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
first amendment
100+ Civil Society Groups Condemn Trump Attack on Democratic Establishment Think Tank
"We stand with the Center for American Progress, not in agreement with every view they hold, but in steadfast support for their rights to voice those views freely and without political retribution."
Sep 01, 2026
A diverse coalition of around 150 organizations on Tuesday collectively spoke out against US President Donald Trump's recent attack on the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with ties to the Democratic Party establishment.
The Republican president, through one of his lawyers, threatened to sue the center last month over its July report concluding that there was no evidence his deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC did anything to reduce violent crime.
"Since our nation's founding, the rights to free speech, association, and the press have been the bedrock on which American democracy has thrived," begins the coalition's statement, spearheaded by Nonprofits Together. "We reaffirm, as has each generation before us, our unqualified commitment to the First Amendment and its foundational protections."
"In so doing, we stand in strong solidarity with the Center for American Progress (CAP), a nonpartisan think tank, and its right to publish expert analysis on the impact of the Trump administration's—or any administration's—policies," it continues. "The free exchange of ideas—including ideas that are inconvenient to those in power—is critical for Americans to understand the nature and impact of the actions of their government."
Trump's legal attack on CAP is just "the latest salvo in the administration's ongoing efforts to suppress the speech of organizations that challenge their policies, defend the rule of law, and protect civil rights and vulnerable communities," the coalition noted.
Other authoritarian attacks—as detailed last December in the Free Press report "Chokehold: Donald Trump's War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance"—include the White House taking control of the presidential press pool, legal action such as Trump's lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the The Wall Street Journal over reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the administration working to deport foreign scholars and journalists who criticize US policy.
First it was law firms, then universities, and now Trump has threatened a research organization in an attempt to silence them.We're proud to join 150+ organizations standing up for @americanprogress.bsky.social and the First Amendment. Read the full statement: nptogether.org/press/cap-st...
[image or embed]
— American Oversight (@weareoversight.bsky.social) September 1, 2026 at 12:14 PM
Stressing that there are often disagreements "even within think tanks," the coalition warned Tuesday that attempting to silence sources of information "degrades our free exchange of ideas, and risks leaving only distortions in the public square."
"This is infinitely more damaging to our democratic ideals when done for purely political purposes," the groups argued. "There are few issues more fundamental to the First Amendment than the right of an independent organization to publish evidence-based analysis of a government policy and how it is or is not working."
"This is not about ideology or partisanship," the organizations continued. "This is true regardless of who is in power, and who is issuing public critiques of that power. We stand with the Center for American Progress, not in agreement with every view they hold, but in steadfast support for their rights to voice those views freely and without political retribution."
The signatories range from environmental, labor, and legal groups to those focused on faith, housing, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive freedom, and more. They include the ACLU, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Drug Policy Alliance, Economic Policy Institute, Giffords, Greenpeace USA, Human Rights Campaign, Indivisible, National Education Association, Oxfam America, Public Citizen, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The free exchange of ideas—including ideas that are inconvenient to those in power—is critical for Americans to understand the nature and impact of the actions of their government.” CAC stands with @americanprogress.bsky.social: nptogether.org/press/cap-st...
[image or embed]
— CAC (@myconstitution.bsky.social) September 1, 2026 at 11:30 AM
CAP was founded in 2003 by John Podesta, who has served in various roles under former Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The center's current president, Neera Tanden, has also worked for key party leaders. In response to Trump's threat last month, she emphasized that the think tank "is an independent, nonpartisan research organization, and our work is grounded in rigorous, evidence-based research and analysis."
Blasting the threatened lawsuit as "baseless" and "a transparent attempt to silence us," Tanden pledged that "we will neither cower nor bend in the face of it."
"In America, profound disagreements over public policy are resolved through robust public debate, not through threats or intimidation," she added. "Independent data, evidence, and analysis are essential to that debate. Efforts to silence independent research because its findings are unwelcome by an administration or president should alarm every American."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Threatens NBC's Welker With 'Punishment' for Doing Her Job
"Trump, like all authoritarians, wants to silence those who disagree with him," Sen. Bernie Sanders said in response.
Aug 30, 2026
President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to threaten NBC journalist Kristen Welker with "rebuke or punishment" from the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, after she accurately reported that his endorsement had netted "mixed" results for Republican candidates this election cycle.
In a second post on Sunday, Trump also lashed out against reported polling results, writing, "THE FAKE POLLS USED BY OUR CROOKED MEDIA ARE OUT OF CONTROL, AND SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT IT. FCC TO THE RESCUE!"
"Trump, like all authoritarians, wants to silence those who disagree with him," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media in response. "Now he's trying to punish an NBC journalist for reporting on his mixed endorsement record. Sorry, Mr. President. In America, we believe in democracy and the First Amendment. FIGHT BACK."
Welker made the remarks that enraged Trump during a pre-"Meet the Press" promotion on NBC's Washington, DC affiliate station. They were backed up by NBC reporting that six candidates Trump endorsed for House and governor had lost their Republican primary races in August.
"Trump makes clear that he thinks it's the government's role to go after journalists who anger him."
"Kristen Welker, the Unpopular 'Hostess' of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has 'mixed results' on his Endorsements of Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, stand at 100% for the US Senate, and 98% for the US House, recently and over the longterm. How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given Public Airwaves? Results are attached. Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment," Trump wrote.
He also appealed to the head of the FCC directly, saying, "I hope that Chairman Brendan Carr, and the fine people of his Commission, will take this Threat to our Country very seriously."
"Trump is getting more explicit about weaponizing the FCC," CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter noted in a thread on social media. While he pointed out that the FCC cannot legally punish Welker and has limited power by design, its chair Carr "has been responsive to Trump's posts in the past..."
Indeed, Carr has a history of targeting Trump critics.
In September of 2025, he pressured ABC into briefly removing Jimmy Kimmel from the air following remarks he made surrounding the Trump administration's response to conservative activist Charlie Kirk's death.
In March, Carr wrote a post on social media that appeared to threaten to revoke the broadcasting licenses of news outlets that criticized Trump's war on Iran, responding directly to Trump's own social media rant against war coverage.
In April, he ordered Disney's eight ABC stations to file their broadcast renewal requests years early, prompting ABC and Disney to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC earlier this month. The renewal requests, which Carr denies were retaliatory, came a day after Trump again criticized Kimmel for making jokes about First Lady Melania Trump.
Stelter concluded: "Trump invoked Carr's name, complimented the 'fine people' of the FCC, and said he hopes the commission will 'take this Threat to our Country very seriously.' ABC is already in court fighting the FCC's unprecedented actions; it's reasonable to think NBC will be targeted next."
Chief White House correspondent for The New York Times Pete Baker wrote on social media that, with his threats against Welker, "Trump makes clear that he thinks it's the government's role to go after journalists who anger him."
"Are there really any Americans left who think this man is paying any attention to any problem any person in the United States is having right now," Trump biographer Seth Abramson wrote on social media in response to Trump's tirade. "As far as I can tell there's not a single second of his day taken up by anything but what personally interests and enriches him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Rules the Trump Admin Can't Deport International Students for Free Speech
"A federal judge just ruled that the Trump admin's use of immigration law to deport me and other noncitizen students for pro-Palestinian speech is unconstitutional. No one should fear speaking up for Palestine," Mahmoud Khalil said.
Aug 29, 2026
The Trump administration violated the Constitution when it moved to deport or rescind visas from international students who spoke up for Palestinian rights and criticized Israel's genocide in Gaza, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
Northern District of California Judge Noël Wise, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, said that the administration's actions violated both the First Amendment of the Constitution protecting free speech and the Fifth Amendment ensuring due process.
"Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take," Wise wrote.
Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement early in the second Trump administration despite holding a green card, celebrated the ruling on Saturday.
"A federal judge just ruled that the Trump admin's use of immigration law to deport me and other noncitizen students for pro-Palestinian speech is unconstitutional. No one should fear speaking up for Palestine," Khalil wrote on social media.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations also welcomed the decision in a statement on Saturday:
This ruling reaffirms a fundamental American principle that the government cannot deport people simply because it dislikes their political views. Students do not surrender their constitutional rights at the classroom door, and international students do not surrender their freedom of expression when they come to study in the United States. Criticizing the policies of a foreign government, including the genocidal government of Israel, is protected political speech.
The lawsuit was brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in August 2025 on behalf of The Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, and an anonymous female plaintiff. The newspaper argued that student reporters on visas refrained from covering pro-Palestinian protests on campus out of fear of being deported, while the Jane Doe was a noncitizen who had spoken out on behalf of Palestine and now was worried about government retaliation.
"The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to," the paper's editor-in-chief George Porteous wrote on social media on Friday.
In particular, the lawsuit challenged two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that Secretary of State Marco Rubio used to justify seeking the deportations of Khalil, Columbia student Moshen Mahdawi, and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk. The first allows the secretary of state to deport a noncitizen for speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.” The second allows the secretary to revoke visas entirely at their own discretion.
Wise agreed that the provisions violated the Constitution and offered a rousing defense of free speech.
“In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength," she wrote. "That strength is diminished when members of our society—citizens and noncitizens alike—must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”
FIRE said the decision was the "first in the country to squarely rule on the constitutionality of these statutes" and that it would "reverberate in similar proceedings around the country."
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement Friday. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stephen Miller Embodies the Dark Fascist Heart of Trump's White House
A video of a speech he gave on July 16 is an unintentionally revealing survey of the Trump team's violation of basic legal principles, endangering the rule of law, and its consistent record of falsehoods, endangering public trust in the national leadership.
Aug 28, 2026
The video is not long, just 16 minutes and 25 seconds. But in that short time it provides a remarkable capsule of the Trump administration's ongoing crusade against its critics. In one chilling moment after another, it captures the mentality of that campaign; its content, tone, and style; and its complete disregard for factual accuracy.
The video, taped on July 16, records the words of Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and Homeland Security adviser, addressing a multinational audience assembled at the State Department for the opening session of meeting convened by Secretary of State Marco Rubio under the title "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism." In his welcoming address, Rubio defined the meeting's focus: "far-left political terrorism" that he declared has been a "blind spot" in US counterterrorism doctrine, but would now be directly in the government's sights.
Following Rubio to the podium, Miller delivered various—and sometimes unsettling—amplifications on that theme. After an opening passage declaring that under President Trump's leadership, "We have taken the necessary and essential action of formally recognizing left-wing violence as a form of political terrorism that is a direct threat to our national security and the survival of our republican form of government," Miller went on to proclaim that "for the first time in American history," all US law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working together "to disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute these political terrorists that are operating in our country." Then, in one of many questionable passages, he went on with an implied suggestion that the authorities should reject suspected terrorists' claims of their legal rights. Miller put it this way:
One of the hallmarks of left-wing violence and terrorism is its completely pretextual and disingenuous appeal to civil liberties in an effort to shield its own violence. This is the tactic that the left always uses to try to protect itself from facing criminal punishment. It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears. When the leftist, who does not believe in freedom, who does not believe in civil rights, who does not believe in any ordered notion of justice, protests that we are violating his rights, understand that he is lying to try to persuade people who are not closely following the political scene that some injustice has been perpetrated against him.
That doesn't quite say explicitly that a person accused of left-wing terror does not have the same rights that other criminal defendants have in US courts—but it is hard to read Miller's words in any other way. (The following speaker, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, sounded a very different tone, declaring that "in the fight against domestic terrorism, we must respect the constitutional rights, freedom of speech, association, and assembly of all Americans... the Treasury will act based on suspected unlawful conduct by these terror organizations, not because of their beliefs or ideologies." I have no way to know whether those words were in Bessent's prepared text or if he was directly responding to Miller's statement, but in either case they may have brought some relief to listeners who value the rule of law.)
At another point in his speech, Miller falsely told his listeners that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have experienced an "8,000% increase in violent assaults," adding that "these are not one-off episodes. This is repeat, systemic, organized, funded insurrection, an armed resistance against the federal government." Miller's figure is contradicted by the Homeland Security department's own public statements. In January, the department reported that threats to ICE personnel, not actual assaults, had risen by 8,000% in the previous year, while violent attacks had gone up by "more than 1,300%"—less than one-sixth of Miller's alleged increase. That lower figure may have been overstated too, as indicated by a Los Angeles Times investigation of court records in LA and four other cities (San Diego; Portland, Oregon; Chicago; and Washington, DC). More than a third of the cases they reviewed ended in dismissals or acquittals, the Times reporters found, and a majority of the alleged assaults had not caused any injury to the federal agents involved.
A few minutes later, Miller raised a quite different and somewhat peculiar issue: "When you look at these violent antifa demonstrations and you see any photograph of those who were assembled—to be blunt, not one of the people that is demonstrating looks like a normal person. Not one looks normal. They’re all deformed in some way—in their appearance, in their dress, in their mannerism... If you look at two photographs and you see a normal American in the street and you see an Antifa protest, why do the people that are violently demonstrating—why is there not one normal-looking person among them?" Miller did not explain exactly what he finds odd in the protesters' appearance—and unlike most of his talking points, that one seems to be uniquely his, not one commonly heard from others in the Trump orbit.
In another questionable passage, Miller claimed that the phenomenon of "jury nullification" has regularly enabled leftist terrorists to escape conviction for their crimes. He explained the term this way: "This is when a person is obviously guilty of a crime but the juror, because they’re ideologically sympathetic to the perpetrator, will not sentence them to the crime which was obviously committed," adding, "We’ve seen in the United States, again and again, individuals who are part of left-wing organizations who’ve committed assaults against ICE officers or federal law enforcement, who’ve been brought to court, where clear evidence has been presented against them, that the jury has refused to convict for purely political reasons."
Miller gave no examples and cited no facts to support the implication that persuading jurors to acquit guilty defendants has been a deliberate tactic employed by leftist organizations. In past statements, he has explicitly cited at least one specific case: the acquittal last December of a Los Angeles tow-truck driver who was arrested after moving an ICE vehicle while the officers were arresting a suspected illegal immigrant. The defendant, Bobby Nunez, was charged with stealing federal government property, an offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. At his trial, his lawyers argued that the ICE agents' SUV was blocking a driveway, that Nunez towed it only one block away, and that it was out of the agents' possession for just 13 minutes.
Without having heard their deliberations, we have no way to know how the jurors reasoned in reaching their not-guilty verdict, if that decision stemmed principally from opposition to ICE operations and Trump's immigration policies, or if they based their conclusion on other grounds, perhaps that the charged offense was disproportionately severe and the possible penalty unfairly harsh. Stephen Miller wasn't in the jury room either, but he showed no visible uncertainty when he denounced the verdict as "another example of blatant jury nullification in a blue city." From there he went off in another direction: "The justice system depends on a jury of peers with a shared system of interests and values. Mass migration tribalizes the entire legal system"—a comment that it's hard to see as anything but an argument that people with the wrong ethnic identity are not legitimate participants in America's justice system.
Incidentally, nothing in any of the news stories I read about that trial gave any indication that Nunez was connected with any "left-wing organization." Nor did photographs of him show anything obviously "not normal" or "deformed" in his appearance (unless those words apply to anyone who doesn't look like a non-Hispanic white man).
Miller said nothing in his State Department speech about a different issue that has undermined far more cases than any real or imagined political bias in juries—findings by numerous judges that law enforcement agents and government lawyers prosecuting supposed antifa activists and other protesters have crossed legal or ethical boundaries, misrepresenting facts and exaggerating or completely fabricating criminal charges.
That pattern is documented in a recent report by the investigative journalism organization ProPublica. Their reporters reviewed hundreds of case records and found numerous comments from federal judges criticizing "unlawful," "unethical," and "unseemly" government actions. Specific abuses cited by judges included findings that "the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts, and filed declarations with inaccurate dates."
(One striking example is from a judge's decision granting a petition from a man seeking release from ICE detention. In her opinion memorandum, the judge noted that ICE and Homeland Security department officials had submitted a document "purporting to show" that the man had a record of "minor convictions for marijuana possession in 2009." The judge went on: "The Petitioner was four years old in 2009, and the Respondent indicated that the document was supplied by ICE and likely presumed to relate to the Petitioner because the individual in those records had the same name, despite the differences in birthdate, birthplace, parents’ names, and immigration status. This sloppiness further validates the Court’s concerns about the procedures utilized by the Respondents depriving people present in the United States of their liberty.")
It was no surprise that Miller did not mention prosecutors' failings in his speech, since that would have been inconsistent with the message he was delivering. Theoretically, it's not categorically impossible that he has been more candid in private conversations with Trump—after all, presidential advisers, particularly on national security issues, are expected to provide unwelcome truths and not just say things their boss wants to hear. If we don't know what was said or not said in meetings that were not disclosed to the public, we can't judge with absolute certainty how straightforwardly Miller might have spoken in those discussions. But numerous reports of his public statements over the years reveal a consistent pattern of misrepresented facts and policy ideas even more virulent than Trump's, making it virtually impossible to believe that his advice in private has been significantly more balanced or rational than what he has said in public over the years.
The "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism" did not get much media attention, perhaps because it did not produce very much new information substantiating the premise that "left-wing terrorists" are linked in a far-reaching multinational conspiracy that is now the most urgent danger facing the United States and the international community. Stephen Miller's 16-minute speech did not present any facts or ideas that have not been heard many times before, so it didn't make many headlines either. But it is newsworthy for a different reason—an unintentionally revealing survey of the Trump team's violation of basic legal principles, endangering the rule of law, and its consistent record of falsehoods, endangering public trust in the national leadership. Those two trends represent a clear and present threat to human rights and democratic government in this country, and should be spotlighted at every opportunity while we can still report and resist them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Declares UK Anti-Genocide Group Palestine Action a Terrorist Organization
One free speech proponent called the designation "retaliation against the sanctioned for holding political views the Trump administration dislikes."
Aug 26, 2026
A top First Amendment advocacy group on Wednesday warned of the "broad speech implications" of the Trump administration's sanctions on the British anti-genocide group Palestine Action, which it designated an international terrorist organization for leading direct actions in opposition to the Israeli government.
Under the designation, Americans will be blocked from doing business with Palestine Action, and providing the group with funds, goods, or services will be prohibited.
British citizens who continue to donate to the group or take part in protests supporting it—which thousands of people have been arrested for doing since the UK government proscribed Palestine Action last year—could face sanctions and visa bans in the US, according to The Telegraph, which first reported the news Wednesday that the US designation was expected.
The group's co-founders, Richard Barnard and Huda Ammori, will face lifetime bans from entering the US due to the sanctions.
Chip Gibbons, policy director for Defending Rights and Dissent, said his group was "especially disturbed that Palestine Action, a nonviolent, direct action organization, has been sanctioned under a [President George W.] Bush-era executive order issued in response to the September 11th attacks, essentially putting civil disobedience for Palestinian rights on equal footing with al-Qaeda."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the sanctions of Palestine Action, along with sanctions targeting the Italy-based group Autistici Inventati—which supplies digital services to left-wing groups—and Masar Badil, a Palestinian organization.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was imposing the sanctions under Executive Order 13224, which prohibits transactions between people in the US and groups that commit or support terrorism.
“Far-left extremists, their fronts, and their enablers should be on notice: We will bring the full weight of our economic tools to bear,” said Bessent. “Political terrorism has no place in our society, and we will continue to cut the financial lifelines of these groups until they are eliminated.”
The curtailing of Palestine Action's ability to participate in the global financial system and its new US label as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" group, said Gibbons, were not only "retaliation against the sanctioned for holding political views the Trump administration dislikes, but they severely curtail and criminalize US citizens' ability to engage in otherwise lawful associations with these groups.”
A US official told The Telegraph before the sanctions were officially announced that Palestine Action had "supported numerous acts of terrorism since July 2020, including acts that have physically injured UK law enforcement personnel, as well as acts intended to intimidate lawful commercial enterprise and coerce the British government."
The designation comes just over a year after UK lawmakers voted to proscribe Palestine Action after some of its members vandalized two aircraft at a Royal Air Force base.
In August 2024, activists with the group also raided a facility of Elbit Systems, an Israeli-owned weapons manufacturer, and attacked a police officer.
Organizers maintain that Palestine Action's overarching goal is to demonstrate against and disrupt "the Israeli war machine, which is committing a genocide in Gaza with the support of the US government," as Ammori told Al Jazeera Wednesday.
They organized the recent actions to protest Israel's bombardment of Gaza, which has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians since 2023 and is continuing to decimate the exclave despite a ceasefire reached last October.
Ammori added that President Donald Trump "has been at the center of the mass murder of Palestinians, enabling the Zionist regime at every turn.”
Many of the people arrested for supporting Palestine Action in the UK have been detained simply for holding signs that express opposition to genocide and solidarity with the group.
The new designation comes a month after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted representatives from more than 60 countries at the Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism, where he warned that "for far too long... our counterterrorism doctrine has had a blind spot when it comes to extremist violence from the political left," and called for a global crackdown.
Rubio and top White House adviser Stephen Miller warned in July that numerous arrests and prosecutions of people and groups deemed by the administration to be left-wing extremists would be coming, under the guidance put forward by National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which called for a national strategy to crack down on left-wing organizing.
In the UK, five Palestine Action organizers won a legal victory after a judge ruled that they would not be sentenced as terrorists, and three UK Supreme Court judges granted Ammori the right to challenge the government's ban on the organization.
More than 250 academics and legal experts on Wednesday wrote to British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, calling on him to both end UK military support for Israel and to terminate the proscription of Palestine Action.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Washington Post Ordered to Rehire Columnist Who Was Fired for Charlie Kirk Comments
"This is a landmark win for every journalist who refuses to be silenced."
Aug 24, 2026
A group dedicated to defending the rule of law from authoritarianism and corruption said it had succeeded in its "monumental defense of the First Amendment" on Monday after an independent arbitrator ruled that The Washington Post had wrongfully fired columnist Karen Attiah last September over social media posts she wrote about assassinated right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, and ordered the newspaper to rehire Attiah.
"The ruling marks a landmark moment for press freedom, confirming that corporate media institutions cannot use retaliatory discipline to silence journalists who address uncomfortable truths," said Democracy Defenders Fund, which signed on to represent Attiah, along with the W ashington-Baltimore News Guild, when she filed a grievance against the Post arguing she had been wrongfully terminated.
The arbitrator, Sarah Miller Espinosa, said in the binding decision that the Post "did not have good and sufficient cause to terminate" Attiah's employment, which it did after then-opinion editor Adam O'Neal complained about her social media posts to a human resources officer and then-CEO Will Lewis.
Espinosa ordered the Post to provide Attiah with full back pay and benefits. Attiah has said she would be “willing to go back” to the newspaper.
In her posts, Attiah suggested that while influential figures on the far right demanded what she called "performative mourning" for Kirk, who was known for "debating" liberal college students and was fatally shot at an event at Utah Valley University, America had "shrugged and moved on" after other acts of political violence.
"Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness, and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence," said Attiah, who worked at the Post for 11 years, on Bluesky. "Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is... not the same as violence."
The Post executives met without Attiah and decided to fire her, with chief human resources officer Wayne Connell accusing her in writing of "gross misconduct" and violations of the Post's social media policies that could "harm the integrity of our organization."
Espinosa noted in her decision that, as the Washington-Baltimore News Guild argued during the arbitration proceedings, “there
were clearly external pressures to fire Ms. Attiah after the Kirk murder," as "there were widespread calls to fire people who expressed opinions at all critical of Charlie Kirk, including by prominent elected officials such as Vice President JD Vance.”
A Reuters investigation in November 2025 estimated that about 600 people were fired, investigated, disciplined, or suspended from their jobs in the weeks after Kirk was assassinated.
Attiah testified at an arbitration hearing in June that her posts had been part of her work as an opinion columnist, where it was within her duties to comment "on our discourse on political violence."
The arbitrator's decision, said Attiah, "confirms what we've said from the start: I was doing my job as an opinion journalist, and doing that job is not misconduct.
"After spending over a decade of my career at the Post as an editor and an opinion columnist focusing on race, gender, and global human rights, I’m relieved to finally have that record set straight," she continued. "I am grateful to everyone at the Guild and Democracy Defenders who stood behind me through this nearly yearlong battle. I hope that this win sends a message to journalists and media institutions everywhere that freedom of expression is always worth fighting for.”
Espinosa said in her ruling that the Post failed to make a convincing case that Attiah had "disparaged white men" as a group in her social media posts or that she was "responsible for potentially endangering her colleagues" and for "threats of violence made by bad actors" against the Post.
The Post's implication that Attiah had endangered the newspaper and its staff was "wholly rejected as justification for the termination," wrote Espinosa.
Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, said the decision was "a thunderous victory for Karen Attiah, an award-winning journalist fired for doing her job, over Bezos’ Washington Post," referring to Jeff Bezos, the billionaire Amazon founder who purchased the newspaper in 2013 and last year called for the opinion section to focus on "personal liberties and free markets.”
"The Post tried to pass off retaliation as discipline, but the rule of law has exposed it for what it truly is: wrongful termination," said Eisen. "This is a landmark win for every journalist who refuses to be silenced."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ABC Hits Trump FCC With First Amendment Suit Over 'Deeply Un-American' Effort to Strip Broadcast Licenses
"At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone," said one First Amendment advocate.
Aug 18, 2026
ABC and its parent company Disney filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday over what it called a "deeply un-American" effort by the Trump administration to punish broadcasters for airing speech critical of the president.
The suit comes in response to an April order by the FCC requiring Disney's eight ABC stations to file their broadcast renewal requests years ahead of schedule. As the Knight First Amendment Institute pointed out, it's the first time the FCC has ordered a broadcast station to submit early license renewals in more than 50 years.
The unusual request came after President Donald Trump had repeatedly suggested that networks giving him "negative coverage" should have their broadcast licenses "terminated."
ABC has argued that the license renewal demand is part of an effort to "attack" its First Amendment-protected speech.
"Government censorship is deeply un-American," the lawsuit, filed before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said. "Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."
ABC specifically has found itself in the crosshairs of FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who used license authority to pressure the network to remove late-night host Jimmy Kimmel from the air briefly last year following a critical monologue about Trump and Republicans following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie
The lawsuit quotes what ABC said were blatant efforts by Carr to "coerce" the network into pulling Kimmel, including his ultimatum, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
It also notes that the request for the early renewal order was issued just one day after Trump went on another social media tirade against Kimmel over jokes he made about First Lady Melania Trump, which the president claimed inspired an assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Trump said that Kimmel should “be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”
Carr has defended the FCC's orders to Disney, stating that they were not about retaliation, but about ensuring that ABC stations operate "in the public interest" as they are required to do under law.
“If broadcasters don’t like that, that’s okay,” Carr told CNBC back in July. “They can become a cable channel, they can become a podcast, they can stream online. But if you want to uniquely be on the public’s airwaves, you have to comply with those obligations.”
Noting previous comments by Carr that public interest considerations should include the "political ideology” of a broadcaster's programming, Monday's lawsuit said the order "thus appears intended to broaden the scope of the agency’s review, including to impermissibly consider the content of ABC programming."
Earlier this year, the FCC also opened an investigation into the daytime talk show The View, alleging that its hosting of interviews with Texas Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico in February may have violated a rule requiring broadcast stations to give political candidates "equal time" when appearing on air.
ABC has contended that The View has previously been ruled as a "bona fide news interview" program, which is exempt from the rule.
As part of the investigation, the FCC Media Bureau has probed ABC's editorial process, ordering it to produce internal communications among View staff, disclose the political donations of employees, and provide information about ABC's internal guidance for producing interviews
The White House, meanwhile, included The View on a public webpage listing so-called "media offenders." On this page, it singled out the program's co-hosts for the "offenses" of criticizing government officials for “visiting the Alligator Alcatraz ICE detention facility in Florida” and “claiming President Trump was overstepping his authority by constructing a White House ballroom.”
The lawsuit says the FCC's pressure has affected its editorial decision-making. It notes that since the investigation was launched, it has not booked any other congressional candidates on The View.
It also notes that, considering the "risk of resulting administration retaliation," ABC chose to broadcast a speech by Trump in July on its streaming channel ABC News Live in which he made unfounded accusations of rampant voter fraud in the 2020 election, which "it ordinarily would not have done."
Trump again called on the network to have its broadcast license stripped for not airing the speech on its main network. And Carr has said that the FCC would consider that decision as part of the review of ABC's renewal applications.
The lawsuit says the administration is seeking either to mire the company in costly legal fees and intimidate it into compliance or to rip it off the air entirely, as Trump demanded.
"In either scenario," the lawsuit says, "the administration accomplishes its goal of eliminating a perceived media critic: either it gets plaintiffs to fall in line, or it silences them if they refuse."
The lawsuit asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the FCC from proceeding with the reviews. It ultimately seeks a ruling that the license-renewal proceedings constitute unconstitutional retaliation that violates the First Amendment.
It notes that the administration has been attempting to coerce other legacy news broadcasters in the same way.
"If the administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: Tell only the stories the administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government," the lawsuit says. "In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free."
CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter described Disney and ABC's lawsuit as "one of the stiffest challenges from any American media company against the Trump administration during Trump's return to office."
Press freedom advocates welcomed the lawsuit as a sign that media outlets were beginning to fight back against the administration's strong-arming tactics rather than appeasing them.
"At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone and is suing to stop the administration’s bullying and censorship," said Nico Perrino, the executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
“It’s about time for someone to take Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
"Carr knows the FCC is not the journalism police and said so regularly himself before he decided to throw away any integrity he once had to kiss up to Trump," Stern added. "Countless others whose First Amendment rights have been chilled by Carr’s antics should follow Disney’s lead.”
ABC has faced criticism for bowing to pressure from Trump in the past. In 2024, after Trump won the presidential election, the network agreed to pay out $15 million after he sued over comments made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who stated that the president had been found “liable for rape” by a jury when he’d technically only been found liable for “sexual abuse." The president's case against the network was widely viewed as legally dubious.
That lawsuit was seen as an opening of the floodgates for Trump's efforts to coerce and control the media during his second term, and other networks, fearful of retaliation, would follow with their own concessions to avoid his wrath.
Aaron Blake, a senior political reporter at CNN, said ABC's decision to fight back against the FCC showed that "today, we're in a different situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Antithesis of Our First Amendment': Families Ask Supreme Court to Toss Texas' Ten Commandments Law
"In a diverse public school environment, all students should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof," said one plaintiff.
Aug 17, 2026
A group of families is asking the US Supreme Court to strike down Texas Senate Bill 10, a state law mandating that a copy of the Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms.
The families, who come from a variety of religious denominations and are being represented by several prominent civil liberties groups, argued in a Monday court filing that SB 10 violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution because it "imposes on public school children, for nearly every hour they are in school, the state's favored scripture."
In making their case, the families argued that a recent appeals court ruling upholding the Texas law ran afoul of multiple past Supreme Court rulings, including the 2022 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which made reference to "problematically coercive" religious messages being "publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience," and the 1980 ruling in Stone v. Graham, which determined that posting the Ten Commandments in schools violates the Constitution's establishment clause.
Rabbi Joshua Fixler, a plaintiff in the case, said the Texas Ten Commandments law made him "not only worried about my own kids," but "deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation."
"These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs," said Fixler, "against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates."
Fellow plaintiff Nichole Manning, an atheist from Dallas, argued that the Texas law is "interfering with our family’s decisions about how our children engage with religion."
“As a parent, I intentionally choose to have my children attend public school because I prefer an educational environment without any religious affiliation," Manning emphasized. "In a diverse public school environment, all students should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof."
In an editorial published in the Houston Chronicle on Monday, plaintiff Audrey Nath said that the Texas law was interfering with her right to raise her children to "celebrate the diversity of religious faiths in our families: Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, and Quakerism."
"My 9-year-old son is proud of his heritage, and he even brought that statue of Shiva to his public school as part of a presentation about his family history," Nath explained. "SB 10 puts a permanent, state-mandated sign above his desk telling him what he carried in is forbidden."
ACLU of Texas staff attorney Chloe Kempf, who is co-representing the families, said that past legal precedents give the current Supreme Court a clear roadmap to overturn the Texas law.
"The US Supreme Court has rejected this kind of government-imposed religion before, and it should do so again,” said Kempf. “Having these posters in Texas classrooms puts students at risk of bullying, stigmatization, and religious coercion. Our nation’s bedrock principle of separating church and state means that families and faith communities—not politicians—get to decide what role religion plays in children’s lives."
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, argued that mandating schools display the First Commandment alone is "the antithesis of our First Amendment" because it dictates "which god must be worshipped."
"It is not the government’s role to daily expose young children to a coercive display of one religion’s set of religious edicts in our public schools," Gaylor emphasized. "Our public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hong Says as Governor, She Would Ensure Wisconsin Doesn’t Cooperate With NSPM-7
"Hong’s answers suggest a willingness to stand up to the federal government even when the odds look slim," wrote journalist Ken Klippenstein.
Jul 30, 2026
In a recent interview, Wisconsin state lawmaker Francesca Hong—the front-runner in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary race, according to numerous polls—shared plans to counter President Donald Trump's attacks on left-wing organizers that journalist Ken Klippenstein said he had "not seen from any other candidate" running for public office.
Klippenstein, a resident of Wisconsin, sent a questionnaire on national security to the top three candidates running in the primary scheduled for August 11—Hong, a democratic socialist; former state Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes; and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who has emerged as the Democratic establishment's pick with an endorsement from Gov. Tony Evers.
Hong indicated in her response last week that should she win the primary and the November general election against GOP US Rep. Tom Tiffany, she "may be the first" governor in the US to curb the power of the state's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which like other FBI-led task forces across the country has been directed by President Donald Trump to "coordinate and supervise" a national strategy to "investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
Hong said she would use her authority over state police forces as governor "to cease any cooperation with a federal joint operation task force that is designed to target American citizens exercising their civil liberties.”
Trump's directive came last year in the form of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which was issued in the weeks following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Trump declared immediately after the killing—before any investigation had taken place—that the "radical left" was to blame, and swiftly took steps to crack down on left-wing organizers, despite extensive evidence that a majority of political violence in the US is perpetrated by people on the far right.
The president signed an executive order declaring that "antifa"—which is not an organization—was a domestic terrorist group, and included in NSPM-7 a list of viewpoints held by left-wing organizers he also viewed as "domestic terrorists," including anti-capitalism; anti-Christianity; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
Under NSPM-7, local law enforcement agencies participate with JTTFs that were established in every state after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Less than a year after the memo was signed, NSPM-7 has "already produced results," said Klippenstein. The document underpinned the convictions of a group of activists who demonstrated against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. The activists were sentenced last month to 30-100 years in prison, with the shortest sentence going to Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada for moving a box that contained leftist zines to avoid incriminating his wife. Sanchez Estrada was found guilty of “corruptly concealing a document or record” under NSPM-7.
A US attorney in Minnesota also cited the directive by name when 15 anti-ICE protesters were convicted, and Klippenstein argued in January that an ICE agent's fatal shooting of protester Renee Good had "NSPM-7 written all over it,” with then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accusing Good of "domestic terrorism."
Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that under NSPM-7, the administration had “designated four violent far-left extremist groups as foreign terrorist organizations, and there will be more designations soon.”
But in Wisconsin, Hong suggested she would discontinue the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that commits local police departments to work with the JTTF.
“These MOUs are a loophole to essentially federalize local police forces," she told Klippenstein last week in response to the questionnaire. "I do not wish to see Wisconsin become a patchwork of communities where people are unsure if they are safe depending on which side of the county line they may find themselves.”
Klippenstein credited Barnes with also responding to the questionnaire with "skepticism" of the MOUs, saying that as governor, he would "carefully review MOUs to ensure that any federal-state law enforcement cooperation is aimed squarely at keeping Wisconsinites safe, not supporting Trump’s dangerous, unconstitutional attacks on Americans whose only crime is disagreeing with him.” Barnes announced on Thursday that he was dropping out of the race, saying, "It’s become very clear who our nominee is going to be.”
Crowley did not respond to Klippenstein's questions.
Hong and Barnes also said they would not support Trump's use of Wisconsin National Guard troops in the US-Israeli war on Iran, with Hong saying she would "refuse to comply with any request from this administration that perpetuates war and genocide around the world to the extent I can."
Hong said she would file a legal challenge to stop such a deployment, and Barnes said he would also consider a lawsuit.
"Hong’s answers suggest a willingness to stand up to the federal government even when the odds look slim," wrote Klippenstein. "That stands out at a time when so many see the Democratic Party as pre-folded lawn chairs allergic to conflict. The sense I get from talking to her supporters is that this willingness to throw a punch is a big part of her appeal."
Barnes was an early favorite in the race, while Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez was seen as the candidate preferred by the Democratic establishment. Crowley dropped out of the race and endorsed Rodriguez in early July, but restarted his bid after a campaign finance controversy pushed Rodriguez to drop out.
Hong has been consistently leading in polls tracked by The New York Times since February, with the latest survey from Marquette University Law School, released on Thursday, showing her with a 25-point lead.
This article has been updated to note that Mandela Barnes dropped out of gubernatorial race on Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corporate Media Failed to Report the Facts and the Stakes of the Prairieland Case
The extremely harsh sentences for Texas anti-ICE protesters did not set off any alarm bells among mainstream papers, and were underreported by national news outlets that should have covered their clearly national implications.
Jul 26, 2026
"Thirty-Year Sentence for Transporting Zines Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Free Speech,” an Intercept headline (6/26/26) shouted days after a federal court sentenced eight anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters to a combined 450 years in prison.
The case stemmed from a July 4, 2025, protest outside the ICE Prairieland detention center in Alvarado, Texas. People had gathered for a noise demonstration to show their solidarity with the detainees inside, and one protester discharged his rifle after a police officer pulled his weapon, resulting in a minor injury to the officer.
Charges were brought against a total of 22 people from the Dallas-Fort Worth area in November 2025, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring “antifa” a “terrorist organization,” and after the related National Security Presidential Memo 7 was issued declaring a wide swath of First Amendment-protected political views as “terrorist.”
Eight of the defendants were convicted in March and sentenced on June 23; another eight were sentenced in early July, four of whom became prosecution witnesses and received shorter sentences. This was the first successful government prosecution testing the claims of EO-18709 and NSPM-7 that previously protected views and protest activity are “terrorism.”
National reporting on the sentencing missed the actual story almost entirely: that a group of people opposed to the government’s ethnic cleansing policies were given decades-long prison terms for their political views and the exercise of their First Amendment right to protest.
One of the defendants, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was not even at the protest. He was, as The Intercept’s headline correctly reported, sentenced to 30 years because he moved a box of zines. “Five-alarm fire” seems an accurate assessment.
No Alarm Bells
Yet the extremely harsh sentences for Sanchez Estrada and the others did not set off any alarm bells among corporate media, and were underreported by national news outlets that should have covered their clearly national implications. The New York Times (6/23/26) published an online piece that ran on page A14 in print—two days later. The Wall Street Journal (6/23/26) ran an article both online and in print, while The Washington Post (6/23/26) gave the story web-only treatment.
Meanwhile, national broadcast media largely sat this story out. CBS and ABC took a pass altogether. NBC (6/23/26) ran a version of The Associated Press’ reporting on its website, as did CNN (6/23/26), but no original reporting and nothing on their flagship evening news shows. PBS NewsHour (6/24/26) ran an analysis piece (I use that term lightly) the next day; and NPR’s Morning Edition (6/24/26) gave it two minutes.
By casually and inaccurately turning the protesters’ convictions into “terrorism” convictions, these outlets further reinforced the government’s narrative of violence and subversive threat.
The coverage of the Prairieland sentencing was similar, in both content and quantity, to the reporting on the case overall. The verdict in March garnered a single article from several national news outlets, but the trial itself was barely covered. An NPR Up First piece (2/17/26) reported on it when it started; The New York Times (2/24/26) ran a piece at the start of the second trial, after the mistrial; The Washington Post (3/5/26) reported on the trial once halfway through.
By comparison, The New York Times alone ran 153 pieces on Kyle Rittenhouse, the white supremacist who shot and killed two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the month of his trial in November 2021, a Nexis search revealed. Given the enormous stakes in the Prairieland case—NPR (2/17/26) accurately said “it could have nationwide implications for how left-wing movements are prosecuted”—the relative lack of coverage itself may well have implications for how left-wing movements are prosecuted.
But corporate media’s disinterest in the case is just the beginning of the problems. (There’s so much to cover on this that we’re not gonna have time for the mistrial, but the National Lawyers Guild can catch you up on that.) This piece will focus on the coverage of the June 23 sentencing as representative of the overall national reporting. (It does not look at local coverage.) If anything, the draconian prison terms should have made that coverage more skeptical than the previous coverage, but it did not.
‘Taking Part in an Armed Assault’
With the exception of PBS, every other national outlet covering the June sentencing framed the central and salient nature of the protest on July 4, 2025, as violence. The New York Times lead (6/23/26) said a jury had found the protesters “guilty of supporting terrorism while taking part in an armed assault.” The Wall Street Journal lead (6/23/26) said protesters were “accused of carrying out an attack on a Texas ICE facility.”
The Washington Post headline (6/23/26) characterized the demonstration as a “violent ICE protest.” The AP story (6/23/26) framed the event as “immigration center shooting and protest” (note the order), while NPR’s headline (6/24/26) described it simply as an “immigration center shooting.”
No one mentioned that Kyle Rittenhouse—who actually killed two people—was acquitted on self-defense grounds. Song’s conviction on attempted murder charges would be laughable if it weren’t so horrible.
What actually happened that night was that protesters set off fireworks as planned for their noise demonstration, and the evening was peaceful at first. Some protesters then engaged in property damage, including graffiti and slashed tires. When a police officer drew his gun and pointed it at the protesters, one of them, Benjamin Song, fired “suppressive shots,” aiming his rifle at the ground, in what he claims was self-defense. The bullet that struck the police officer “showed signs of impact with a hard surface,” as In These Times (3/26/26) reported, suggesting that it ricocheted off the ground. None of the national news stories on the sentencing included this information.
In the wake of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Song’s fear certainly seems plausible, but the judge in the case had barred the defense from arguing a self-defense claim. That fact was mentioned in only one outlet, NPR (6/24/26), and without any context. And no one mentioned that Kyle Rittenhouse—who actually killed two people—was acquitted on self-defense grounds. Song’s conviction on attempted murder charges would be laughable if it weren’t so horrible.
To describe these events as “an armed assault” is at best a wild exaggeration, and at worst a deliberate mischaracterization. Between the uncritical adoption of the government’s framing of the protest as violent and the omission of so much evidence that contradicts that claim, national reporting on the sentencing missed the actual story almost entirely: that a group of people opposed to the government’s ethnic cleansing policies were given decades-long prison terms for their political views and the exercise of their First Amendment right to protest.
PBS (6/24/26) stands out as the only outlet to have framed the story this way, leading with the headline, “Anti-ICE Protesters Sentenced to Decades in Prison in Latest Crackdown on Dissent.” It interviewed George University Law Center professor Paul Butler, who said, “The concern is, when people are labeled terrorists based on their political views, that chills free speech”—an understatement.
Neither NPR nor The Wall Street Journal managed to even mention the First Amendment, and The Washington Post’s only mention of it (6/23/26) was in a quote from a federal prosecutor who said the protesters’ actions were “a far cry from a peaceful protest or First Amendment expression.”
‘Convicted on Terrorism Charges’
National news stories also failed to interrogate the central claim by the government that the protesters’ action amounted to terrorism, and none explained the charge of “material support for terrorism,” the central charge all but Sanchez Estrada were convicted on.
Several outlets simply conflated “terrorism” and “material support for terrorism,” though the two are legally and substantively distinct. New York Times (6/23/26): “Six of the defendants who were convicted of terrorism charges… which was the first time terrorism charges had been brought against purported members of antifa.” NPR (6/24/26): “The group faced terrorism charges.” AP (6/23/26): “All but one of the eight defendants sentenced Tuesday were convicted on terrorism charges.”
By casually and inaccurately turning the protesters’ convictions into “terrorism” convictions, these outlets further reinforced the government’s narrative of violence and subversive threat.
Has opposition to fascism really been defenestrated from the Overton Window?
The actual charge, material support, rests on that “support” being linked to an identified terrorist organization, and the novelty and grave danger of the Prairieland case was precisely in linking the defendants’ banal activities that allegedly prove their membership in “antifa”—wearing black, being part of a book club that reads anarchist books, having left-wing literature in their possession—to a made-up domestic terrorist organization called “antifa.”
Most of the national reports on the sentencing mention Trump’s executive order designating “antifa” a “domestic terrorist organization,” and a few point out in a half sentence that there is no provision under US law for such a thing as a domestic terrorist organization (New York Times, 6/23/26; PBS, 6/24/26; AP, 6/23/26). But none spell out the alarming precedent being set here by a court legitimizing a legal category that literally does not exist in US law.
(The Brennan Center has an excellent primer on the executive order and NSPM-7 that presciently points out “extending the foreign material support for terrorism regime [to domestic organizations] would allow the government to formally assign the label to domestic groups with unpopular beliefs and prosecute anyone who supports them.”)
‘A Decentralized Movement’
All this brings us, of course, to “antifa.” All the news pieces found a way to counter the government’s fiction that antifa is an organization, variously describing it as “an umbrella term” (AP, 6/23/26), “a decentralized movement” (PBS, 6/24/26), an “ideology, not a centralized organization” (NPR, 6/24/26 ), “a loose network” (Wall Street Journal, 6/23/26), a “loosely knit movement” (Washington Post, 6/23/26), and a “movement [with] no central structure or formal membership” (New York Times, 6/23/26). A few reminded readers that “antifa” is short for anti-fascism.
But every single one of them also characterized it as “far left.” Has opposition to fascism really been defenestrated from the Overton Window? Or are corporate (and semi-corporate public) media contributing to the delegitimation of “antifa,” even as they recognize it is not exactly what Donald Trump declares it to be?
By leaving out the deliberate right-wing creation of “antifa,” while characterizing it as “far left,” media are contributing to the government narrative that “antifa” is a real and dangerous thing.
More fundamentally, “antifa” isn’t really any of those things the media say it is, either—a network, a movement, an ideology. It is a right-wing boogeyman constructed precisely for the purpose it is now being deployed to fulfill.
There are a handful of organizations in the US that explicitly identify as antifa, but the overwhelming majority of US leftists never used the term before the contemporary right, abetted by the media, put it on the map. At which point, most of us reacted with: “Antifa” isn’t a thing, but yes, I am proudly anti-fascist.
By leaving out the deliberate right-wing creation of “antifa,” while characterizing it as “far left,” media are contributing to the government narrative that “antifa” is a real and dangerous thing. This helps legitimize the legal fiction that is being used to criminalize dissent.
That a government with strong fascistic tendencies is going to smear its opponents as dangerous and violent is a given at this point. That a court will wholeheartedly follow them down the path of creating legal fictions in order to prosecute those opponents is an alarming development. But that a national press corps is so cowed by government cries of “terrorism!” that they fail to interrogate those legal fictions is a danger to the very freedoms they purport to embody.
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