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
Family of UN Palestine Expert Francesca Albanese Sues Trump Over Sanctions
"At its heart, this case concerns whether defendants can sanction a person, ruining their life and the lives of their loved ones... because defendants disagree with their recommendations," the lawsuit states.
Feb 27, 2026
Relatives of independent United Nations investigator Francesca Albanese this week sued US President Donald Trump and three of his senior Cabinet officials over sanctions imposed for her efforts to hold Israeli leaders and international corporations profiting from the Gaza genocide accountable.
Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories was sanctioned last July for what Secretary of State Marco Rubio called “her illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt International Criminal Court (ICC) action against US and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.”
UN rules prohibit Albanese from suing under her own name, so her husband—World Bank official Massimiliano Cali—and their unnamed child filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday.
“It is a shared interest for all who believe in international law, accountability, and the world governed by rules and not by force or by bullying,” Albanese, 48, said Thursday at a news conference hosted by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The lawsuit—which names Trump, Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants—details how US sanctions have severely impacted the plaintiffs' lives, including loss of access to banking, the ability to travel to the United States, their home in Washington, DC, Cali's workplace, and professional ties to universities.
“Francesca’s expression of her views about the facts as she has found them in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and about the work of the ICC is core First Amendment activity,” the lawsuit states. “At its heart, this case concerns whether defendants can sanction a person—ruining their life and the lives of their loved ones, including their citizen daughter—because defendants disagree with their recommendations or fear their persuasiveness."
“Sanctions, used appropriately, are a powerful tool to disrupt and undermine the activities of terrorists, criminals, and authoritarian regimes,” the suit asserts. “Sanctions are abused, however, when they seek to silence disfavored points of view and to violate the constitutional rights of people the government does not like.”
Speaking to the New York Times Thursday, Albanese said that "I have experienced enormous hardship."
“There is a criminalization of my motherhood and the family bonds I have," she added, noting that her relatives fear committing a felony if they help a sanctioned person.
The State Department responded by calling the lawsuit “baseless lawfare” and claimed that the sanctions against Albanese are “legal and appropriate.”
“Francesca Albanese has openly supported antisemitism, terrorism, and has engaged in lawfare against our nation and our interests, including against major American companies vital to the world economy," the department added.
Albanese has never supported antisemitism or terrorism. Last year, she published a report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, in which she named and shamed dozens of international companies that are aiding and abetting Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Since her appointment nearly four years ago, Albanese has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and a fierce critic of Israel's policies and practices, including invasion, occupation, colonization, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
Albanese accuses Israel of violating the Genocide Convention, as does South Africa, which is leading a case against Israel based on the landmark treaty—that Israel signed and ratified—at the International Court of Justice.
Last September, a panel of independent UN human rights experts—which did not include Albanese—found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a conclusion shared by many scholars, jurists, world leaders, and rights groups.
More than 250,000 Palestinians, the vast majority of them civilians, have been killed or wounded in Gaza over the past 28 months, including thousands who are still missing. Two million people—the overwhelming majority of the strip's population—have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened. Gaza lies in utter ruins.
Albanese also supports prosecuting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza that fueled a famine—for crimes against humanity and war crimes, as alleged in arrest warrants issued by the ICC in November 2024.
In an interview with the Associated Press shortly after she was sanctioned, Albanese said: “My daughter is American. I’ve been living in the US and I have some assets there. So of course, it’s going to harm me. What can I do? I did everything I did in good faith, and knowing that, my commitment to justice is more important than personal interests.”
While US complicity in Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza predates Trump's return to office, he has waged a broad attack on critics of his administration's foreign policy, including nearly unconditional support for Israel. Last year, he issued an executive order authorizing sanctions against anyone who helps the ICC investigate or prosecute Americans or US allies.
Albanese has been also targeted by several European nations. Earlier this month, the foreign ministers of Austria, the Czech Republic, France, and Germany have publicly called for Albanese’s resignation or termination after the pro-Israel group UN Watch—which is unaffiliated with the world body—circulated an deceptively edited video of her purportedly calling Israel “the common enemy of humanity."
“European governments accuse me—based on statements I never made—with a virulence and conviction that they have NEVER used against those who have slaughtered 20,000+ children," Albanese said in response.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blasts Hegseth Over Effort to 'Shrink the First Amendment Liberties' of Sen. Mark Kelly
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
Feb 12, 2026
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Oath, Top DHS Officials Admit Filming Agents Is Not a Crime
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
Feb 12, 2026
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular