

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Lacy Crawford, Lawyers Committee, lcrawford@lawyerscommittee.org
Eva Lopez, ACLU, elopez@aclu.org
Cassidy Fallik, ACLU of Oklahoma, cfallik@acluok.org
A multiracial group of students and educators filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging an Oklahoma classroom censorship bill, HB 1775, which severely restricts public school teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in the classroom.
The lawsuit was filed by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, and pro bono counsel Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on behalf of plaintiffs the Black Emergency Response Team (BERT); the University of Oklahoma Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (OU-AAUP); the Oklahoma State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP-OK); the American Indian Movement (AIM) Indian Territory on behalf of itself and its members who are public school students and teachers, a high school student, and Oklahoma public high school teachers Anthony Crawford and Regan Killackey.
Oklahoma is one of eight states across the country that have passed similar laws aimed at censoring discussions around race and gender in the classroom, and this is the first federal lawsuit facially challenging one of these statewide bans. The lawsuit argues HB 1775 not only chills students' and educators' First Amendment right to learn and talk about these issues, but it also prevents students from having an open and complete dialogue about American history -- one that includes the experiences and viewpoints of all historically marginalized communities in this country.
"H.B. 1775 is an unvarnished attempt to silence the experiences and perspectives of Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ people, and other groups who have long faced exclusion and marginalization in our institutions, including in our schools," said Genevieve Bonadies Torres, associate director of the Educational Opportunities Project with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "The law directly violates the Fourteenth Amendment's command that governmental actors do not engage in racial discrimination. Every student in Oklahoma deserves an equitable education that reflects the rich diversity of the state and provides a full, fact-based discussion of the state's checkered history of racism, sexism and discrimination."
"All young people deserve to learn an inclusive and accurate history in schools, free from censorship or discrimination," said Emerson Sykes, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "HB 1775 is so poorly drafted -- in places it is literally indecipherable -- that districts and teachers have no way of knowing what concepts and ideas are prohibited. The bill was intended to inflame a political reaction, not further a legitimate educational interest. These infirmities in the law are all the more troubling because the bill applies to public colleges and universities, where the First Amendment is especially protective of academic freedom."
The Oklahoma bill's lead authors in the state House and Senate declared the bill's intent was to prohibit conversations related to "implicit bias," "systemic racism" and "intersectionality," among other concepts. The "banned concepts" were directly excerpted from President Donald Trump's failed Executive Order 13950 that similarly sought to restrict speech of government contractors. The lawsuit argues HB 1775 is an unlawful restraint on freedom of expression by silencing students' and educators' speech through its vague and overbroad terms. It also intentionally targets and denies access to equitable, culturally relevant teaching and ideas that reflect the history and lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color; women and girls; and LGBTQ+ students.
"The Black Emergency Response Team (BERT) is a collective comprised of Black student leaders whose mission is to confront racism and various oppressive structures, including this bill that is a direct attack on the education experience of the Black community specifically, and marginalized communities at large on campus," said Lilly Amechi, plaintiff and representative for BERT. "We believe all students deserve to have a free and open exchange about our history -- not one that erases the legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ individuals."
As a result of the bill's passage, school districts in Oklahoma have instructed teachers to no longer use certain terms, including "diversity" and "white privilege" in their classrooms, and have removed seminal works of literature such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Raisin in the Sun" from its list of "anchor texts." Multiple Oklahoma public schools have also scaled back or eliminated their diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings for teachers and strategic plans. Plaintiff Regan Killackey was instructed to avoid certain concepts, phrases, and books in his curriculum related to race and is no longer able to lead his students in educational conversations about race and gender.
"As someone who has experienced an incredibly privileged teaching career in Edmond, I am acutely aware of the need this community, and all communities, have for healthy analysis, critical conversations, and effective communication," said Regan Killacky, Edmond Public Schools teacher. "H.B. 1775 limits my ability to teach an inclusive and complete history within the walls of my classroom, ultimately restricting the exact type of learning environment all young people deserve -- one free from censorship or discrimination."
The ability for educators and students to have honest conversations around race, gender, and our country's history in schools carry particular importance in Oklahoma, whose history includes the 1889 Land Runs, "Indian" boarding schools, the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, and racially segregated schools.
"Education is a tool of empowerment put to its highest use when teachers and students are afforded the full scope of their constitutional rights to engage in comprehensive, meaningful, and sometimes difficult conversations," said Megan Lambert, ACLU of Oklahoma legal director. "HB 1775 is a direct affront to the constitutional rights of teachers and students across Oklahoma by restricting conversations around race and gender at all levels of education. We bring this case to vindicate the rights of Oklahoma teachers and students and to protect the integrity of our educational institutions."
The groups are asking the court to declare the bill unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments and are urging the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would put an immediate stop to the bill and immediately allow students and educators to have full and truthful discussions around race and gender in the classroom.
Below are additional comments from:
Anthony R. Douglas, president of the Oklahoma State Conference NAACP:
"H.B. 1775 censors and chills the way Oklahoma teachers and students discuss fraught topics in state and U.S. history, particularly regarding racial mistreatment and injustice. Educators cannot adequately teach students about the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, the Trail of Tears, the Civil War, World War II, the Holocaust, or any other cultural issue throughout U.S. history by silencing courageous classroom conversations that depict a more inclusive perspective of U.S. History."
Mary Topaum, director of the American Indian Movement Indian Territory:
"Denying Oklahoma students access to a diversity of experience and ideas that includes Indigenous perspectives inhibits future generations from developing the cross-cultural understanding, compassion, and mutual respect that is necessary to build bridges and thrive in our increasingly diverse state. H.B. 1775 seeks to further sanitize the few voices of historically marginalized communities that exist within the curricula and to discourage students and educators from engaging in courageous and urgently needed conversations around race, inequity, and systemic oppression."
Michael Givel, OU-AAUP president: "The wording of this H.B. 1775 directly curtails academic freedom in public universities in Oklahoma. It has a chilling effect on academic freedom as it can and has purposely targeted Oklahoma public school teachers and administrators from imparting a complete history in our schools, free from censorship or discrimination. Curriculum decisions and what is taught in a college classroom for the promotion of a balanced education is unequivocally protected from outside political requirements and interference. University professors are not sock puppets for the biased ideological agendas of elected politicians."
Sara Solfanelli, special counsel for pro bono initiatives, Schulte Roth & Zabel: "Schulte Roth & Zabel is proud to partner with the ACLU, ACLU-OK, and Lawyers' Committee to defend academic freedom, protect the fundamental right of students to learn, and ensure that schools have the freedom to create an inclusive curriculum and environment. The state-sanctioned censorship that H.B. 1775 represents was wrong a century ago when directed against the teaching of evolution, and it is just as wrong today."
This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Read the complaint here
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600"Trump is deploying drone and gunboat diplomacy to coerce Venezuela into serving up its oil resources to Big Oil," said one US watchdog group.
Venezuelan scholars and a US watchdog group were among those expressing concern on Thursday after Venezuela's government caved to pressure from President Donald Trump and signed a bill opening up the South American country's nationalized oil industry to privatization.
After US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—who have both pleaded not guilty to federal narco-terrorism charges—the Trump administration installed the deposed leader's former deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, as acting president.
On Thursday, Venezuela's National Assembly—which is led by the acting president's brother, Jorge Rodríguez—approved and Delcy Rodríguez signed legislation that "promises to give private companies control over the production and sale of oil and allow for independent arbitration of disputes," according to the Associated Press.
As AP reported:
Rodríguez's government expects the changes to serve as assurances for major US oil companies that have so far hesitated about returning to the volatile country. Some of those companies lost investments when the ruling party enacted the existing law two decades ago to favor Venezuela's state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA.
The revised law would modify extraction taxes, setting a royalty cap rate of 30% and allowing the executive branch to set percentages for every project based on capital investment needs, competitiveness, and other factors.
It also removes the mandate for disputes to be settled only in Venezuelan courts, which are controlled by the ruling party. Foreign investors have long viewed the involvement of independent courts as crucial to guard against future expropriation.
Malfred Gerig, a sociologist from Central University of Venezuela, said on social media that the Rodríguez siblings' United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) "has just approved the most anti-nationalist and damaging oil law since, at least, 1943. The absolute surrender of the state as an oil producer and a sudden conversion of the property rights of the Venezuelan nation into private rights of foreign companies."
Victor Lovera, an economics professor at Andres Bello Catholic University in Caracas, said that "it must be really fucking tough for the Rodríguez siblings to end up as the empire's lapdogs and open up the oil sector, taking us back to the 1970s, before the nationalization of oil. All just to cling to power for a few more months."
Trump—who returned to office a year ago with help from Big Oil's campaign cash—has made clear that his aggressive policy toward Venezuela is focused on the country's petroleum reserves, which critics have blasted as a clear effort to further enrich his donors and himself.
"Trump is deploying drone and gunboat diplomacy to coerce Venezuela into serving up its oil resources to Big Oil," said Robert Weissman, co-president of the US watchdog group Public Citizen, in a Thursday statement.
"Imperfectly, Venezuela has for most of the last century sought to manage its oil and gas reserves to advance its national interest, rather than that of outside investors," he noted. "Brutal sanctions and the threat of still more military action from the Trump regime are now forcing Venezuela to turn from that history and make its oil available to Big Oil at discount rates and to agree that investor disputes should be resolved at corporate-friendly international tribunals."
"This is imperial policy to benefit Big Oil, not Americans—and certainly not Venezuelans," Weissman stressed. "Even still, US oil companies are likely to be reluctant to invest heavily in Venezuela without US government guarantees—a likely next step in Trump’s oil imperialism, unless Congress moves proactively to block it."
Both chambers of the US Congress are narrowly controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and they have so far failed to pass war powers resolutions aimed at stopping more military action in Venezuela and the administration's bombings of boats allegedly smuggling drugs in international waters—all of which some American lawmakers and other experts have argued are illegal.
When Trump's secretary of state and acting national security adviser, Marco Rubio, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—on which he previously served—on Wednesday, he insisted that the president wasn’t planning for any more military action in Venezuela, but would take it, potentially without congressional authorization, in "self-defense."
Rubio also laid out how the United States intends to continue controlling Venezuelan oil and related profits, telling senators that Venezuela's government will submit periodic budgets, and as long as they comply with preset restrictions, the Trump administration will release funds from a US Treasury blocked account.
After the legislation passed Thursday, the Trump administration began easing sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry, with the Treasury issuing a general license authorizing certain activities involving Venezuelan-origin oil.
“To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there’s an old-fashioned word for that," said one provincial premier.
The leader of British Columbia on Thursday excoriated separatists in neighboring Alberta who met secretly on several occasions with officials from the administration of President Donald Trump, whose frequent talk of making Canada the "51st state" has tanked relations with the US' northern neighbor.
The Financial Times reported Wednesday that leaders of the right-wing Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), who want the fossil fuel-rich province to become an independent nation, were welcomed for three meetings with Trump officials in Washington, DC since last April.
APP is reportedly seeking US assistance, including a $500 billion line of credit from the US Treasury Department to help bankroll an independent Alberta, if any potential independence referendum succeeds.
According to the CBC:
Organizers of the Alberta independence movement are collecting signatures in order to trigger a referendum in that province. The pro-independence campaign has been traveling across the province as organizers try to collect nearly 178,000 signatures over the next few months.
"To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there's an old-fashioned word for that, and that word is treason," British Columbia Premier David Eby, who leads the center-left BC New Democratic Party, said in Ottawa.
"It is completely inappropriate to seek to weaken Canada, to go and ask for assistance, to break up this country from a foreign power and—with respect—a president who has not been particularly respectful of Canada's sovereignty," Eby continued.
"I think that while we can respect the right of any Canadian to express themselves to vote in a referendum, I think we need to draw the line at people seeking the assistance of foreign countries to break up this beautiful land of ours," he added.
APP co-founder Dennis Modry told the Financial Times Wednesday that the separatist movement is "not treasonous."
“What could be more noble than the pursuit of self-determination, the pursuit of your goals and aspirations, the pursuit of freedom and prosperity?” he asked.
Trump and some of his senior officials have repeatedly expressed their desire to annex Canada, despite polite but vehement Canadian rejection of such a union. Trump's coveting of Canada comes amid his threats to acquire Greenland by any means necessary, his planning for a possible Panama Canal takeover, and his attacks on Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and other countries.
Last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent poured more fuel on the fire by seemingly encouraging Albertan separatism.
"They have great resources. Albertans are a very independent people," Bessent said during a media interview. "Rumor [is] that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not... People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what the US has got."
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of the province's United Conservative Party said Thursday that she "supports a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada," even as critics—including Indigenous leaders—accuse her of making it easier for a pro-independence petition to succeed last year.
Smith said the she expects US officials to "confine their discussion about Alberta's democratic process to Albertans and to Canadians."
The ban of journalist Bisan Owda comes amid an alleged wave of censorship after the platform was taken over by a clique of Trump-aligned investors, including the pro-Israel megadonor Larry Ellison.
Bisan Owda is still alive, but not on TikTok.
The award-winning Palestinian journalist and filmmaker found that her social media account had been suddenly terminated days ago, as part of an alleged wave of censorship following the platform's formal takeover by American investors last Thursday.
“TikTok deleted my account. I had 1.4 million followers there, and I have been building that platform for four years,” the 28-year-old Owda said in a video posted to her other social media accounts on Wednesday, just days after TikTok's new owners assumed control.
“I expected that it would be restricted," she said, "not banned forever."
Owda had achieved a massive following for her daily vlogs documenting life amid Israel's genocide in the Gaza Strip. She showed herself constantly on the move, one of the nearly 2 million residents in the strip forcibly displaced by the military onslaught, and gave viewers a firsthand account of Israel's attacks on hospitals, its leveling of neighborhoods, and its assassinations of journalists.
Each of them began with the signature phrase: "It's Bisan from Gaza, and I'm still alive."
A documentary with that title, produced with the Al Jazeera media network, won multiple awards, including an Emmy in 2024 for news and documentary filmmaking.
Owda's videos, which are mostly in English, gave Western audiences a humanizing glimpse into the lives of Palestinian people victimized by the war. She was one of many Palestinians who shared their stories on platforms like TikTok, which American legislators blamed for the titanic shift in youth public opinion against Israel since the genocide began in October 2023.
In 2024, then-Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) infamously justified the bipartisan push to ban the platform by decrying the "overwhelming" volume of "mentions of Palestinians" on it.
Others, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is now the secretary of state, expressed similar sentiments that TikTok was a critical front in an information war for the minds of young people.
In the video announcing her ban, Owda drew attention to comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in September that social media was the most important "battlefield" on which Israel needed to engage.
Netanyahu said the "most important purchase" going on at the time was the sale of TikTok from the Chinese company ByteDance to American investors, which had been enforced via an executive order from US President Donald Trump.
Among those investors was Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who now holds both a 15% stake in TikTok and the primary responsibility for data security and algorithm oversight. In addition to being a major donor to Republican causes, Ellison describes himself as having a "deep emotional connection to the state of Israel," has been listed as the largest private donor to Israeli military causes, and is a close personal friend of Netanyahu.
Other major stakeholders include the US-based private equity firm Silver Lake, which has close ties to Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and the Emirati investment firm MGX, which contributed an unprecedented $2 billion in a deal to help Trump's lucrative cryptocurrency startup, World Liberty Financial.
Owda also highlighted comments made by Adam Presser, the new CEO of TikTok, describing changes he'd help to make to the platform while working as its head of operations in the US that limited use of the word "Zionist" in a negative context.
"We made a change to designate the use of the term 'Zionist' as a proxy for a protected attribute as hate speech," Presser said. "So if someone were to use 'Zionist,' of course, you can use it in the sense of you're a proud Zionist. But if you're using it in the context of degrading somebody, calling somebody a Zionist as a dirty name, then that gets designated as hate speech to be moderated against."
The apparent censorship of Owda comes as many other users report that their content critical of the Trump administration has been throttled in the days following the takeover by the new owners.
Users have found themselves unable to upload content critical of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and unable to send direct messages containing the word "Epstein," referring to the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, whose relationship with Trump has come under scrutiny of late.
TikTok's owners have denied censoring content, blaming the issues on a power outage at an Oracle data center.
Following these reports, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched an investigation into whether the platform was censoring anti-Trump content.
According to CNBC, the daily average number of users deleting TikTok has shot up by 150% since the new owners took over.
Over the past week, hundreds of thousands of users have flocked to a new platform called UpScrolled, which was launched in July 2025 by Palestinian-Australian app developer Issam Hijazi, who said he created it as a counter to the overwhelming presence of pro-Israel content on established platforms.