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
On Conspiracy Theorist Laura Loomer's Orders, Rubio Announces Arrest of 2 Women for Supporting Iran
The State Department said the women were related to the assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, but Iranian media said they had no connection to him.
Apr 04, 2026
With a majority of Americans including President Donald Trump's own base demanding a swift end to the war in Iran—and Iran's military capabilities proving difficult to overpower—observers suggested on Saturday that the White House was looking elsewhere to score "victories," as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that federal agents had arrested relatives of the late Major General Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian military commander who the US assassinated in 2020 during President Donald Trump's first term.
Rubio accused Soleimani's niece, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, of promoting "regime propaganda" and voicing support for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and said she had been living a "lavish lifestyle" in the US. Afshar's husband has been barred from entering the US and the lawful permanent resident status she and her daughter had has been terminated, said the State Department.
"Are we losing so badly we need to arrest the distant relatives of long-since-dead Iranian commanders?" asked Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council noted that the administration had used the same legal authority to arrest Soleimani's reported family members as it did to detain former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University scholar Rümeysa Öztürk for speaking out against US support for Israel—a tactic which is being challenged in court as unconstitutional.
Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who has wielded influence in the White House during the second Trump administration, claimed credit for the arrest of the two women, saying that in communications with the State Department, she had "exposed the fact that Qasem Soleimani’s Niece Hamideh Soleimani Afshar has been living in the United States (Los Angeles, California) where she posts pro-Iranian regime and pro-IRGC content on her social media while she lives a life of luxury."
"She has been arrested and will be deported back to Iran!" she added. "Over the last few months, I have quietly been documenting all of Hamideh Soleimani Afshar’s social media activity. I uploaded it all to a secure file and shared it with [the Department of Homeland Security] and Department of State, and now she has been arrested and she will be deported from our country."
In Iran on Saturday, media outlets were reporting that the two women arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement were not related to Soleimani—who had no nieces, according to journalist Kourosh Ziabari.
Soleimani's daughter told the news outlet Jamaran that "none" of her extended family has ever lived in the US.
Regardless of the women's relation to Soleimani or lack thereof, journalist Ryan Grim said the arbitrary arrest "actively puts innocent Americans around the world at risk."
Rubio's explanation for the detention and his move to revoke the women's green cards is the latest evidence that "the US is now deporting people for thought crimes," said historian Zachary Foster.
Journalist Sana Saeed said the case shows that constitutional protections for due process and free speech, which are supposed to apply to green card holders, "no longer mean anything."
"People cannot lose their green card status simply because of familial relationships, so the justification shifts here to their alleged support for the Iranian government," said Saeed. "But supporting a foreign government is not a criminal offense. And if you begin to treat it as one—as the US government effectively is in this case—then expect a lot more of this."
"It will not stop here, and it will not remain limited to Iranians," she said. "The logic does not contain itself, it expands."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Win for Public Media as Federal Judge Blocks Trump Assault on NPR, PBS Funding
NPR's CEO called the ruling "a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press."
Mar 31, 2026
Although the Corporation for Public Broadcasting dissolved at the beginning of the year, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service still celebrated a win in court on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Washington, DC blocked President Donald Trump's executive order intended to strip the organizations of federal funding.
NPR's attorney, Theodore Boutrous, called US District Judge Randolph's permanent injunction "a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press."
"As the court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others," he said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The executive order crossed that line."
Katherine Maher, NPR's CEO, similarly described the ruling as "a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press."
PBS said in a statement that "we're thrilled with today's decision declaring the executive order unconstitutional."
"As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of long-standing First Amendment principles," the network added. "At PBS, we will continue to do what we've always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation's most trusted media institution."
Trump last May ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to "cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my administration's policy to ensure that federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage." As private donations poured in to NPR and PBS, Congress then voted to claw back nearly $1.1 billion from CPB.
The congressionally created and funded nonprofit corporation, which distributed federal funding to locally managed public radio and television stations across the United States, then announced it would shut down—which it ultimately did following a January vote by its board of directors. Still, NPR and PBS fought back in court, leading to Tuesday's decision.
"The president may, of course, engage in his own expressive conduct, including criticizing the views, reporting, or programming of NPR, PBS, or any other news outlet with whom he disagrees," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
"The government may also fund its own speech and may fund government programs that promote specific perspectives on issues of public importance, and it may decide which views or perspectives to convey—and which not to convey—in any such government speech or program," Moss continued. "And it may impose limits on federal grants to ensure that they are deployed to further the legitimate purposes of the program, and may pick and choose among applicants based on legitimate criteria."
"But the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others," the judge stressed. "As the Supreme Court and DC Circuit have observed on more than a dozen occasions, the government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit."
Moss found that "Executive Order 14290 crosses that line. It does not define or regulate the content of government speech or ensure compliance with a federal program. Nor does it set neutral and germane criteria that apply to all applicants for a federal grant program. Instead, it singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs."
"It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems," he explained, "which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children's, or other educational programming, or documentaries."
The judge noted that the order applied to grants from not only the now-defunct CPB but all federal entities, including the Department of Education, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Endowment for the Arts.
Because of those other potential sources of money, CNN reported Tuesday, "the ruling could—emphasis on could—lead to some funding for PBS and NPR in the future."
Tim Karr of Free Press also told Common Dreams that "should Congress decide to restore funding at some later point," the executive order "won't have any legal effect on preventing it from doing so."
Welcoming the decision in a statement, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said that "NPR and PBS are valuable resources for the American public. Children across socioeconomic backgrounds rely on their programming, and the political persecution of both stations by the Trump administration has been reprehensible."
"This ruling is a straightforward win for the rule of law," she continued. "The Constitution is very clear: Congress holds the power of the purse. This judicial ruling is appropriate, impactful, and a victory for democracy."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, tied the development to the Trump administration's other attacks on the media, specifically those from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
"As the court said, it's long been the law that the government can't circumvent the Constitution by conditioning benefits on censorship where it can't censor directly," Stern said. "That goes for publicly funded media, but it also goes for Brendan Carr's FCC conditioning broadcast licenses or merger approvals for private media companies on editorial concessions to please Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth conditioning access to the Pentagon on journalists forfeiting established rights, or Trump himself steering transactions like the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger to supporters of his who promise him 'sweeping changes' to bend the news to his liking."
"Virtually all of the administration's 'wins' in reshaping the media that Carr and Trump have bragged about at CPAC and in social media posts violate this well-established constitutional principle," he added, referring to the Conservative Political Action Conference that just concluded. "More news outlets should sue and win."
This article has been updated with comment from Free Press.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Siding With NYT, US Judge Blocks 'Outrageous' Pentagon Press Policy
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
Mar 20, 2026
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular