one legal analyst.
Dec 23, 2025
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt President Donald Trump a major loss by rejecting the administration's request to strike down a temporary restraining order that barred him from deploying the National Guard in Chicago.
In a 6-3 ruling that featured dissents from Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court determined that the Trump administration had not met statutory requirements needed to justify deploying the National Guard in a state over the objections of its own government.
The court noted that the administration justified its Illinois deployment—pursued alongside a federal crackdown on undocumented immigrants in and around the state's largest city—by pointing to a law stating that the president may federalize the National Guard in the event that he is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."
However, the court found that the "regular forces" referenced in the statute refers to the US military, not civilian law enforcement officials. This is relevant because the president faces significant restrictions on his ability to deploy the military domestically under the Posse Comitatus Act.
"Because the statute requires an assessment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws," the justices wrote. "Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from 'execut[ing] the laws' 'except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or act of Congress.'"
The justices further said that the Trump administration so far "has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois" and has not invoked any statute that would provide an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
In conclusion, the court wrote that the federal government "has not carried its burden to show" that the law "permits the president to federalize the guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois."
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who had sued the Trump administration over the deployment, cheered the ruling and said that "the extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state's objection do not exist in Illinois."
Raoul added that he was "pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts."
Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling as a victory for the rule of law.
"Trump is losing his grip on the dictatorial power he so covets," Kirschner commented on X.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said he was "genuinely shocked" by the court's ruling, and he credited an amicus brief written by Georgetown University Law Center professor Marty Lederman with swaying the court, as it centered the definition of "regular forces" in the statute as central to determining the legality of Trump's actions.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen and co-chair of the Not Above the Law Coalition, hailed the court's ruling but warned that the danger posed by the Trump administration's authoritarian ambitions has not ended.
"With a lawful administration that understood the limits of executive power, this would be the end of the question," she said of the ruling. "Unfortunately, we are living under an authoritarian regime that persists in every possible effort to expand its power and override guardrails. With an administration that displays utter disregard for the Constitution, we must now watch diligently how it will respond to a decisive Supreme Court decision against its lawless power grab."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Devastating': Amnesty Rips Hegseth Memo Reversing Limits on Landmines
“Antipersonnel landmines are inherently indiscriminate weapons that take a disproportionate toll on civilian lives, oftentimes long after conflicts end," said the group's director for Europe and Central Asia.
Dec 23, 2025
In a move decried by human rights organizations, the Trump administration has scrapped a Biden-era prohibition on the use of antipersonnel landmines, which killed thousands of noncombatants last year.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sent a memo on December 2 reversing the policy, saying the use of such mines would provide the US military with a “force multiplier” against enemies during “one of the most dangerous security environments in its history.”
“Antipersonnel landmines are inherently indiscriminate weapons that take a disproportionate toll on civilian lives, oftentimes long after conflicts end," explained Ben Linden, Amnesty International USA's advocacy director for Europe and Central Asia, in a statement on Tuesday.
According to a report published earlier this month by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL), antipersonnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war killed at least 1,945 people and injured another 4,325 in 2024—the highest yearly casualty figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
Ninety percent of those casualties were civilians, and 46% of those civilians were children.
More than 160 countries have signed an international treaty, written in 1997, banning the use of antipersonnel landmines, defined as mines “designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons” in war.
The US military has not used antipersonnel mines widely since the Persian Gulf War over three decades ago. However, it is one of the few countries that has not signed the treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention, and until earlier this year was the only NATO member not to participate.
In June 2022—just months after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine—then-President Joe Biden announced the US would begin to follow many provisions of the convention, outlawing the use of antipersonnel mines in war zones with the exception of the Korean Peninsula. It was a return to a policy instituted under former President Barack Obama, before it was rolled back during the first Trump administration.
The Biden White House cited the mines' "disproportionate impact on civilians, including children," and drew a contrast with Russia, which it said was using the mines "irresponsibly" in civilian areas.
But Biden would reverse the policy just two years later, opting in 2024 to greenlight their provision to Ukraine, which was forbidden from acquiring or using the mines under the treaty.
The ICBL, a leading donor to global mine clearance, condemned the move, noting that "Ukraine already faces years of demining due to Russian landmine use."
In his memo, Hegseth has delivered another blow to global demining efforts. According to the Post:
He outlines five objectives for the new policy—including lifting geographic limits on the use of landmines, which would allow for their use globally, and giving combatant commanders the authority to use the explosives. It would also limit the destruction of landmines in the US inventory only to those that are “inoperable or unsafe."
The decision comes as other state actors are rapidly abandoning their obligations under the landmine treaty. Last week, Poland announced that after withdrawing from the convention, it plans to start producing antipersonnel mines again, deploying them to the eastern border, and possibly exporting them to Ukraine.
According to the ICBL report, Cambodia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea have all been alleged to have used mines within the last year. Meanwhile, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are also in the process of withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, while Ukraine is trying to “suspend the operation” of the convention during its war with Russia.
Hegseth's memo also states that President Donald Trump has rescinded the US Humanitarian Mine Program, a long-running government initiative that helps partner nations find and destroy unexploded landmines.
According to the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, the research arm of the Campaign to Ban Landmines, the US was the largest global donor to mine-clearing actions around the world in 2024. According to the State Department, it has provided more than $5 billion in assistance to more than 125 countries and areas since 1993.
Some of the money for the program has already been revoked through the Trump administration's slashing of funds for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) at the beginning of his term. The administration ordered mine-clearing nonprofits funded by the agency to cease operations "effective immediately."
According to a report earlier this month from the Century Foundation, the State Department "terminated or let expire" nearly 100 security assistance programs, which included demining programs, as part of its "foreign aid review" in January.
Hegseth's memo states that despite the end of the program, the US will remain "a global leader in unexploded ordnance clearing assistance and in conventional weapons destruction." It provides no details on how the new policy would allow for this.
Linden at Amnesty International called Hegseth's reversal of the landmine policy a "devastating decision."
"Not only will this policy change put more civilians at increased risk of harm, but it will undermine global efforts to eliminate the use of these dangerous weapons," Linden said. “This landmine policy reversal would make the United States and its partners less safe by eroding the prohibition against the use of these indiscriminate weapons on the battlefield."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Jews Decry ADL 'Mamdani Monitor' for Conflating Israel Criticism With Antisemitism
The head of one group decried the ADL's "disproportionate attention on left-of-center activists’ views on Israel while failing to apply the same scrutiny to the Trump administration."
Dec 23, 2025
The heads of three left-leaning US Jewish groups on Monday admonished the Anti-Defamation League after the controversial watchdog once again conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism in its latest report on New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and his transition team.
The Anti-Defamation League noted approvingly in its updated "Mamdani Monitor" that "at least 25 individuals" in the democratic socialist's transition team "have a past relationship with the ADL or partner organizations, or a history of supporting the Jewish community."
The group also appreciated that "Mamdani's team can and will respond appropriately" to actual incidents of antisemitism, pointing to last week's resignation of Catherine Almonte Da Costa, Mamdani's former director of appointments, following the revelation of antisemitic social media posts she published in the early 2010s.
However, the ADL said it remains "deeply concerned" by Mamdani's statements and actions, highlighting what the group claimed were "many examples of individuals who have engaged in some type of antisemitic, anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel activities and/or have ties to groups that engage in such activities" among the mayor-elect's transition team appointees.
"These activities include spreading classic antisemitic tropes, vilifying those who support Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland, seeking to undermine the legitimacy and security of the Jewish state, and more," the ADL said, adding that "at least a dozen transition committee appointees expressed support for the anti-Israel campus encampments in the spring of 2024."
The Mamdani Monitor also noted that "at least 20% of the 400-plus appointees have ties to anti-Zionist groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which openly glorifies Hamas’ October 7 attack... Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a fringe group that advocates for the eradication of Zionism and demonizes Zionists; Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a New York-based radical anti-Zionist organization... and others."
Asked about the report during a Monday press conference, Mamdani said, "We must distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli government."
“The ADL’s report oftentimes ignores this distinction, and in doing so it draws attention away from the very real crisis of antisemitism we see not only just in our city but in the country at large,” he continued. “When we’re thinking about critiques of Zionism and different forms of political expression, as much of what this report focuses on, there’s a wide variety of political opinion, even within our own 400-plus transition committee.”
Critics say the ADL's claim in the update that it "has long distinguished between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and antisemitism" is belied by not only the Mamdani Monitor's language, but also its own significantly expanded definition of antisemitism and antisemitic incidents, which include protests against Israel’s US-backed genocidal war on Gaza.
Jamie Beran, CEO of the progressive group Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, said in an X thread that "we were disappointed but not surprised to see today’s ADL report continue their conflation of criticism of the Israeli government’s actions with antisemitism" and the group's "favoring of Trumpian tactics over bridge building and its prioritization of fearmongering over the safety of American Jews and our neighbors."
Beran continued:
The ADL of today seems to have three interests: keeping their right wing megadonors happy, protecting the current Israeli government’s violent far-right agenda by conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and cozying up to [US President Donald] Trump to stay close to power.
None of this fights antisemitism. Their McCarthyist Mamdani Monitor is the first of its kind because the ADL chose not to deploy a similar tactic when their bedfellows offered Nazi salutes, hired and pardoned neo-Nazis, and continued to openly spread dangerous antisemitic conspiracy myths.
"If the ADL truly wanted to fight antisemitism—like we do every day—they would actually confront it at its roots and how it works alongside all forms of bigotry, not instrumentalize it for an unpopular political agenda that has nothing to do with Jewish safety," Beran added.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the liberal Jewish group J Street, also rejected the ADL's "continued conflation."
“J Street continues to be deeply concerned by the ADL’s ongoing use of its so-called ‘Mamdani Monitor,’ which goes well beyond combating antisemitism and too often conflates legitimate political speech with hate," Ben-Ami said in a statement Monday.
Ben-Ami asserted that there is "something deeply wrong when major Jewish leaders and institutions focus disproportionate attention on left-of-center activists’ views on Israel while failing to apply the same scrutiny to the Trump administration and MAGA leaders, whose blatant antisemitism and ties to white nationalist movements pose a clear and dangerous threat to American Jews."
"Our communal institutions should fight antisemitism consistently and credibly, wherever it appears—not selectively, and not in ways that inflame fear or deepen division," he added.
Another liberal Jewish antisemitism watchdog, Nexus Project, also decried the ADL update, which it said "repeatedly blurs the line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism."
J Street among the groups supporting the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (ARPA), legislation introduced last week by US Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) in the wake of the Sydney Hanukkah massacre.
According to Nadler's office, the bill "clearly states that it is against the policy of the United States to use antisemitism as grounds to pursue ulterior political agendas, including attacks on educational institutions, suppressing constitutionally protected speech, or any other enforcement of ideological conformity."
ARPA stands in stark contrast with the Antisemitism Awareness Act (ARA), which was introduced in 2023 by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ, Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in the House of Representatives and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) in the Senate.
The bill would require the Department of Education to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism when determining whether alleged harassment is motivated by anti-Jewish animus.
The ADL has pushed a wide range of governments, institutions, and organizations to adopt the IRHA definition, which conflates legitimate criticism and condemnation of Israeli policies and practices with anti-Jewish bigotry, and forces people to accept the legitimacy of a settler-colonial apartheid state engaged in illegal occupation and colonization, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
House lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the legislation last year; however, the bill remains stalled in the Senate.
Zionism—the settler-colonial movement for the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine—is being rejected by a growing number of Jewish Americans due to the racism, settler-colonialism, illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide perpetrated by Israel and rooted in claims of divine right and favor.
Jewish-led groups like JVP, IfNotNow, and Jews for Economic and Racial Justice (JERJ) have been at the forefront of pro-Palestine demonstrations since the start of Israel's war and siege on Gaza, which have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing; 2 million others displaced, starved, and sickened; and most of the coastal strip in ruins.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


