May, 24 2023, 11:05am EDT

New Letter Says Slack Puts Abortion Seekers in Danger and Fails to Address Online Harassment
Civil rights and abortion groups demand the communications platform offer end-to-end encryption and a blocking/reporting feature to secure messages and address harassment
Today, a coalition of 93 groups sent a letter to Slack calling on the company to protect its users by offering end-to-end encryption for messages, and to add blocking and reporting features to help protect users from harassment. The signers include abortion rights, digital rights, racial justice, and other civil society groups, as well as privacy-focused businesses.
The letter, hosted at MakeSlackSafe.com, points to attacks on abortions and bodily autonomy in the US as a specific threat under which people’s personal messages are being targeted by law enforcement. While Slack says that it only provides user data to law enforcement when it is legally required to do so, in states where abortion is being criminalized, law enforcement can and will use subpoenas to force Slack to hand over the internal messages of abortion funds, abortion providers, and reproductive rights organizations, as well as private individuals who use Slack to message friends, family and coworkers.
The letter also highlights broader attacks on human rights, stating that “in the US and around the world, governments are using data and digital communications to target human rights defenders and people exposing human rights violations, including political nonprofits, activist networks, journalists.” Signers argue that end-to-end encryption is a key feature for ensuring user messages cannot be accessed by Slack, hackers, snooping bosses, or law enforcement.
In addition to offering end-to-end encryption to secure messages, the groups call on Slack to offer tools to stop harassment on the platform, specifically blocking and reporting features, which they note are available on the vast majority of communications tools. With online harassment of workers on the rise (especially since the shift to remote work in response to the COVID-19 pandemic), Slack’s refusal to add a tool to allow people to block other users or report content is unacceptable.
“Slack is falling short in terms of the most basic guardrails for platform safety and privacy, which could have seismic implications for users. End-to-end encryption keeps people safe, and safety must be a built-in feature on all of our platforms. By not addressing this security flaw, Slack is aiding the criminalization of abortions and other expressions of bodily autonomy. As a leader in the online messaging space, Slack has to do more than just run nice PR campaigns claiming to support reproductive rights, they must ensure user safety is inherent in their tech.” Caitlin Seeley George, Campaigns and Managing Director at Fight for the Future.
“Slack has become one of the most popular communications tools of our era. And with that popularity comes responsibility — responsibility that Slack is currently neglecting. Slack must protect its users and catch up with many of its peers by offering common sense safety features, like the option for end-to-end encryption.” Reem Suleiman, U.S. Advocacy Lead at Mozilla
“For years, Slack has said it doesn’t need a block button because it is just a workplace tool and that would cut down on meaningful conversations. I have been advocating for one basic feature, blocking, since 2019, to make Slack safer. Slack isn’t just a workplace tool, it’s used by all different kinds of people, communities, and it’s also used in workplaces. It’s important to emphasize one thing here: harassment happens everywhere. It happens between families, friends, across strangers, and it also happens in the workplace. Blocking is a necessary tool to help mitigate harassment; it’s something users need to create their own safety, especially in the workplace, but in any community. Better security and privacy, privacy tools make people safer. Now is the time to press for what I call: seatbelts of online safety, which are necessary tooling and product features every product, software or infrastructure should have. End to end encryption, blocking, muting, and reporting are those necessary features; we need to think of them as the kinds of safety requirements that airbags and seatbelts provide for cars. We need to shift our thoughts away from thinking of these solely as additional features, but as necessary and required functionality to create and maintain a healthier web. The time is now to remake our web to include this functionality and every product. It’s time for Slack to really commit to safety and user health; these features make that happen.” Caroline Sinders, founder, principal researcher, Convocation Research + Design
“A key component of collective action is communication. We all deserve to know our communications are safe. Workers, consumers, friends, and activists need end-to-end encrypted communications platforms with safety features like blocking, muting, and reporting. I’m hopeful that Slack will take this responsibility seriously and offer these important safety features for users.” Charlotte Slaiman, Competition Policy Director at Public Knowledge
“We are in strong support of mainstreaming encryption and urge messaging platforms to adopt encryption as a way to safeguard people’s human rights. Encryption is not just a matter of privacy, it is a fundamental tool to enhance trust in digital communications. For an organization that yields as much power as Slack does through their popularity and reach, there is a responsibility to keep their users and community safe. We call on Slack to prioritize the adoption of encryption to ensure that messaging apps remain a powerful tool for empowerment, freedom, and the protection of human rights online.” Isabela Fernandes, Executive Director, the Tor Project.
“Ranking Digital Rights’s standards call on companies to protect users’ private communications. While we believe that all chat communications should be encrypted, at the very least, users should have the option to turn on end-to-end encryption. While Slack has some protections in place, these do not extend to end-to-end encryption for messaging. Our 2022 Big Tech Scorecard found that most messaging services, ranging from iMessage to Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, and Kakao Talk, did provide options for end-to-end encryption. QQ and WeChat, however, both from Chinese company Tencent, failed to do so. Had we ranked Slack, it would have failed, alongside Tencent’s services. We believe Slack can, and should, do much better.” Anna Lee Nabors, Ranking Digital Rights
“In a time when our personal freedoms and rights are under threat, it is crucial to hold Slack accountable. The lack of end-to-end encryption in Slack exposes our private messages to various entities, enabling potential harassment, union-busting, suppression of political activism, and even criminalization of essential choices like abortion. With the rise of repressive laws and increased surveillance, the privacy of our communications has become paramount, especially for marginalized communities. End-to-end encryption ensures the protection and empowerment of individuals, allowing us to navigate a post-Roe US with dignity and autonomy.” Perry Toone, Thexyz
“As a workplace tool that many employees can’t opt out of using, Slack users need control over their exposure to abusive and harassing messages. Because of its real-time delivery and the current inability of the platform’s users to block or mute other users, Slack can be a hothouse for bad behavior. It is in the interests of employers and the platform itself to empower users to control their interactions with illegal or distressing content and the ability to keep their personal conversations private. Mechanisms like muting, blocking, reporting content and encrypted direct messaging should be standard operating procedure on the social Internet,” Tracy Rosenberg, Oakland Privacy
“As an organization that uses Slack to run our campaigns and communicate as a team it is vitally important that the platform be safe and private so that we can do our work to prevent war and violence. Political and human rights activists in the United States and around the globe that use Slack face increasing risks to their freedom and safety because of the use of online surveillance, harassment, and repression, and we expect Slack to take measures to protect them and the important work that they do. We call on Slack to implement end to end encryption and measures to prevent harassment so that its customers can do their work to build more democratic and just communities.” Amy Frame, Director of Data and technology, Win Without War
“At Malloc, we firmly believe in safeguarding the privacy and security of communication for all individuals. That is why we are joining the call to make Slack safe. In an era where personal freedoms and marginalized communities are under threat, it is crucial that we advocate for end-to-end encryption in workplace messaging platforms like Slack. Protecting the privacy of direct messages is not only a matter of personal liberty but also vital to ensure the safety and well-being of employees, activists, and vulnerable communities. We stand united in demanding stronger privacy measures to safeguard confidential conversations and protect the fundamental rights of all individuals.” Maria Terzi, Co-Founder & CEO – Malloc Inc.
In addition to delivering this letter, Fight for the Future has placed sidewalk decals outside Slack’s offices in San Francisco and Denver, has a billboard in the Bay Area, and is running digital ads targeting Slack and calling for end-to-end encryption. The group is also running a broader campaign calling on all messaging platforms to Make DMs Safe by implementing end-to-end encryption by default.
Letter and full list of signers:
Dear Slack,
We are businesses, organizations, communities, and individuals who depend on tools like Slack to connect online. We are activists organizing for change; journalists who communicate with sources and about sensitive stories; nonprofits providing care and support for our communities; companies that need to streamline our processes and share ideas; students, creators, gamers, alumni, artists, athletes, and other communities that use the Internet to connect with people all over the world.
Slack has put the security of our communities in danger by not taking steps to ensure user safety. Safety should be a built-in feature of all technology, so we are calling on you to protect your users by providing the option to enable end-to-end encryption for messages to protect our privacy, and to add blocking, muting and reporting features to help protect users from harassment.
In the US and around the world, governments are using data and digital communications to target human rights defenders and people exposing human rights violations, including political nonprofits, activist networks, journalists. For many of these groups and individuals, Slack is an absolutely vital communication tool, but it could also become the basis of government targeting, repression, censorship.
For years, law enforcement has monitored marginalized groups—including BIPOC, immigrants, social justice activists, and sex workers—through their online communications and through other forms of surveillance. Personal communications immediately became a target for criminalizing abortion seekers and providers after the reversal of Roe v Wade. Security experts and human rights organizations have sounded the alarm about this abuse and point to default end-to-end encrypted messaging as a first and best step companies can take to protect targeted communities. End-to-end encryption is crucial for protecting people from anti-human rights attacks on their bodily autonomy and personhood.
Despite critiques from journalists and privacy experts, Slack has not publicized any plans to offer end-to-end encryption. Instead you’re choosing to prioritize profit over users’ privacy and safety.
In addition to unencrypted Slack messages, the absence of functionality to address harassment over Slack puts users at risk. Whether for work, volunteering, or other social communities, many cannot opt out of using Slack. With workplace and online bullying and harassment on the rise, disproportionately impacting marginalized people who might not have other resources or feel comfortable reporting harassment to HR departments or other moderators, Slack must take responsibility to ensure everyone is equipped with resources to defend themselves.
The vast majority of communication tools give users the ability to mute, block, and report people. Adding these features is a simple, commonsense way to offer more protection from harassment on Slack.
Right now, Slack is falling short in terms of the most basic guardrails for platform safety and privacy. At this political moment, this can mean life or death for some people online. We call on Slack to go beyond statements and put into action its commitment to human rights by implementing basic safety and privacy design features immediately.
Signed,
Abortion Access Front
Access Now
Accountable Tech
Aspiration
Associação Portuguesa para a Promoção da Segurança da Informação
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
Catholics for Choice
Center for Digital Resilience
Chayn
Climate Mobilization Project
ClimateAction.tech
Convocation Research + Design
Dangerous Speech Project
Den Frie Vilje ApS
Derechos Digitales
Digital Defense Fund
DNS Africa Media and Communications
Electronic Frontier Finland – Effi ry
Endora
Equity Forward
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL)
Fight for the Future
Forward Together & Forward Together Action
Free Press
GLAAD
Glitch
Gotham City Drupal
I Need An A.com
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice
IFEX
Jane’s Due Process
JCA-NET(Japan)
Kairos
KRYSS Network
Lawyering Project
LAYLO
Majal.org
Malloc Inc
Media Alliance
MediaJustice
Medical Students for Choice
Mozilla
MPower Change
Myntex Inc.
National Abortion Federation
National Institute for Reproductive Health
National Network of Abortion Funds
New Eden welfare promotion foundation
New/Mode
NTEN
Oakland Privacy
Open Data Charter
OpenMedia
OPTF Ltd
Our Justice
Patient Forward
Pixels for Humans
Point of VIew
Privacy & Access Council of Canada
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
ProboxVE
ProgressNow New Mexico
Public Knowledge
Quiet
Ranking Digital Rights
Reproaction
Reproductive Health Access Project
Rinascimento Green
RootsAction Education Fund
RosKomSvoboda
Salmonberry Tribal Associates
Seeding Sovereignty
Sex Workers Project @ The Urban Justice Center
SHERo Mississippi
State Innovation Exchange (SiX)
Superbloom Design (previously Simply Secure)
Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
The Tor Project
The Womxn Project
Thexyz
Ubunteam
UltraViolet
United We Dream
USOW
Utah Abortion Fund
VoteProChoice
We Testify
Win Without War
Women’s March
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
World Wide Web Foundation
X-Lab
Ymoz
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Congress Urged to Require Warrants in Reauthorization of Key Spy Power
"FISA 702 has been abused in shocking ways," said one campaigner. "If Congress genuinely cares about surveillance abuse, weaponization, and 'lawfare,' it needs to rein in this warrantless surveillance power."
Feb 24, 2026
Privacy advocates are backing a bipartisan bill introduced in the US Senate this week that's intended to protect Americans from warrantless government surveillance.
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) unveiled the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act on Monday, in the wake of Politico reporting that President Donald Trump's White House "is quietly pushing for a key spy authority to be extended as is into 2027, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss the private talks."
There have long been arguments on Capitol Hill and beyond over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which empowers the federal government to surveil electronic communications without a warrant. The law only allows for targeting foreigners outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, but Americans' data is also collected.
Despite such arguments, Congress reauthorized Section 702 nearly two years ago, under then-President Joe Biden. That decision is set to expire on April 20, setting up a new battle over the spying power—hence the bill's introduction this week.
Under Durbin and Lee's proposal, the authority would be extended another two years, but government agencies must obtain a FISA Title I order or a warrant before accessing Americans' communications. As the pair noted in a statement, it also "closes the 'data broker loophole' that intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment" to the US Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures and details requirements for issuing warrants.
"Section 702 is a valuable tool to help keep our nation safe," said Durbin. "However, it's being used to conduct thousands of warrantless searches of Americans' private communications. That's unacceptable. Our bipartisan SAFE Act is a commonsense solution to continue protecting our country from foreign threats—while safeguarding Americans' civil liberties and privacy."
In a Tuesday statement welcoming the legislation, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Hajar Hammado highlighted that "right now, the government can freely troll through your private emails and texts swept up in 702 collections and this power has been abused to spy on everyday Americans, journalists, and even members of Congress."
"No government, whether it's run by Donald Trump and Stephen Miller or Joe Biden, should be able to do this," argued Hammado. According to Politico, Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, "is a leading advocate" for extending Section 702.
Hammado stressed that "the SAFE Act is a bipartisan solution to this problem, and all members of Congress should not support reauthorization without these critical reforms. We thank Sens. Lee and Durbin for their leadership on this bill and for modeling how Republicans and Democrats can come together to stop oppressive government overreach."
Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Security & Surveillance project, also endorsed the bill in a Tuesday statement.
"FISA 702 has been abused in shocking ways," said Laperruque. "The FBI has misused it to snoop on protesters, lawmakers, journalists, judges, and campaign donors. If Congress genuinely cares about surveillance abuse, weaponization, and 'lawfare,' it needs to rein in this warrantless surveillance power."
"The SAFE Act includes bold FISA reforms, creates strong guardrails against surveillance misconduct, and has been meticulously crafted to protect national security," he continued. "With less than 10 weeks until FISA 702 expires, Congress should take up reform legislation quickly. Kicking the can on FISA would be a dereliction of duty."
A CDT-led coalition of privacy advocates across the political spectrum recently identified these as the four key issues to address in FISA reform. The SAFE Act effectively takes on all of them. With just SEVEN weeks until FISA 702 expires, we hope Congress will quickly take up this vital bill.
[image or embed]
— Jake Laperruque (@jakelaperruque.bsky.social) February 24, 2026 at 12:22 PM
Republicans have a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress but, due to Senate rules, generally need some Democratic support to send legislation to Trump's desk. However, the GOP could also run into trouble on this issue in the House of Representatives. As Politico pointed out last week:
Ultimately, there's no easy path to pass a clean extension in the House. One of the people with knowledge of the discussions said GOP leaders are "going to have a problem" trying to unite Republicans behind a special "rule" allowing for an up-or-down floor vote on a clean extension, which are typically party-line affairs.
But Republicans also believe that with Trump in office, a number of Democrats who previously supported leaving Section 702 intact will now support putting more fetters on intelligence agencies—making the alternative route, a two-thirds-majority bipartisan vote under suspension of the rules, all but impossible.
The latest Section 702 fight comes as Trump is under fire for his rising authoritarianism, from invasions of US cities targeting immigrants to his sweeping assault on First Amendment rights, including reported federal watch lists to track and categorize US citizens—especially activists and protesters—as "domestic terrorists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Sued Over 'Unlawful Warrantless Arrests' During North Carolina ICE Blitz
“I am a US citizen, but my papers did not protect me,” said one plaintiff. “I want to be involved in this case because I don’t want this to happen to anyone else."
Feb 24, 2026
A coalition of advocacy groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday "seeking to prevent a pattern of unlawful warrantless arrests in North Carolina that is harming communities" during the Trump administration's deadly crackdown on undocumented immigrants and their defenders.
Democracy Forward, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) sued the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on behalf of five individuals, including four American citizens and one legal US resident from El Salvador.
“I am a US citizen, but my papers did not protect me,” 46-year-old plaintiff Willy Aceituno said in a statement. “I want to be involved in this case because I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I want to help protect my Latino family, friends, and neighbors.”
Another plaintiff, 23-year-old North Carolina native Yoshi Cuenca Villamar, said: “I have a lot of fear that this will happen to me again. I was essentially kidnapped based only on the color of my skin. That really weighs on me."
“I think it is important to take action through this case so that the government starts doing their jobs correctly instead of stopping people solely because they look a certain way," Cuenca added.
Democracy Forward said in a statement announcing the lawsuit: "In mid-November, the Trump-Vance administration accelerated its immigration crackdown across North Carolina during Operation Charlotte’s Web. Heavily armed, masked DHS agents, including ICE and CBP officers, roamed Charlotte, Durham, Raleigh, and other communities, detaining and arresting people indiscriminately without warrants or legal justification."
"Each plaintiff was arrested by DHS agents without probable cause to believe that they are legally removable from the country and that they pose a flight risk—determinations required under federal law for warrantless arrests," Democracy Forward continued.
The plaintiffs “represent a class of individuals who have been or will be subjected to warrantless immigration arrests by DHS in North Carolina, including arrests made without probable cause based on flight risk or removability," the group added. "They ask the federal court for the Western District of North Carolina to declare DHS’ mass warrantless arrest policy unlawful and to issue a permanent injunction blocking these unlawful practices.”
ACLU-NC staff attorney Corina Scott said in a statement Tuesday: “Federal immigration agents have consistently ignored the law and trampled civil rights in North Carolina. This lawsuit seeks to stop this abuse of power and demand accountability going forward so that our communities do not continue to suffer violent and unlawful arrests.”
We just filed the first class action lawsuit challenging unlawful warrantless immigration arrests in North Carolina amid the federal government's crackdown. Join us in calling for an end to ICE & CBP terror! https://rebrand.ly/iceout
[image or embed]
— ACLU of North Carolina (@aclunc.bsky.social) February 24, 2026 at 2:40 PM
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said that “when armed, masked agents are breaking car windows, handcuffing people without probable cause, and dumping them on the side of the road, that is not law enforcement, it is lawlessness."
"Congress was explicit: Warrantless immigration arrests require individualized probable cause to be proven," she noted. "That standard is not optional based on the whims of whoever is in the White House. [DHS] is carrying out mass arrests that disregard the limits that Congress imposed and the Constitution requires. Federal agencies do not have the authority to sweep up people in America—whether they are US citizens, lawful residents, or anyone else—without legal justification."
"This case is about restoring basic guardrails on government power and ensuring that federal officers follow the law they are sworn to uphold," Perryman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Under Fire for Withholding Epstein Files Related to Alleged Trump Child Sex Assault
"Covering up direct evidence of a potential assault by the president of the United States is the most serious possible crime in this White House," said one Democratic congressman.
Feb 24, 2026
The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee announced Tuesday that an investigation will be opened into the US Department of Justice's withholding of Epstein files related to an alleged sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl committed by President Donald Trump decades ago.
“For the last few weeks, Oversight Democrats have been investigating the FBI’s handling of allegations from 2019 of sexual assault on a minor made against President Donald Trump by a survivor," Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said in a statement.
“Yesterday, I reviewed unredacted evidence logs at the Department of Justice. Oversight Democrats can confirm that the DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused President Trump of heinous crimes," he continued. "Oversight Democrats will open a parallel investigation into this."
"Under the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and the Epstein Files Transparency Act, these records must immediately be shared with Congress and the American public," Garcia added. "Covering up direct evidence of a potential assault by the president of the United States is the most serious possible crime in this White House cover-up."
Oversight Dems have access to a list of documents, including interviews detailing serious allegations against President Trump, that are missing from the DOJ’s so-called “unredacted” files.Where are the missing files? What do they say? This all points to yet another cover up.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Robert Garcia (@robertgarcia.house.gov) February 24, 2026 at 2:21 PM
The Trump administration is accused of continuously flouting the Epstein Files Transparency Act—which mandated that all materials related to convicted child sex criminal and longtime former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein be released by December 19. But critically, the law gives Attorney General Pam Bondi wide discretion to redact large amounts of information that could harm "national security."
Files on Epstein—who died under mysterious circumstances in a New York City jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges—that have not been released to the public despite the transparency law "include what appears to be more than 50 pages of FBI interviews, and notes from conversations with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor," NPR reported Tuesday.
That minor was allegedly introduced to Trump around 1983, when she was 13 years old.
“[REDACTED] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump, who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit," a DOJ file on the alleged incident states. "In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out."
The child is one of more than two dozen women who have accused Trump of raping, sexually assaulting, or sexually harassing them.
In 2023, a civil jury in New York City found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming journalist E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million. In a separate defamation trial, Trump was ordered to pay Carroll another $83.3 million.
Trump, who denies any wrongdoing, is challenging these civil awards. Trump also denies an allegation that he and Epstein "brutally raped" a 13-year-old girl identified by the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" at a 1994 party.
As NPR reported Tuesday:
Other files scrubbed from public view pertain to a separate woman who was a key witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of Epstein's co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. Maxwell is seeking clemency from Trump. Some of those documents were briefly taken down and put back online last week, while others remain hidden, according to NPR's comparison of the initial dataset from January 30 with document metadata of those files currently on the Justice Department website.
Earlier this month, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said that the unreacted Epstein files, which he had viewed, contained "more than million" references to Trump.
Robert Glassman, an attorney representing a woman who testified against Maxwell, blasted the DOJ for its "ridiculous" handling of the Epstein files.
"The DOJ was ordered to release information to the public to be transparent about Epstein and Maxwell's criminal enterprise network," he told NPR. "Instead, they released the names of courageous victims who have fought hard for decades to remain anonymous and out of the limelight. Whether the disclosures were inadvertent or not—they had one job to do here and they didn't do it."
Responding to the NPR report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on X, "I guarantee if these files exonerated Trump, they would have been released," adding that Bondi "must resign, and she must be prosecuted."
Democratic National Committee Rapid Response Director Kendall Witmer released a statement Tuesday asserting that "Donald Trump continues to lie about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, while his administration works overtime to hide the truth about Epstein’s heinous crimes from the American people."
"Tonight at the State of the Union, Trump will be in the same room as survivors of Epstein’s crimes, whom he has denied transparency and justice," Witmer added. "He and his administration must be held accountable for protecting pedophiles.”
Democratic lawmakers including Garcia, Raskin, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have invited Epstein survivors as guests to Tuesday night's speech by Trump.
Elisa Batista, campaign director at the advocacy group UltraViolet Action, said in a statement Tuesday that we are in solidarity with the courageous survivors showing up in defiance of Trump’s attempts to change the conversation at the State of the Union tonight."
Batista continued:
Their bravery represents the will of millions of Americans who are demanding accountability not just for all those who enabled Jeffrey Epstein, but also for public officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi who continue to protect those abusers and enablers by refusing to release all of the Epstein files.
When it comes to the Epstein class, the real state of the union remains unchanged: These powerful abusers and enablers believe they will be shielded by their wealth, networks, or influence. Now, like before, it’s been the fearless insistence of survivors that’s stood in the way of efforts by politicians like Trump and Bondi to sweep the full legacy of Epstein’s child sex trafficking network under the rug.
“No matter how much Trump and Bondi try to distract us from the fact that they broke the law to keep the public in the dark about the extent of Epstein’s child abuse, we, survivors and allies, will not allow them to forget their role in offering cover for Epstein and his enablers," Batista added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


