SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
censorship
Fears of Big Tech Censorship Grow After Meta Suspends No Kings Instagram Account
Meta has also been accused of trying to sabotage Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's campaign.
Oct 18, 2026
Fears of big tech platforms censoring progressive political movements are on the rise after social media giant Meta temporarily shut down the Instagram account of the No Kings coalition on Saturday.
According to No Kings, Meta suspended its official account, which was being used to post videos and images of demonstrations throughout the US, at approximately 1:00 pm Eastern time on Saturday.
The account was restored roughly two hours later, but its administrators were still blocked from posting new content for hours after.
When asked about why the account was taken down, Meta told No Kings that it "made a bad call," without elaborating.
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone would subsequently offer a more detailed explanation in a Saturday social media post.
"When accounts post, share or comment at very high frequencies it can trigger automated systems," Stone wrote. "That's what happened with the No Kings IG account in the lead up to today's day of action. Unfortunately, that automated action was clearly taken in error. Everything is now working as it should and we sincerely apologize."
Leah Greenberg, co-founder of No Kings sponsor Indivisible, was not buying Meta's official explanation.
"This excuse does not match the facts," Greenberg wrote. "We will look forward to a detailed explanation of what happened here and how Meta will take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called Meta's suspension of the account "outrageous," and vowed to "put this on the January investigation list" should Democrats retake control of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked if Meta was "censoring free speech to appease [President] Donald Trump," and added that "we the people deserve answers."
The suspension of the No Kings account was just the latest example of alleged Big Tech censorship.
Bleecker Street, the distributor of director Alex Gibney's four-hour documentary about SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, told The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday that TikTok had permanently suspended the film's promotional account.
Messages shared with The Hollywood Reporter revealed that TikTok accused the Musk documentary account of violating its rules regarding political content, although it was not clear what those violations were.
The Hollywood Reporter noted that while "TikTok has no official affiliation with Elon Musk... it is partly owned by [Oracle founder] Larry Ellison, who gets a rough moment in the doc when a text from him offering to pay billions to the mogul to help finance his Twitter acquisition is shown."
In Brazil, the campaign of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last week filed a legal complaint accusing Meta of shutting down accounts promoting his candidacy while using its algorithms to promote content produced by the campaign of far-right rival Flávio Bolsonaro.
As The Associated Press reported on Thursday, a judge in Brazil's top electoral court sided with Lula's campaign, ruling that Meta "cannot reduce the distribution of political content, restrict searches, or remove posts in a way that creates an imbalance between Lula and Bolsonaro."
Attorneys representing Lula's campaign said the lawsuit against Meta was necessary because content produced by the president and his supporters "faces delivery restrictions, without any justification or transparency," while "profiles acting as political operatives for the opposing side... receive a disproportionate and artificial reach, garnering more views even than global celebrities."
Meta has consistently denied that it is biased against Lula's campaign, and it accused the president in a court filing of using "minor technical issues" to spin "a political narrative" against the company.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Disgraceful': Pro-Palestinian Author Sally Rooney Barred From Selling Books in UK
"What a stain on this government that people in this country are unable to buy and enjoy the work of one of this generation’s greatest writing talents," said lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn. "De-proscribe Palestine Action now."
Oct 14, 2026
News out of the British book publishing world encapsulated the UK government's priorities when it comes to Israel and Palestine, one protest group suggested Wednesday.
"We got a Sally Rooney book ban before a single arrest of the more than 2,000 Britons who have participated in Israel’s genocide and now walk our streets," said Defend Our Juries after Irish author Sally Rooney announced she would no longer be able to sell her books in the United Kingdom because of her support for the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action.
In July 2025, the group was proscribed as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act of 2000, with lawmakers voting to ban Palestine Action after some of its members vandalized two military planes at a Royal Air Force base. The UK has provided military and political support to Israel as it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
Under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, it is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison for a person or group to provide funds to Palestine Action.
Rooney, author of novels including Normal People, Conversations With Friends, and Intermezzo, said Wednesday that her publisher, Faber, would not continue to sell her books in the UK because of an opinion she wrote a month after Palestine Action's proscription, saying she planned to continue supporting the group, which is not labeled a terrorist organization in Ireland, and would donate proceeds from her book sales to it.
“As a result, the fulfillment of contracts to publish my work in the UK could now constitute a serious criminal offense," Rooney said in a statement to The Guardian. "After a process of consultation and deliberation, and with my full agreement, my publisher Faber has therefore determined that it can no longer supply my work within the UK. I have made every effort to be honest with the public about my beliefs and intentions, and I am wholly prepared to accept the consequences.”
Faber explained that should it continue to sell Rooney's popular and acclaimed novels in the UK, it would not be able to pass the author's royalties on to her due to her statements about backing the nonviolent group, which has called on the British government to end its support for Israel. Numerous human rights groups and Holocaust scholars have said Israel's bombardment of Gaza and its blocking of humanitarian aid, which have continued despite a ceasefire deal signed one year ago, constitutes a genocide.
"To sell a writer’s work and not be able to pass on earnings is an unconscionable situation for a publisher," said Faber in a statement. "As such, and in full agreement with Sally, we have taken the decision that we can no longer supply her works in the UK in any format. We remain the proud publisher of her remarkable body of work, which we will continue to sell in other territories.”
Palestine Action's proscription has led to the arrests of about 3,700 people in the UK—most for simply holding signs that say, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
The arrests of nonviolent protesters—many of whom have been senior citizens—have been widely condemned around the world, and Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the new outgrowth of the proscription on Wednesday was "a new low in the escalating assault on free speech."
Rooney, Ammori told The Guardian, "took a brave and principled stand from the moment plans to ban Palestine Action were announced. She has refused to compromise her convictions, even at considerable personal and professional cost. Her work should be celebrated and widely available, not driven off the shelves of British bookshops because she refuses to be complicit in the suppression of solidarity with the Palestinian people."
"No author should have to choose between their principles and their freedom to publish," she said.
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign called the banning of Rooney's books "disgraceful and embarrassing for the British government."
Kerry Moscogiuri, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, told The Guardian that with Rooney pushed into removing her books from stores across Britain, "there is a real danger that others, seeing the price she has paid, will decide they cannot afford to speak out.”
“Writers should not find their books disappearing from shelves because of their political beliefs. Nor should people have to choose between expressing their conscience and pursuing their livelihoods," said Moscogiuri. “Sally Rooney’s willingness to accept the personal consequences of her convictions deserves recognition."
The hip-hop trio Kneecap, from Northern Ireland, expressed solidarity with Rooney, while Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn, who represents the progressive Your Party, said the removal of her books was "more proof of the complete absurdity of the proscription of Palestine Action."
"What a stain on this government that people in this country are unable to buy and enjoy the work of one of this generation’s greatest writing talents," he said. "De-proscribe Palestine Action now."
A legal challenge against the group's proscription will be heard by the UK Supreme Court next month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Book Bans Harm Marginalized Young Readers
When we ban books for young readers that tackle topics surrounding marginalized people, we strip many young readers of the opportunity to feel seen when they are already painfully underrepresented.
Oct 10, 2026
As a first-generation Mexican American, the first time I ever connected with a book and felt genuinely excited to write a book report was when we were assigned to read Esperanza Rising by Pam Muñoz Ryan by Pam Muñoz Ryan in sixth grade. The story, which follows a girl learning to navigate her new life inside a labor camp in California after being forced to move there following the tragic death of her father in Mexico, included themes that really resonated with me.
Up until then, I had never read a book like that. It spoke to me in a way I never imagined a book would, and it made me want to read more. Sixth grade became the year I started considering myself an avid reader because I was pursuing that “special feeling” Esperanza Rising gave me in other books. I was chasing the feeling of being seen.
Today, Esperanza Rising is being challenged in states like Texas and North Carolina because parents feel uncomfortable with its themes of racism and immigration, and I can’t help but think back to my 11-year-old self. If this book had been banned before I got the opportunity to read it, I’m not sure that I would have discovered that “special feeling,” at least not in sixth grade. It would have taken me longer to discover it, if I discovered it at all.
There must be a collective understanding among the gatekeepers of children’s literature that these stories matter, and a commitment to protecting them from being removed from shelves.
This is what makes book bans incredibly dangerous, especially at a time of declining literacy rates, and parents struggling to get their kids to pick up a book instead of their tablets or devices. In October 2026, PEN America reported nearly 12,000 book bans involving more than 7,300 individual titles in US schools during the 2025-2026 school year, which the organization says is the largest censorship case numbers it had ever recorded.
There have been multiple studies reporting on the negative impact book bans are having on teacher morale and student learning, with marginalized young readers especially bearing the brunt of these decisions. The American Library Association reports that a significant proportion of contested books center on LGBTQ+ experiences, racial identity, or themes of systemic inequality, essentially sending the message that those themes should be censored.
When I wrote the first book in my middle-grade magic school series featuring the daughter of undocumented immigrants as the protagonist, Chloe Vega and the Agents of Magic, my goal was to educate young readers about immigration in a way that is digestible and age appropriate. It follows Chloe, who is terrified that Immigration and Customs Enforcement will take her undocumented parents from her. She’s unaware magic exists until a sorcerer disguised as an immigration officer takes her parents, forcing her to embark on a journey to harness her abilities at a magical academy so she can reunite her family.
Despite its fantasy elements, the book is essentially about a little girl fighting to reunite with her family. It’s a heavy message for many young readers, but the magical elements make it easier for them to process. The book has been out for a year, and many parents have reported that it served as an excellent gateway to serious conversations with their children about immigration and the times we’re living in.
The sequel to Chloe’s story, Chloe Vega and the Missing Unseen, was published on October 6, 2026, and both books could be challenged or banned in many states because they address immigration, despite their age appropriateness.
When we ban books for young readers that tackle topics surrounding marginalized people, we lose a critical avenue for parents, educators, and librarians to educate children on these serious topics and help them develop understanding and empathy. We also strip marginalized young readers of the opportunity to feel seen when they are already painfully underrepresented. In the times that we’re living in, this can be extremely harmful.
It also puts these authors at a significant disadvantage, making it harder to get their books into the hands of the readers who need them most. Many have had school visits canceled because educators and administrators fear repercussions from lawmakers and increasingly restrictive book-banning policies. These challenges create greater financial risk for both authors and publishers, which can make publishers more hesitant to invest in books by marginalized authors and further limit the diversity of stories available to young readers.
So far, many efforts have been made to combat book bans. In 2024, a group of authors banded together to launch Authors Against Book Bans, whose mission is to stand united against the unconstitutional movement to limit the freedom to read and to unequivocally support the availability of diverse voices in schools, libraries, and culture. Organizations such as PEN America are actively filing lawsuits against school boards, arguing that these bans violate the First Amendment.
But more needs to be done. There must be a collective understanding among the gatekeepers of children’s literature that these stories matter, and a commitment to protecting them from being removed from shelves. Books have long been celebrated for their ability to build empathy and compassion by inviting readers into lives and experiences different from their own. But when the books being challenged and removed are disproportionately about marginalized people, it does more than limit what children can read. It erases the experiences and identities of the very people whose voices deserve to be heard.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Led by Florida and Texas, US Book Bans Surge to Record 12,000
"In several cases, AI recommended banning books that were banned elsewhere, creating a snowball effect for frequently banned books while the expertise of librarians and the communities they serve are ignored."
Oct 05, 2026
PEN America released a report on Monday documenting nearly 12,000 book bans involving more than 7,300 individual titles in US schools during the 2025-2026 school year, which the organization said were the largest censorship case numbers it had ever recorded.
The state of Texas accounted for more than 8,100 book bans—roughly three-fourths of the nationwide total and more than double that of Florida, which was the second-most censorious state with over 3,200 book bans.
PEN America said that the surge in Texas book bans came from SB 13, a state law passed in 2025 that banned a broad array of books that censorship proponents view as "profane" or "indecent."
According to PEN America, the Texas book bans carried out over the last year have been particularly broad because officials in the state used artificial intelligence to make a recommended list of banned books.
"In several cases, AI recommended banning books that were banned elsewhere," the report notes, "creating a snowball effect for frequently banned books while the expertise of librarians and the communities they serve are ignored."
Sold, a 2006 young adult novel by journalist Patricia McCormick about a teenage girl in Nepal who gets sold into sexual slavery, was the most frequently banned book in the US.
Popular horror writer Stephen King was the most banned individual author, according to the report.
Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read program, said that banning popular young adult titles was a particularly harmful policy given the broad decline in reading throughout the US.
"Schools should be doing everything possible to connect kids with reading by introducing them to engaging stories and formats," Meehan said. "Instead, many are doing the opposite, banning books that help kids see themselves in literature, deepen their understanding and empathy of others, and develop their imaginations."
Philomena Polefrone, senior manager of the Freedom to Read program, said the broad books bans documented by the PEN America report are due to "chilling directives from state politicians" that "have created chaos and fear."
"Unsure how to comply, districts are removing books en masse, sometimes with the ‘help’ of crude AI tools that only make the problem worse," Polefrone said. "Increasingly, these bans are invisible. Thousands of these cases are only recorded because of public information requests by Florida Freedom to Read and Texas Freedom to Read. Books paid for by taxpayers are being removed from shelves and the local community may not even know about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Country Star Zach Bryan Defies Robert Kraft's Censorship, Wearing 'Free Palestine' Shirt at Gillette Stadium Show
Weeks earlier, Kraft pushed for NFL stadiums to ban Macklemore over his pro-Palestine comments.
Oct 03, 2026
Country music star Zach Bryan wore a "Free Palestine" T-shirt during a performance at Gillette Stadium on Friday night in what was widely interpreted as a gesture of defiance against the venue's pro-Israel owner Robert Kraft.
Weeks earlier, the New England Patriots owner drew international backlash when he banned the rapper Macklemore from his venue over his pro-Palestine comments onstage and rallied other NFL owners to do the same, a campaign that led to Macklemore's ouster from Ed Sheeran's US tour.
Sheeran—one of the world's most recognizable pop stars—was branded a spineless coward by many critics and faced a mutiny from his fellow touring acts after caving to the billionaire Kraft's heavy-handed censorship tactics. Sheeran's vague statement denying that he was "complicit" with Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza—which has killed more than 74,000 people, including over 21,000 children over nearly three years, according to official numbers—did little to quiet them.
In sharp contrast, Bryan and his band made their position clear as they performed before a sold-out crowd in Foxborough, Massachusetts on Friday.
Drummer Nate Head wore a cream-colored "Palestine" baseball jersey bearing the name Hind Rajab and the number 5 on the back—a reference to the 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces in 2024. Macklemore had similarly referenced Rajab in the song that led to his ban.
Guitarist Noah Le Gros wore a green "Palestine" jersey onstage. After the show, he posted a photo of himself wearing the jersey in front of a Kraft Sports & Entertainment sign, making the message unmistakable.
The company behind the jerseys, Wear the Peace—which donates all profits to organizations providing food, water, medical care, and other aid in Gaza—praised Bryan and his band for having "stood for Palestine tonight on a stage that tried to ban the simple mention of it."
Bryan, who served eight years in the US Navy, has a history of taking political stances that run counter to the conservatism long associated with mainstream country music. He has defended transgender people against public attacks and last year wrote lyrics criticizing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's aggressive deportation tactics.
But the “I Remember Everything” singer does not map cleanly onto either side of the political spectrum. In the past, he has described himself as a "total libertarian" and more recently stressed political unity: "Left wing or right wing we’re all one bird and American," he said in an interview last year.
The shirt he wore on Friday night also raised questions: Beneath the phrase "Free Palestine," the shirt featured a pine tree emblem and the phrase "An Appeal to Heaven"—iconography associated with George Washington's army in the Revolutionary War and later adopted by some far-right Christian nationalists.
Bryan has not yet publicly commented on what he intended to convey with his shirt on Friday night. Nor has Kraft—who previously referred to pro-Palestine comments on his stage as "hate speech"—publicly responded to Bryan's display.
The band is scheduled to perform another show at Gillette Stadium on Saturday night, and it remains to be seen whether they will face any pressure to back down.
In the meantime, Bryan has drawn praise from commentators who contrasted his display with Sheeran's response to Kraft.
Idrees Ahmad, the associate editor of New Lines Magazine, called it "a real Spartacus moment in music."
"All true artists resist conformity and control," he said. "Trying to tell the most recalcitrant people what they can or can't say was always going to backfire. This trend will only grow the more there is an attempt to censor."
Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, an Israeli-born foreign policy analyst who has become an outspoken critic of Israel's wars, celebrated it as yet another sign of how dramatically public opinion had shifted against the country over the past few years.
“We got the country singers. We won the culture wars," he said. "Break out the moonshine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Lets Lawsuit Proceed After Police Target Miami Beach Resident Who Criticized Pro-Israel Mayor
"Ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim," wrote a federal judge.
Sep 29, 2026
A federal judge has allowed a First Amendment lawsuit to proceed against Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner after he allegedly had police sent to a resident's house to question her over a social media post criticizing his support for Israel.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday denied defendants' motion to dismiss claims filed on behalf of Miami Beach resident and veteran Raquel Pacheco.
Altonaga said that "ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim."
On January 12, a pair of Miami Beach police officers showed up at Pacheco's door to question her about a post she made on Facebook criticizing Meiner, an outspoken supporter of Israel and its military assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, including over 21,000 children.
Pacheco referred to Meiner as someone who "consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians" and "tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings," referring to his attempt to have an independent theater's lease terminated after it held screenings of No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary made by Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers about the displacement of Palestinians and demolition of homes by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
Video of the interaction shows police asking Pacheco if the post came from her account and ignoring her as she told them she would not speak to them without a lawyer.
"This is freedom of speech," Pacheco responded. "This is America, right?”
The officers acknowledged that Pacheco was “not going to jail” and did not claim that she had threatened Meiner. One of the officers then explained that "what we’re just trying to prevent is someone else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement."
He added that Pacheco's statements could "probably incite somebody to do something" before telling Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that." The officers then left and Pacheco was never charged with a crime.
Represented by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Pacheco filed a lawsuit in March alleging that Miami Beach officials had used police power to violate her First Amendment rights and deter her from criticizing the mayor and Israel. The lawsuit described it as part of a broader effort by officials to chill pro-Palestinian speech.
Emails released weeks after the incident revealed that Meiner personally flagged Pacheco's post to police, referring to it as a "dangerous escalation. Speaking to reporters on February 4, he defended his decision to alert the cops, saying that Pacheco's post was "absolutely false" and referring to it as "age-old antisemitism."
But Altonaga said Meiner's statements supported Pacheco's allegation that "her viewpoint motivated Meiner’s decision to send police to her home," allowing her viewpoint discrimination claim against him to proceed.
The court also allowed the ADC to proceed with its claim that the City of Miami Beach itself—including the mayor and police chief—had demonstrated a broader pattern of viewpoint discrimination against pro-Palestinian speech. The lawsuit cites Meiner's attempt to shut down the local theater, as well as its law banning government contractors from boycotting Israeli businesses, including those operating in territories illegally occupied by Israel.
It also cites Meiner and other Miami Beach officials' repeated pattern of arguing with and cutting off Pacheco and other pro-Palestinian speakers during city commission meetings while allowing pro-Israel speakers to talk with little obstruction.
During one meeting, Meiner reduced public comments for pro-Palestinian speakers to 60 seconds when they criticized the police response to Pacheco while allowing speakers who defended the police action or criticized Pacheco's pro-Palestine viewpoint to speak for around two minutes uninterrupted.
Jenin Younes, ADC's president and national legal director, said Monday's ruling was "a significant victory for Raquel Pacheco, for the First Amendment, and for all Americans who care about the right to free speech and dissent."
"The city downplayed what happened to Ms. Pacheco as a routine police visit," Younes said. "The court disagreed, recognizing that sending police to someone’s home to question and intimidate them over their protected political speech can itself violate the First Amendment."
"The government does not have to arrest you, prosecute you, or formally censor you to violate the First Amendment," he added. "The chilling effect of these actions is obvious.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Event Broadcast With No Audio After He Booted Press Pool Members
A host on the Trump-friendly Newsmax network said it seemed his exile of the press was "backfiring just a little bit.”
Sep 21, 2026
It turns out that President Donald Trump may not have thought through all the consequences before he banned some of his most hated news outlets from the White House.
After Trump declared CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "fake news" and exiled them from the White House grounds on Friday, the other networks that make up the White House press pool—including ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Fox News—agreed to boycott their pool duties on Monday in solidarity with the banned outlets.
"There will be no replacement pool put in place," wrote Bryan Boughton, Fox News’ Washington bureau chief and chair of the White House television pool, in an internal notice to news organizations obtained by Politico.
It became clear exactly what that meant when the White House attempted to broadcast a ribbon-cutting ceremony for Trump's new helipad on the White House lawn on Monday afternoon.
The president's voice could be heard faintly. But his words were inaudible over the whir of a helicopter parked nearby.
"There's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there," explained Bianca de la Garza, who was covering the event for the Trump-friendly outlet Newsmax.
The anchor said this was maybe "one example" of the president's attack on the media "backfiring just a little bit."
As of Monday afternoon, there is no reported effort by the White House to find a new press pool. This may prove problematic for Trump as he attends the United Nations General Assembly this week.
Meanwhile, the three outlets banned by Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday, arguing that their removal from White House grounds violated the First Amendment. Previous attempts by the Trump administration to ban news outlets from covering its activities have been shot down in court.
Aidan McLaughlin, the Washington correspondent for Vanity Fair, suggested on social media that, at the rate things are going, a lawsuit may not even have been necessary.
"He’s gonna lift the ban by the end of the week," he predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook': Trump Bans CNN, MSNOW, and Politico From White House
One press freedom advocate said it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment."
Sep 18, 2026
In one of his most direct assaults on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump announced in a Friday afternoon tirade that he would ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.
"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" the president wrote in a rambling Truth Social post.
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added, though he did not specify any particular reports he objected to. He added that bans on "Other Fake News Media Outlets" would soon follow.
Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a defender of free speech, has taken unprecedented actions to censor news outlets during his second term, including threatening networks' broadcast licenses through the Federal Communications Commission over unfavorable programming.
As of Friday afternoon, it's unclear whether Trump actually plans to follow through on his White House ban.
Reacting to the news on the air, CNN anchor Brian Stelter said that the network's reporting team "remains at the White House working just like a usual normal Friday afternoon." He added that "right now, there is no indication that the administration is taking any steps to actually follow through on his threat."
"Certainly, if there is an attempt to remove journalists from the White House, well, our cameras are rolling. I think viewers will see it happen," he said.
"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the network said in a statement following news of the ban. "We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."
Bruce D. Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Common Dreams in an email Friday that simply banning news organizations from the White House over the content of their reporting "would be flatly unconstitutional."
"The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting," he said. "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged."
Federal courts have previously struck down attempts by Trump to bar certain press outlets on First Amendment grounds. Last year, a judge ruled that Trump's removal of the Associated Press from the White House press pool for its refusal to adopt the name "Gulf of America" for the Gulf of Mexico was an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rule banning reporters from obtaining information not authorized by the Pentagon, which led dozens of journalists to turn over their press badges and walk out of the building in protest, was also struck down as a violation of press freedom.
In light of these previous failures, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expressed bewilderment that Trump was once again trying to ban news outlets from the White House.
"With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now," he said in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government."
"It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move," he said. "The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public."
He added that the press must "fight back to protect their rights, not only to access the White House but to access the public records and whistleblowers this administration so desperately wants to keep from them."
Trump's announcement was met with outrage from Democrats in Congress, who described it as an assault on a basic constitutional freedom.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
"Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. "Trump’s administration is doing all of that."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was "straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ed Sheeran Openers Quit Tour as Boycott Begins Over 'Silencing' of Macklemore's Palestine Speech
"The Ed Sheeran debacle will be seen as a turning point in pop culture complicity" with Israel, said one Palestinian-American writer, who described it as "a clear 'South Africa moment.'”
Sep 16, 2026
Singer Ed Sheeran hoped to sidestep controversy by letting rapper Macklemore be removed from his tour over his pro-Palestine remarks. Instead, he's sparked what one writer said could be a "turning point" for how pop culture engages on the issue of Israel and Palestine.
Sheeran responded to the backlash on Tuesday by claiming he was helpless to stop Macklemore’s ouster, which followed the intervention of the pro-Israel New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who rallied other NFL venue owners to bar Sheeran's Loop Tour if the “Thrift Shop” rapper continued to perform.
Pro-Israel groups petitioned for Macklemore to be removed from the tour after a performance earlier this month in which he said, “Free Palestine,” and performed his song “Hind’s Hall." The song refers to anti-Israel protests at Columbia University in 2024 and is dedicated to the 5-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, who was killed by Israeli forces. She was one of more than 20,000 children who have been killed as part of Israel’s military campaign there, according to a UN commission.
But the other four openers said they would not abide what they viewed as elites' political censorship of an artist speaking out against what human rights groups have described as a genocide in Gaza and an occupation of the West Bank that is considered illegal under international law.
Each one of the artists announced on Tuesday that they would no longer tour with Sheeran.
“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed," said the Grammy-winning singer-songwriter Finneas, who has vocally supported the plight of Palestinians for several years. "I stand with Palestine and its people."
The Irish singer Aaron Rowe likewise withdrew from his upcoming shows with Sheeran, though he acknowledged he did not "take the decision lightly."
"Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life. I could never thank him enough for this," Rowe wrote on Instagram. "But as Irish people, we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation."
“I cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power to silence the rightful voices of those who speak up against Israeli genocide and who highlight the savage murder of children,” he continued. “I would lose all respect for myself to carry on as normal.”
The Danish pop band Lukas Graham also dropped from the tour, with frontman Lukas Forchhammer writing that artists "should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up. Wherever they live. Whatever flag flies over them."
Forchhammer addressed Kraft, a multibillionaire, who gloated after the fact about having Macklemore blackballed and denounced his expressions of support for Palestinians as "hate speech."
"Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation," Forchhammer wrote. "Nobody’s bank balance should decide who gets to speak or which suffering we’re allowed to acknowledge.”
The Irish folk group Beoga—which helped to found the Irish Artist for Palestine Movement—was even more direct, calling out Kraft’s extensive history of donating to pro-Israel groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has spent over $100 million attempting to influence the current election cycle, and supporting efforts to punish those who boycott Israeli products.
"It's important that everyone knows that the real enemy is the Zionist lobby. They have worked tirelessly to silence artists who want to speak freely about a genocide happening before our eyes, for fear of retribution," Beoga wrote. "Research how much Robert Kraft has done to fight the [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] (BDS) movement. That will give you a sense of what we've all been up against."
"Up the workers. Free Palestine," the group's message concluded.
The exodus of Sheeran’s openers came as momentum built behind a “boycott” of his music spearheaded by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, a group based in Ramallah in the West Bank, that helped to cofound the BDS movement.
The group called on Sheeran to "cancel his now compromised US tour" and said until then, artists, audience, and crew members should "boycott it."
In response to Sheeran's explanation that he prefers not to publicly take sides on controversial political issues despite having opinions, the group noted his estimated net worth of more than $500 million and his massive platform as one of the world's most recognized musicians.
"As South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu famously said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,'" the group said. "Sheeran had an opportunity to take a stand in solidarity with Palestinians, like millions of other British and Irish citizens have done, and refuse to cave to the pressure... He has so far failed to meet this ethical duty. But it is not too late to reverse course."
Some Western politicians have joined the backlash and amplified calls for a boycott.
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), considered a likely presidential candidate in 2028, told a reporter she'd be changing the radio station if Ed Sheeran's music were to come on.
"When you see what Robert Kraft did to line up all the stadiums to censor speech in that one specific way, it's become clear it's not just about one music artist or two music artists," AOC said. "This is about how just a handful of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive issue, in this case, the genocide in Gaza."
"But it doesn't stop there," she continued. "It could be speaking out about AI. It could be speaking out about any issue, that you can now just get a handful of stadium owners to ensure that an entire person's career can be jeopardized if they speak out about any issue."
Zarah Sultana, a member of the UK Parliament and co-founder of the left-wing Your Party, added that the artists who left Sheeran's tour are "on the right side of history."
“At this rate, Ed Sheeran is going to end up with Boy George opening for him,” she joked on social media, referring to the singer who released a song this summer in support of Israel's assault on Gaza. “No one deserves to be subjected to that.”
Backlash against Sheeran has expanded across the entertainment industry as well, with performers including the children's entertainer Ms. Rachel and popular musicians Kehlani, Tones and I, Zara Larsson, PinkPantheress, and others rallying in support of Macklemore.
And as the music news site Consequence of Sound reported, even some of Sheeran's hardcore fans are revolting. Three prominent Sheeran fan accounts on X, which boast nearly 50,000 followers put together, spoke in solidarity with Macklemore and encouraged Sheeran to use his platform to take a stand, with some vowing to stop covering his tour until he does.
"We hope that Ed can... reflect on everything that happened and understand that, in the face of certain injustices, remaining silent or trying not to choose a side is also a stance," wrote the Brazilian account @EdSheeranBrCom, which has more than 45,000 followers.
Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American journalist who co-founded The Electronic Intifada, said in a social media post that he believed that "the Ed Sheeran debacle will be seen as a turning point in pop culture complicity" with Israel, which has seen public support in the US crater since 2023, to the point where Americans, especially younger ones, now say they sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis.
Likening it to the massive cultural boycott movement against apartheid during the 1980s, Abunimah said the cultural revolt against Sheeran was "a clear 'South Africa moment.'”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Lowlife Coward': Ed Sheeran Declaration of 'I Am Not Complicit' Stirs Fresh Outrage Over Macklemore Ouster
While Sheeran claimed to be adhering to his apolitical brand, one critic argued he was really just "letting a pro-Israel billionaire choose his politics for him."
Sep 15, 2026
Singer Ed Sheeran attempted damage control on Tuesday as he faces outrage following news that the rapper Macklemore had been kicked off his US tour over his pro-Palestine remarks at the behest of a pro-Israel NFL owner.
The "Thrift Shop" rapper had generated outrage from supporters of Israel earlier this month after he shouted "Free Palestine" during a performance at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey and performed "Hind’s Hall," a song honoring Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a billionaire with a long history of donating to pro-Israel causes, took credit for blackballing Macklemore on Monday, describing the rapper's Palestine tributes as "hate speech."
The decision to remove Macklemore has been widely criticized, including by the sister of the late country music icon Dolly Parton, Stella, who wrote on social media Tuesday that "We are in a dire situation when a performer is pulled from a tour for simply calling out genocide in Gaza."
In an Instagram post, Sheeran confirmed that Kraft had indeed rallied other NFL stadium owners to give an ultimatum that their shows would be canceled unless Macklemore was dropped. Sheeran said the decision ultimately did not belong to him, but to the Messina Touring Group, which is promoting the tour.
"I spoke with the venues at length all week to try and build a bridge," Sheeran said. "One of those people was Robert Kraft. I was also involved in direct talks with promoters, along with activists on both sides, to try to find a mutual resolution for all, but the venue's and promoter's decision was final."
The singer-songwriter, who had not previously spoken publicly about the Israel-Palestine conflict, also addressed criticism that he was effectively taking a side and offering tacit support to Israel, whose military campaign in Gaza has been described as a genocide by major human rights groups and has resulted in the deaths of at least 73,000 Palestinians, including more than 20,000 children, according to official estimates.
"I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine," Sheeran said. "The suffering and pain caused on both sides is a human tragedy. There are too many wars across the world causing immeasurable pain, none of which should be tolerated."
"I am not complicit," he added. "I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly doesn't mean I don't have them, and it doesn't mean I don't care. Nor does it mean I don't support causes in my own, personal way."
Sheeran did not specify which particular causes he supports or whether any of them relate to the humanitarian crisis in Palestine.
"There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics," Sheeran continued. "My audience includes young people, often children, of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect Macklemore's strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace."
In a post on Monday addressing his removal from the tour, Macklemore said that his longtime friend Sheeran was put in "a fucked up position" in which "his typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it never had been before."
But critics argued that if there was anyone with the clout to take a stand against the censorious stadium owners, it would be Sheeran. According to PollStar, he is the third-most-popular touring act of the 21st century by worldwide ticket sales through 2025, and he has regularly sold out NFL stadiums, grossing several million dollars per show.
In a social media post, Will Menaker, a co-host of the popular left-wing podcast Chapo Trap House, ridiculed Sheeran's claim that canning Macklemore was "the promoter's decision" rather than his own.
"Sheeran is a big enough artist that he could easily tell the promoters to go fuck themselves if he wanted to," Menaker said, describing the singer as a "lowlife coward whose music sounds exactly like he is."
Media and cultural critic Kaivan Shroff argued in Zeteo that Sheeran was not actually acting apolitically as he claimed, but rather "letting a pro-Israel billionaire choose his politics for him."
"Kraft imposed a political condition on his tour, and then Sheeran enforced it," Shroff wrote. "He did not remain above the dispute; he allowed the billionaire who owned the building to resolve it for him."
"That is what the language of being 'apolitical' conceals," he continued. "It treats the status quo as neutral and resistance to it as political. Kraft can decide that support for Palestinian freedom is beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech; venue owners can threaten a tour; corporate affiliates can calculate the financial exposure and draw their lines in the sand. None of that is described as activism. Politics supposedly only enters the room when Macklemore says those two words onstage."
Shroff wrote that the saga demonstrated "how the ultrawealthy exercise political power without accepting political responsibility."
"They translate an ideological demand into a business necessity, then leave everyone beneath them to describe compliance as unavoidable," he said. "Kraft did not have to answer Macklemore’s argument about Gaza or persuade an audience that saying 'Free Palestine' constituted hate. He could simply threaten the tour instead. Once the money was put in jeopardy, all of a sudden, the unacceptable viewpoint disappeared."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy