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
free speech
California Overrules School Districts to Censor Palestine
The systematic pattern that has developed within California school districts is alarming: File complaints citing antisemitism whenever schools, educators, or students show support for Palestine, then appeal at the state level to overrule the districts.
Oct 08, 2026
The views, analysis, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author. They do not represent the official stance, policy, or position of Berkeley Independent Study, the Berkeley Federation of Teachers, the Berkeley Unified School District, or any affiliated organization.
Colorful, progressive posters fill the walls in Room 202 of Berkeley High School's Independent Study Program. A Rainbow Coalition poster features Fred Hampton with the phrase, "In Unity, there is survival." The Black Panther Party, IWW Local 8, Somos El 99%, Louise Olivereau, Marie Equi, environmental justice, and other progressive causes are represented.
Palestine posters fit in with the milieu of the room. "Berkeley Educators for Palestine," "Stop the Bombing, Free Free Palestine," and "Stop the Israeli-US Genocide in Palestine" are included.
What is uncommon is to bypass teachers and administrators and go straight to a civil rights complaint, unless the complaint is about Palestine, and the people making the complaint are connected to the Brandeis Center.
These posters, along with one titled "Standing with Muslims Against Islamophobia and Racism," resulted in an official complaint filed through the District Civil Rights and Compliance Office of the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD). No teachers or staff were aware of any concerns surrounding the posters until they were contacted by a district-hired attorney.
Jonas LaMattery-Brownell, Berkeley Federation of Teachers (BFT) co-site representative at Berkeley Independent Study (BIS), told me in an interview, "Some colleagues of mine who were most targeted by the investigation were Jewish, and were horrified that support for Palestine was getting weaponized against them and the school."
Public schools are accustomed to resolving issues in-house. It's not uncommon for students to feel discomfort, and for parents to voice their concerns with teachers and administrators. These concerns often result in meaningful discussions and a better educational environment for everyone.
What is uncommon is to bypass teachers and administrators and go straight to a civil rights complaint, unless the complaint is about Palestine, and the people making the complaint are connected to the Brandeis Center.
Antisemitism Charges
Kenneth Marcus, former Trump official and founder of the Brandeis Center, wrote openly about filing “high-profile cases alleging unlawful antisemitic harassment” in "Standing up for Jewish Students" (Jerusalem Post, 2013). Marcus writes, “These cases—even when rejected—expose administrators to bad publicity... The only way to win these cases is to file them, even when we see some or most rejected.”
The Brandeis Center filed a 41-page complaint in 2024 with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against BUSD, alleging that “BUSD teachers are using BUSD resources to teach anti-Israel propaganda and promote walkouts demeaning Israelis and calling for the elimination of Jews."
BUSD Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel testified before Congress that "antisemitism is not pervasive in [the] Berkeley Unified School District" after conducting 12 investigations of complaints filed through the District Civil Rights and Compliance Office. In Berkeleyside, the Berkeley Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation called the Brandeis Center claims "tired, fully investigated, and determined to be baseless."
Liz Jackson, director of K-12 Legal Defense and former senior attorney at Palestine Legal, interviewed multiple witnesses to determine the veracity of the Brandeis Center complaints. Addressing the claim that students during the walkout were screaming "Kill the Jews," Jackson told me in an interview, "I've talked to a lot of students and teachers who were supervising or participating in the walkout and no one can verify that. There was definitely not a chant that was loud that students were chanting in unison. I think it's probably fabricated based on what else they fabricate."
Jackson is aware of about 20 complaints filed over the last two years, all of which involve Palestine. The allegations typically fall into the following categories:
- True, but not antisemitic;
- Fabricated; and
- A grain of truth, but grossly exaggerated.
Jackson states: "They paint a picture by blurring a mix of 1, 2, and 3 to create a picture of rampant, systematic antisemitism. They are manufacturing a curriculum causation theory, which is that teaching about Palestine causes antisemitic bullying."
According to Jackson, the small group of "parents who are pushing this stuff are largely from abundantly resourced, owning class families, while the children who are targeted are largely working class refugees." In 2024, the Brandeis Center tax forms reported $18 million in grants following the Hamas attacks when many official complaints were launched.
The norm is that complaints are filed, usually by parents or external organizations, citing Palestine and claiming antisemitism, then BUSD hires its own attorneys to investigate.
The Palestine posters at BIS were found by BUSD to be one-sided, but not discriminatory, citing insufficient evidence that any student expressed discomfort. The complainants appealed to the California Department of Education (CDE), which overruled the district and found the posters discriminatory, mandating antisemitism training for all BIS staff.
CDE Intervention—Assembly Bill 715
The game-changer is Assembly Bill 715, which passed in October 2025 despite "overwhelming opposition from educators, students, and civil rights advocates," including the American Civil Liberties Union, California Teachers Association, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Jewish Voice For Peace. AB 715 states:
This bill would establish that discriminatory bias in instruction and school-sponsored activities does not require a showing of direct harm to members of a protected group and would not require members of a protected group to be present while the discriminatory bias is occurring for the act to be considered discriminatory bias. If the governing board or body of the local educational agency finds that instruction or school-sponsored activities are discriminatory, as provided, the bill would require corrective action to be taken, as provided.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism brought together hundreds of scholars from Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to provide the following definition of antisemitism: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility,or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)." Additional guidelines include that antisemitism is not "supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil, and human rights, as encapsulated in international law."
According to Mr. LaMattery-Brownell: "It's basic humanity to say that we stand for Palestinian self-determination. Free Palestine is talking about freedom for a people. That's not discrimination. Unless you think that freedom for some people is unfair to everyone else."
CDE Case 2026-0259 found the BIS Palestine posters discriminatory for two reasons
- Conveying a "pro-Palestinian/Muslim message with no corresponding expression of support for Israel/Jews," ignoring the Holocaust posters mentioned elsewhere in the letter; and
- Conveying "an anti-Israel/Jewish message referencing 'genocide' in Palestine without any corresponding negative reference to the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023."
The Hamas attack on October 7 took the lives of approximately 1,200 Israelis. Since then, according to the United Nations, the Israeli military has taken the lives of approximately 72,000 Palestinians. There is a 60-fold discrepancy here. The imbalance lies in the facts.
The term "genocide" is explicitly referenced by the CDE as "an anti-Israeli/Jewish message." This assumption is unsubstantiated. Many Jewish students, parents, and staff have spoken out in Berkeley in support of Palestine and against the US and Israeli-led genocide, and over 1,400 Israeli academics signed a petition calling for an end to the war in Gaza in 2024. Critiquing genocide and wars is an act of civic responsibility for all citizens, Israelis and Jewish Americans included.
Following October 7, the Brandeis Center claimed that "Jewish and Israeli students have since been subjected to nonstop antisemitic bullying and harassment by their teachers and peers, in hallways, in classrooms, and in school yards." BUSD investigations have found otherwise. And BUSD teachers have experienced the opposite.
Teacher Harassment
Candiss Youngblood, an art teacher at Berkeley High School (BHS) interviewed for this article, was the subject of five different civil rights complaints. Her offense? She wears a patch, approved by administrators, with a heart and rose that states, "Free Palestine."
Students organized a Grief Circle that Ms. Youngblood participated in following the casualties after October 7. The students made a template poster that read, "My hope for Israel and Palestine," followed by open space to communicate their wishes. The posters were hung up for display at BHS, but "late that night, after hours," Ms. Youngblood reported, "admin went and took them all down." Ms. Youngblood was told that the Grief Circle was a "misuse of district funds."
Investigations and disciplinary action followed. Ms. Youngblood was written up for purchasing art supplies from a dollar store that were never used. Harassment followed as parents accused her of antisemitism in mass emails and students hid behind bushes outside her windows to photograph her classroom. "It was scary to be here," said Ms. Youngblood. "Admin wasn't saying we couldn't wear stuff, but they also weren't preventing any harassment from the community."
Weaponizing support for Palestine as antisemitic is coming not just from extremists trying to control public education, but from the State of California.
Ms. Youngblood was a witness to a complaint issued against the Berkeley High Safety Committee, of which she was a member, because they added a norm to combat white supremacy. According to Ms. Youngblood, ActNowK12.org charged that "we were using that norm as a way to silence their participation in the meetings." ActNowK12.org is a collaboration of California Jewish Grassroots Groups and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that offers its website as a means to report antisemitism.
Dan Brownson, a BUSD clerical worker and former Berkeley Council of Classified Employees (BCCE) union rep was asked to defend a BUSD staff member investigated for wearing a keffiyeh. Brownson told me in an interview that the complaint was filed by ActNowK12.org, and the investigation revealed that no specific student or parent actually complained. Brownson said: "They asked how it might make an Israeli or Jewish student feel to see the keffiyeh. I said, are we going to go on feelings now?"
Brownson was asked to represent the staff member on account of his own experience fighting spurious claims of antisemitism and dealing with an administrator who yelled at him for refusing to take down a pro-Palestine poster in his cubicle unless the administrator could show him where he was breaking the law, which she could not. Brownson was fired at the end of the year before obtaining a new position.
Mandated Trainings Across California
The ambiguity of the law surrounding an educator's freedom of political speech gives Assembly Bill 715 unprecedented power. Weaponizing support for Palestine as antisemitic is coming not just from extremists trying to control public education, but from the State of California. Appeals of complaints are underway across the state and corrective actions are being widely dispersed.
The entire staff and student body of King Middle School in BUSD were mandated a training on antisemitism by the CDE following a SSWANA (South Asian, Southwest Asian, North African) assembly due to students wearing Palestinian flags; chanting,"Free Palestine"; and excluding Israel from some maps.
District-wide trainings on antisemitism were mandated in the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) after the CDE overturned multiple cases involving a Palestine teach-in, Palestine posters, a Palestine flag without a corresponding Israeli flag, and Arab American Heritage Month materials omitting Israel from some regional maps.
Conflating support for Palestine with antisemitism sets a dangerous precedent that threatens human rights everywhere.
The Sequoia Union High School District settled a federal lawsuit for $325,000 alleging widespread antisemitism including pro-Hamas propaganda from teachers and discriminatory grading; the settlement included mandatory antisemitism training for all staff. Exhibit A of the settlement mentions "the denial of the Jewish people's right to self-defense" under its expanded definition of antisemitism.
Additional lawsuits in BUSD and the Santa Ana Unified School District over ethnic studies curricula that included Palestine cited antisemitism as did accusations against the Mountain View-Los Altos District who terminated a contract with Acosta Educational Partnerships. All high school teachers and administrators in the Manhattan Beach Unified School District (LA County) were mandated antisemitism training after an AP US History teacher posted slides describing the genocide in Gaza.
Trainings on antisemitism have commenced in BUSD and OUSD with more to come. Authentic teachings on antisemitism are welcome in public education, as are factually relevant discussions on Israel-Palestine. But the systematic pattern that has developed within California school districts is alarming: File complaints citing antisemitism whenever schools, educators, or students show support for Palestine, then appeal at the state level to overrule school districts where the CDE intervenes.
Labeling the BIS Palestine posters discriminatory sends a chilling message of censorship against Palestine throughout BUSD. Conflating support for Palestine with antisemitism sets a dangerous precedent that threatens human rights everywhere. Responding to the CDE decisions, Jackson stated, "They're anti-Arab, they're anti-Palestinian, and they violate our free speech rights and rights to learn."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Country Star Zach Bryan Defies Robert Kraft's Censorship, Wearing 'Free Palestine' Shirt at Gillette Stadium Show
Weeks earlier, Kraft pushed for NFL stadiums to ban Macklemore over his pro-Palestine comments.
Oct 03, 2026
Country music star Zach Bryan wore a "Free Palestine" T-shirt during a performance at Gillette Stadium on Friday night in what was widely interpreted as a gesture of defiance against the venue's pro-Israel owner Robert Kraft.
Weeks earlier, the New England Patriots owner drew international backlash when he banned the rapper Macklemore from his venue over his pro-Palestine comments onstage and rallied other NFL owners to do the same, a campaign that led to Macklemore's ouster from Ed Sheeran's US tour.
Sheeran—one of the world's most recognizable pop stars—was branded a spineless coward by many critics and faced a mutiny from his fellow touring acts after caving to the billionaire Kraft's heavy-handed censorship tactics. Sheeran's vague statement denying that he was "complicit" with Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza—which has killed more than 74,000 people, including over 21,000 children over nearly three years, according to official numbers—did little to quiet them.
In sharp contrast, Bryan and his band made their position clear as they performed before a sold-out crowd in Foxborough, Massachusetts on Friday.
Drummer Nate Head wore a cream-colored "Palestine" baseball jersey bearing the name Hind Rajab and the number 5 on the back—a reference to the 5-year-old Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces in 2024. Macklemore had similarly referenced Rajab in the song that led to his ban.
Guitarist Noah Le Gros wore a green "Palestine" jersey onstage. After the show, he posted a photo of himself wearing the jersey in front of a Kraft Sports & Entertainment sign, making the message unmistakable.
The company behind the jerseys, Wear the Peace—which donates all profits to organizations providing food, water, medical care, and other aid in Gaza—praised Bryan and his band for having "stood for Palestine tonight on a stage that tried to ban the simple mention of it."
Bryan, who served eight years in the US Navy, has a history of taking political stances that run counter to the conservatism long associated with mainstream country music. He has defended transgender people against public attacks and last year wrote lyrics criticizing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's aggressive deportation tactics.
But the “I Remember Everything” singer does not map cleanly onto either side of the political spectrum. In the past, he has described himself as a "total libertarian" and more recently stressed political unity: "Left wing or right wing we’re all one bird and American," he said in an interview last year.
The shirt he wore on Friday night also raised questions: Beneath the phrase "Free Palestine," the shirt featured a pine tree emblem and the phrase "An Appeal to Heaven"—iconography associated with George Washington's army in the Revolutionary War and later adopted by some far-right Christian nationalists.
Bryan has not yet publicly commented on what he intended to convey with his shirt on Friday night. Nor has Kraft—who previously referred to pro-Palestine comments on his stage as "hate speech"—publicly responded to Bryan's display.
The band is scheduled to perform another show at Gillette Stadium on Saturday night, and it remains to be seen whether they will face any pressure to back down.
In the meantime, Bryan has drawn praise from commentators who contrasted his display with Sheeran's response to Kraft.
Idrees Ahmad, the associate editor of New Lines Magazine, called it "a real Spartacus moment in music."
"All true artists resist conformity and control," he said. "Trying to tell the most recalcitrant people what they can or can't say was always going to backfire. This trend will only grow the more there is an attempt to censor."
Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, an Israeli-born foreign policy analyst who has become an outspoken critic of Israel's wars, celebrated it as yet another sign of how dramatically public opinion had shifted against the country over the past few years.
“We got the country singers. We won the culture wars," he said. "Break out the moonshine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Your Struggle Is Our Struggle' Says Hasidic Anti-Zionist Rabbi Facing ICE Deportation Over Pro-Palestinian Protest
A lawyer for 35-year-old Yehonatan Ovadia said his arrest by ICE demonstrates how "equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism produces absurd results."
Oct 01, 2026
The Trump administration has spent months targeting anti-Israel protesters for deportation as part of what it portrays as a fight against "antisemitism." One of its latest targets is a Hasidic Jewish rabbi.
Yehonatan Ovadia, a 35-year-old Israeli citizen, was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on August 28 after being summoned to immigration court in Manhattan. He now sits in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center, according to The New York Times, which broke news of his detention on Wednesday.
Ovadia, a father of five children, has lived in New York's Rockland County since coming to the United States on a religious worker visa in 2022. He is a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, an ultra-Orthodox movement that opposes Zionism on religious grounds, holding that Jews should not establish a sovereign state in the land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah.
Some members of Satmar have vocally protested against US support for Israel's genocidal military assault in Gaza since it began in 2023.
“We demonstrated for Gaza, for the liberation of Gaza, for the rights of the Palestinians and to show to the world that the Jews, real Judaism, want to have peace,” Ovadia told the Times from detention.
As the death toll in Gaza has mounted, Ovadia has continued to attend anti-Israel marches across New York and New Jersey. Earlier this year, the government revoked his legal status after he appeared at one of these protests.
In November 2023, Ovadia joined a group of anti-Zionist Hasidic Jews to protest the display of a large Israeli flag at the Ramapo Town Hall. Some attendees were recorded cutting the flag down with scissors. Ovadia and another man were charged with hate crimes over the incident—charges that were later dropped.
Ovadia later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct, for which he paid a $200 fine plus an additional $125 charge. He says he was not one of the men who took down the flag and that he did not know about the other attendees' plans to do so.
The formal reason for Ovadia's deportation, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was that he “overstayed his welcome and refused to depart” the US after losing his status. But the reason he lost that status is more revealing.
Though it acknowledged that Ovadia was eligible to maintain his religious worker status, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ultimately revoked it “as a matter of discretion." It cited what it said were “adverse factors” stemming from the 2023 Israeli flag protest.
DHS stated even more explicitly that the content of Ovadia's speech was the real issue.
"The Trump administration acted well within its statutory and constitutional authority, as it does with any alien who advocates for violence, glorifies and supports terrorists, harasses Jews, and steals property," DHS said.
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing DHS to target noncitizens who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests, which it has deemed antisemitic.
The order has led to nonviolent political organizers, like the Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and many others, having their legal immigration statuses abruptly revoked and being whisked into ICE detention without warning. Federal courts have struck down this policy on First Amendment grounds.
Ovadia's attorneys have filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that DHS had unlawfully retaliated against Ovadia for his protected speech. They argue that by targeting Ovadia over activism that stems from his religious beliefs, the government has taken “an official position” favoring “one religious position within Judaism” while penalizing "an adherent of another.”
Many Jewish protesters have been arrested during demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians, including dozens who were arrested at a Jewish Voice for Peace event last week to protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations General Assembly. But Ovadia's attorneys believe he may be the first Jewish protester to have his immigration status stripped.
Supporters of Yehonatan Ovadia gather outside his immigration court hearing in Manhattan on September 30, 2026. (Photo from Eric Lee/X)
Eric Lee, one of Ovadia's attorneys, has emphasized the case as an example of why "equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism produces absurd results."
"Trump's DHS says ICE detention of Yehonatan Ovadia is justified because he was 'harassing Jews,'" Lee wrote in a post on social media. "A rabbi detained for participating in a Hasidic demonstration against Israel three years ago was harassing... himself? What a joke!"
Ovadia, whom a judge has denied bond, appeared in immigration court on Wednesday, while dozens of supporters, many in traditional Hasidic dress, assembled outside.
And from detention, the man DHS has accused of "harassing Jews" continued to describe his activism not as hostility toward his own people, but as an expression of Jewish solidarity with Palestinians.
"From the Jewish people to our Palestinian brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank and all over occupied Palestine: We didn't forget you!" Ovadia said in a statement shared by Lee. "We are following you, and we know that you are facing genocide! Please be strong and continue to believe! Because your struggle is our struggle and your liberation is our liberation!"
"We will SHOUT and DEMONSTRATE for you," he continued, "from New York, Washington, Canada, London, and from every place that we can in the free world."
"Your liberation is near," Ovadia concluded, "and it will bring peace and liberation to all of us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Lets Lawsuit Proceed After Police Target Miami Beach Resident Who Criticized Pro-Israel Mayor
"Ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim," wrote a federal judge.
Sep 29, 2026
A federal judge has allowed a First Amendment lawsuit to proceed against Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner after he allegedly had police sent to a resident's house to question her over a social media post criticizing his support for Israel.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday denied defendants' motion to dismiss claims filed on behalf of Miami Beach resident and veteran Raquel Pacheco.
Altonaga said that "ordering a police visit to an individual’s home to discuss the individual’s speech can constitute a restriction on speech that would support a viewpoint discrimination claim."
On January 12, a pair of Miami Beach police officers showed up at Pacheco's door to question her about a post she made on Facebook criticizing Meiner, an outspoken supporter of Israel and its military assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians, including over 21,000 children.
Pacheco referred to Meiner as someone who "consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians" and "tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings," referring to his attempt to have an independent theater's lease terminated after it held screenings of No Other Land, an Oscar-winning documentary made by Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers about the displacement of Palestinians and demolition of homes by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
Video of the interaction shows police asking Pacheco if the post came from her account and ignoring her as she told them she would not speak to them without a lawyer.
"This is freedom of speech," Pacheco responded. "This is America, right?”
The officers acknowledged that Pacheco was “not going to jail” and did not claim that she had threatened Meiner. One of the officers then explained that "what we’re just trying to prevent is someone else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement."
He added that Pacheco's statements could "probably incite somebody to do something" before telling Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that." The officers then left and Pacheco was never charged with a crime.
Represented by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Pacheco filed a lawsuit in March alleging that Miami Beach officials had used police power to violate her First Amendment rights and deter her from criticizing the mayor and Israel. The lawsuit described it as part of a broader effort by officials to chill pro-Palestinian speech.
Emails released weeks after the incident revealed that Meiner personally flagged Pacheco's post to police, referring to it as a "dangerous escalation. Speaking to reporters on February 4, he defended his decision to alert the cops, saying that Pacheco's post was "absolutely false" and referring to it as "age-old antisemitism."
But Altonaga said Meiner's statements supported Pacheco's allegation that "her viewpoint motivated Meiner’s decision to send police to her home," allowing her viewpoint discrimination claim against him to proceed.
The court also allowed the ADC to proceed with its claim that the City of Miami Beach itself—including the mayor and police chief—had demonstrated a broader pattern of viewpoint discrimination against pro-Palestinian speech. The lawsuit cites Meiner's attempt to shut down the local theater, as well as its law banning government contractors from boycotting Israeli businesses, including those operating in territories illegally occupied by Israel.
It also cites Meiner and other Miami Beach officials' repeated pattern of arguing with and cutting off Pacheco and other pro-Palestinian speakers during city commission meetings while allowing pro-Israel speakers to talk with little obstruction.
During one meeting, Meiner reduced public comments for pro-Palestinian speakers to 60 seconds when they criticized the police response to Pacheco while allowing speakers who defended the police action or criticized Pacheco's pro-Palestine viewpoint to speak for around two minutes uninterrupted.
Jenin Younes, ADC's president and national legal director, said Monday's ruling was "a significant victory for Raquel Pacheco, for the First Amendment, and for all Americans who care about the right to free speech and dissent."
"The city downplayed what happened to Ms. Pacheco as a routine police visit," Younes said. "The court disagreed, recognizing that sending police to someone’s home to question and intimidate them over their protected political speech can itself violate the First Amendment."
"The government does not have to arrest you, prosecute you, or formally censor you to violate the First Amendment," he added. "The chilling effect of these actions is obvious.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Was the Test Case': Mahmoud Khalil Decides to Stay and Fight
In his new memoir, Mahmoud Khalil describes the moment he realized his detention was bigger than him.
Sep 29, 2026
I had the first call with my lawyers four days after my arrest. The guards escorted me to a room across the detention center, a multipurpose hall with scattered chairs and a small table and a phone next to the reinforced window overlooking the inner yard. Several people were already on the call, attorneys whose names and faces I would see on the screen over the next hundred days. They asked me to confirm that I was alone. I did. “Do a visual sweep,” one of them suggested. I scanned the room and checked the corners, beneath the air-conditioning vents, along the ceiling lights, searching for something I couldn’t name. It felt performative. If they wanted to listen, they would listen.
The lawyers filled me in on the court proceedings so far. I had so many questions. They tumbled out of me, one after another, the accumulation of four days of confusion and dread. How could they do this? What are the charges? How is any of this legal? When will I be out? When will I be returned to New York?
They had no conclusive answers, only mostly legal terminology that obscured as much as it revealed. The lawyers were careful with their words, precise in ways that frustrated me. I wanted certainty. They could only offer procedure.
The king wanted to send a message, and I was the messenger, sent to everyone who might consider speaking out.
They explained that they had filed something called a habeas corpus petition on my behalf. It sounded ancient, almost biblical. Baher, one of the lawyers, was generous enough to explain that the Latin phrase dated back to the Magna Carta, to the thirteenth century, when kings could make people disappear and the barons had to invent a mechanism to find them. Habeas corpus was a demand: Produce the body. Show us the prisoner. Justify his detention, or let him go.
I was the body in question, shipped over thirteen hundred miles from New York to Jena, Louisiana.
The habeas corpus petition had been filed in federal court in New York, along with two requests or motions, one for release on bail while the case continued and another to compel my return to New York. Federal court was different from immigration court, I learned. The separate immigration process would start in two weeks, which was indicated in the papers they had handed me in New York. I didn’t understand. It’s all the same country, the same system. What difference does it make which court hears my case, and where?
A huge difference, it turned out—one that would decide the fate of my case in the days to come. “Immigration court is not a real court,” one of the lawyers said. Immigration courts are the president’s courts, where arguments challenging presidential illegality are swallowed by the urgency of an executive campaign of mass deportation. Immigration judges are government employees, appointed by the attorney general, who is appointed by the president—the same president who had tweeted about me. In immigration court, there is no presumption of innocence, no jury or real independence. The process is designed for efficiency, not justice. Federal courts were different. The federal court is a constitutional court, which can hear constitutional claims against the executive branch. The judges are appointed for life. They don’t answer to the administration. They must follow the Constitution and case law. The government wanted my case in immigration court because the outcome was easier to control. In federal court, they would actually have to justify what they had done. In federal court, I might win.
The government had concealed my whereabouts in those first crucial hours, the lawyers said. They hadn’t known where I was. New York? Elsewhere? They had even tried tracking flights to Guantánamo. They had filed an emergency petition at 4:38 in the morning to prevent my deportation, but I had already been moved to New Jersey at that point. By the time everyone figured out I was in Louisiana, the government was arguing that any legal challenge should be heard there, not in New York.
Louisiana’s courts, heavily Republican, would be more favorable to the Trump administration. By moving me here, the government had shifted the fight to terrain they controlled, using geography as a weapon.
But there was another reason. They wanted to isolate me. In New York, I had my wife, friends, community, and the press. In Louisiana, I had nothing. I was alone in a facility in the middle of the woods, cut off from everyone who knew me.
The battle, then, was over two things: Which court system would hear my case, immigration or federal? And which venue, New York or Louisiana? Our argument was simple: I resided and was arrested in New York. This wasn’t really an immigration case. I wasn’t detained for violating immigration law. I was detained for what I said. For protesting and speaking out about Palestine. That made it a constitutional case, one where the First Amendment was crucial, and constitutional questions belong in federal court.
The government’s argument was equally simple: You’re an immigrant, now detained in Louisiana. This is an immigration matter. Stay in your lane.
It all sounded technical. Procedural. The kind of thing that puts people to sleep. But the venue and jurisdiction would determine everything. The government knew it. That’s why they had moved so fast to get me out of New York. That’s why they hid where they were taking me.
My case was the blueprint they wanted to set, and the one we had to tear up.
As the lawyers talked, I began to understand the scope of what I was facing. This was not a mistake. It was not overzealous enforcement. This was deliberate and planned at the highest levels of government. The president had tweeted my picture. The secretary of state had invoked obscure powers. Multiple agencies had worked together to snatch me from my home and transport me across the country in less than a day.
By the end of the call, one thing was clear: The lawyers were as shocked as I was. These were experienced attorneys: Some had worked on landmark Guantánamo cases. They had seen government abuse and overreach. But this was different: the speed, the secrecy, the coordination. The invocation of powers they had never seen used before. They compared it to the Red Scare.
“This provision the secretary of state used,” or the Rubio Determination, as it was called, “we’re not aware of it ever being applied in a case like this,” one of the lawyers said. “It’s unprecedented.” So I was not just a case; I was an experiment, I realized. The government was testing what it could get away with, using me as the test subject or “blueprint,” as the White House would boast. If they succeeded with me, a permanent resident with no criminal history, imagine what they could do to others. To the men sleeping in bunks around me, who had no lawyers, no press, no one watching. We would later learn, from the government’s own court filings, that this law had never before been used against anyone with my status.
My case was the blueprint they wanted to set, and the one we had to tear up.
This was the turning point, the moment when I grasped that this was bigger than me. It was bigger than my case, my green card, my deportation. I had not been detained for a crime I committed. They knew I never committed a crime. I was detained for what I represent, for saying something the king and his courtiers didn’t like.
The king wanted to send a message, and I was the messenger, sent to everyone who might consider speaking out. Every student who might join a protest would get the message, every person who might dare to criticize Israel or question American policy, domestic or foreign. The message was simple: This could be you. Your rights will not protect you. Your innocence will not protect you. We can take you in the night, and there is nothing you can do about it.
If I chose not to fight the case, I could “self-deport,” the lawyers explained, and leave “voluntarily.” But the Rubio Determination came with a lifetime ban against returning to the United States. We ended the call. I made no response to this offer. Maybe I should have.
Lying on my bunk that night, my eyes wrapped in a makeshift blindfold of socks, I knew I couldn’t walk away. If I left, they would call it a victory. They would say I must have been guilty of something. My departure would confirm their accusations without them having to prove anything. Every lie they told about me would be validated by my departure. The smear campaign would become the official record. And it wouldn’t end with me.
If I self-deported, I would be handing them the road map for silencing dissent. Immigrants joining a protest would remember that green cards offer no protection, that years of building a life in this country can be erased if the government doesn’t like their speech. Everyone would understand the new rules: Speak up, and we will find a way to make you disappear.
The Palestine solidarity movement in America was already under siege when I was abducted. Students had been doxxed, smeared, suspended, expelled. Others had lost their jobs for signing letters or joining a protest. During his presidential campaign, Trump vowed to donors who were furious at the student uprising that he would crush the pro-Palestine protests and “set that movement back twenty-five or thirty years.” My case was meant to be the capstone, proof that they could go further than suspensions and firings.
I thought about the students I had met at Columbia, the ones who had risked their careers to pitch tents on the lawn, to demand that the university divest from companies profiting from occupation. If I ran, what message would that send to them? That the fight wasn’t worth it? That when the pressure got real, even the people who told them to speak up would flee?
I thought about the Palestinians who had been waging this struggle for decades, long before it was fashionable, before celebrities posted about it on Instagram or walked red carpets with pins on their lapels. They had faced worse than arbitrary detention. They had faced ethnic cleansing, daily humiliation, dehumanization, imprisonment, the loss of everything. Who was I to give up at the first serious test? I thought of the people in Gaza buried beneath rubble while the world debated the justifications for their deaths. About farmers in the West Bank facing Israeli settlers burning their villages with impunity. About the millions of refugees, scattered across the world, still holding keys to the homes to which they could not return. They couldn’t self-deport out of their suffering. They couldn’t sign a paper to make it stop.
I was the test case. And I refused to comply.
Excerpted from NO LAND TO STAND ON: Notes from Detention by Mahmoud Khalil. Published by Metropolitan Books. Copyright © 2026 by Mahmoud Khalil. All rights reserved.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Lowlife Coward': Ed Sheeran Declaration of 'I Am Not Complicit' Stirs Fresh Outrage Over Macklemore Ouster
While Sheeran claimed to be adhering to his apolitical brand, one critic argued he was really just "letting a pro-Israel billionaire choose his politics for him."
Sep 15, 2026
Singer Ed Sheeran attempted damage control on Tuesday as he faces outrage following news that the rapper Macklemore had been kicked off his US tour over his pro-Palestine remarks at the behest of a pro-Israel NFL owner.
The "Thrift Shop" rapper had generated outrage from supporters of Israel earlier this month after he shouted "Free Palestine" during a performance at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey and performed "Hind’s Hall," a song honoring Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a billionaire with a long history of donating to pro-Israel causes, took credit for blackballing Macklemore on Monday, describing the rapper's Palestine tributes as "hate speech."
The decision to remove Macklemore has been widely criticized, including by the sister of the late country music icon Dolly Parton, Stella, who wrote on social media Tuesday that "We are in a dire situation when a performer is pulled from a tour for simply calling out genocide in Gaza."
In an Instagram post, Sheeran confirmed that Kraft had indeed rallied other NFL stadium owners to give an ultimatum that their shows would be canceled unless Macklemore was dropped. Sheeran said the decision ultimately did not belong to him, but to the Messina Touring Group, which is promoting the tour.
"I spoke with the venues at length all week to try and build a bridge," Sheeran said. "One of those people was Robert Kraft. I was also involved in direct talks with promoters, along with activists on both sides, to try to find a mutual resolution for all, but the venue's and promoter's decision was final."
The singer-songwriter, who had not previously spoken publicly about the Israel-Palestine conflict, also addressed criticism that he was effectively taking a side and offering tacit support to Israel, whose military campaign in Gaza has been described as a genocide by major human rights groups and has resulted in the deaths of at least 73,000 Palestinians, including more than 20,000 children, according to official estimates.
"I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine," Sheeran said. "The suffering and pain caused on both sides is a human tragedy. There are too many wars across the world causing immeasurable pain, none of which should be tolerated."
"I am not complicit," he added. "I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly doesn't mean I don't have them, and it doesn't mean I don't care. Nor does it mean I don't support causes in my own, personal way."
Sheeran did not specify which particular causes he supports or whether any of them relate to the humanitarian crisis in Palestine.
"There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics," Sheeran continued. "My audience includes young people, often children, of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect Macklemore's strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace."
In a post on Monday addressing his removal from the tour, Macklemore said that his longtime friend Sheeran was put in "a fucked up position" in which "his typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it never had been before."
But critics argued that if there was anyone with the clout to take a stand against the censorious stadium owners, it would be Sheeran. According to PollStar, he is the third-most-popular touring act of the 21st century by worldwide ticket sales through 2025, and he has regularly sold out NFL stadiums, grossing several million dollars per show.
In a social media post, Will Menaker, a co-host of the popular left-wing podcast Chapo Trap House, ridiculed Sheeran's claim that canning Macklemore was "the promoter's decision" rather than his own.
"Sheeran is a big enough artist that he could easily tell the promoters to go fuck themselves if he wanted to," Menaker said, describing the singer as a "lowlife coward whose music sounds exactly like he is."
Media and cultural critic Kaivan Shroff argued in Zeteo that Sheeran was not actually acting apolitically as he claimed, but rather "letting a pro-Israel billionaire choose his politics for him."
"Kraft imposed a political condition on his tour, and then Sheeran enforced it," Shroff wrote. "He did not remain above the dispute; he allowed the billionaire who owned the building to resolve it for him."
"That is what the language of being 'apolitical' conceals," he continued. "It treats the status quo as neutral and resistance to it as political. Kraft can decide that support for Palestinian freedom is beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech; venue owners can threaten a tour; corporate affiliates can calculate the financial exposure and draw their lines in the sand. None of that is described as activism. Politics supposedly only enters the room when Macklemore says those two words onstage."
Shroff wrote that the saga demonstrated "how the ultrawealthy exercise political power without accepting political responsibility."
"They translate an ideological demand into a business necessity, then leave everyone beneath them to describe compliance as unavoidable," he said. "Kraft did not have to answer Macklemore’s argument about Gaza or persuade an audience that saying 'Free Palestine' constituted hate. He could simply threaten the tour instead. Once the money was put in jeopardy, all of a sudden, the unacceptable viewpoint disappeared."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Collective Punishment': Mother of Jailed Palestine Action Activist in UK Was Denied Mortgage Over Daughter's Case
Emma Kamio's daughter, Ellie, was also "debanked" by Lloyds Bank before she was criminally convicted for her sabotage of Israeli military equipment.
Sep 09, 2026
One of the UK's largest financial institutions, Lloyds Bank, reportedly targeted a jailed Palestine Action protester and her family for financial punishment before she was ever convicted of a crime, according to a report out Wednesday from Novara Media.
The outlet reported that activist Leona "Ellie" Kamio had her account shuttered by Lloyds, a process known as "debanking," while she was being held on remand for her role in destroying Israeli military equipment at a factory owned by the technology firm Elbit Systems.
Ellie and four other activists were convicted of criminal damage earlier this year. But although a jury never convicted them of terrorism, they were sentenced as terrorists after a judge made an unprecedented ruling that their actions had a “terrorist connection," due to their political motivation. She and other members of the so-called "Filton Four" have appealed their sentences.
Ellie was held in prison on "remand" for more than 18 months before her first trial concluded in February 2026 although she was never charged with terrorism.
In February 2025, a year before her trial for criminal damage, Novara reports that Kamio was sent a letter by Lloyds informing her that it was closing her bank account because it was “unable to maintain a banking relationship." It did not give an explanation for the decision.
In June 2026, after Ellie had been convicted of criminal damage but before she was slapped with a terrorism sentence, her mother, Emma Kamio, learned that Lloyds had denied her request for a new mortgage on the commercial properties for her small business.
Lloyds made it clear that it was because of her daughter's case.
"We’ve now assessed the deal and consulted with our credit sanction team," a business development manager for the bank told Emma's mortgage broker. "Unfortunately, due to the adverse media, it’s not something they’re comfortable supporting at this time.”
When the broker offered an alternative plan to transfer the properties into her sister's ownership, Lloyds also rejected it.
Emma told Novara that she lost her properties as a result of Lloyds' decision. Her businesses, she said, "had to slip down the list of priorities as for the past two years, she's "spent every waking moment dealing with the trauma of my wrongful arrest or fighting for my daughter’s campaign and her release."
Emma was herself arrested in July 2025 after she locked herself to a suitcase outside Parliament to protest as members voted to enact the ban on Palestine Action. She was acquitted in April 2026.
"Thankfully, my drive for justice is more important to me than money," Emma said.
In the UK, banks are not allowed to cancel customers' accounts based on religion or belief. But they can be closed if the bank suspects a user is engaged in money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, or other criminal activities that could pose a risk to the financial institution.
Emma contends that Lloyds "debanked my daughter Ellie with no reason at all, and while she was on remand and therefore innocent until proven guilty."
A spokesperson for Lloyds told Novara that the bank does not "close customer accounts or make lending decisions based on political or personal beliefs."
"Our decisions are based on relevant laws, regulations, account conditions, or lending requirements," the spokesperson said. "We’re unable to comment on individual cases.”
Anas Mustapha, the head of public advocacy at CAGE International, a UK-based organization focused on state abuses under terrorism laws, described the actions committed against Emma as “collective punishment."
"Emma Kamio has nothing to appeal against—just a bank’s discriminatory risk assessment, applied because her daughter took action to stop the supply chain of deadly weapons used in a genocide," Mustapha told Novara.
The highly controversial sentencing of Ellie and the rest of the "Filton Four" as terrorists was widely condemned by civil liberties and human rights activists, who described it as a dramatic escalation of the British government's effort to punish pro-Palestinian speech.
Last July, the Labour government of then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer used the Terrorism Act to ban Palestine Action, which has engaged in "direct action," including property destruction against entities activists believe are complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Not only is membership in the group now considered a terrorist offense, but nonviolent expressions of support for the group have also been criminalized.
Since the ban came into effect, 3,500 arrests of peaceful protesters have taken place across the country, according to Amnesty International, including more than 1,200 who've been charged with terrorism-related offenses.
Separately, official Home Office figures show that as of March, 92% of terrorism-related arrests in the UK over the previous year were linked to suspected support for Palestine Action.
Ellie and the other members of the Filton Four have defended their acts of sabotage against Israeli military equipment—including dozens of drones—as a justifiable response to Israel's destructive military campaign in Gaza.
That campaign, which many human rights organizations have described as a "genocide," has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children, according to official tallies from the Gaza Ministry of Health, while independent analysts have argued the true death toll since October 2023 is much higher.
Elbit is one of the companies that provides much of Israel's drone fleet, which has been involved in attacks that have killed Palestinian civilians.
"Ellie was sentenced as a terrorist after she was convicted of criminal damage for destroying 40 Israeli weapons, including quadcopter drones," said Huda Ammori, one of the co-founders of Palestine Action, in a post on X. "For saving lives, she was deemed a terrorist, and her family is also being targeted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
33 Dems Help Pass House Bill That Would Strip Funds From Colleges That Boycott Israel
"The goal here is to basically say every university not only cannot refuse cooperation with Israel but must actively seek every opportunity to cooperate with Israel,” said one analyst.
Sep 03, 2026
The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed what critics say could be one of the most severe infringements on free expression in recent memory—a bill that could effectively require colleges and universities to do business with Israel or risk losing federal funds.
As Israel's genocide in Gaza and accelerating ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank continue to fuel protests, the bill is the latest piece of legislation aimed at punishing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which uses nonviolent economic tactics to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and human rights abuses.
HR 4795, introduced in July 2025 by Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), is known as the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act. But Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, described it as an "Orwellian" turn of phrase for what the legislation actually does.
"The goal here is to basically say every university not only cannot refuse cooperation with Israel but must actively seek every opportunity to cooperate with Israel,” she told Responsible Statecraft. “And if they're not doing that, they're pro-BDS and anti-Israel.”
As the outlet described:
[The bill] would bar colleges that receive federal funds from engaging in what it defines as a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel, including “refusals to deal” or terminating business relationships in order to limit commercial ties without a “valid business reason.” The law would require these institutions to submit annual certification that they were giving students and faculty access to academic programs in Israel on the same terms as programs in other countries.
In a brief opposing the bill, Friedman argued that it was not just forcing universities to do business with Israel, but with its settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law. With backing from the Israeli state, violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank has exploded to never-before-seen highs this year, according to the United Nations.
"This legislation," Friedman wrote, "sets up a situation in which the alleged absence of engagement with any Israeli partner/party, including in settlements, will become the basis for an accusation of boycott, putting universities in the position where, if they universities want to avoid being accused of boycotting Israel/settlements, they will need to adopt an affirmative policy of prioritizing maximal engagement/partnership with Israeli entities (including in settlements)."
The bill passed by a 237-169 vote, with support from all but two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). And although the vast majority of Democratic voters now hold negative views of Israel, 33 Democrats also voted in favor of the bill.
The legislation now heads to the narrowly Republican-controlled US Senate, where it would need 60 votes to advance.
Introducing the bill last year, Gottheimer said it was necessary because BDS was an "antisemitic, hate-fueled... movement" that "seeks to destroy Israel—and has no place on our college campuses."
But even critics of the BDS movement, like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chafed at its potential chilling effect on protected speech.
"No matter how strongly I oppose the BDS movement, I also believe that those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so," Nadler said before voting against the bill. "The First Amendment right to free speech does not apply only to agreeable speech."
He cited a letter sent to Congress by the ACLU opposing the bill's contention that schools should need a "valid business reason" to cut ties with Israel.
"Many of those engaged in boycotts of Israel do so not for commercial reasons, but because they wish to express their political opposition to the policies of the Israeli government—matters of overwhelming public concern and debate in the present moment. HR 4795’s labeling such boycotts as ‘non-expressive’ does nothing to change this reality," the letter said.
The bill comes as members of Congress, especially Democrats, are under increasing scrutiny for their support from pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose political spending arm has poured more than $104 million into supporting its preferred candidates this election cycle.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has spent more than six months embroiled in a costly war with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a key role in persuading him to launch.
"We just got dragged into a war by Benjamin Netanyahu. He's bragging about it," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) told Julian Andreone of Drop Site News. "That's about as embarrassing as you can get... So let's leave universities alone."
Aaron Regunberg, a contributing editor at The New Republic, described it as outrageous that Democrats who supported the bill were "actively joining the far-right's war on higher education in order to shield a genocidal ethnostate that most Americans increasingly want nothing to do with."
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said the bill was "another effort to single out Israel for special treatment and erode Americans’ rights on its behalf."
"Will it be your child who can’t afford to go to college after 33 Democrats voted with Republicans to help Trump defund US universities? Because it certainly won’t be any of theirs," he said. "Shame on them for joining the attack on our schools and constitutional rights on behalf of Israel."
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
'Ugly, Un-American Attack on Our Free Press': Stars & Stripes Journalists Fired for Saying They Had Independence
"It’s a shame for the institution and service members, who swore to defend the Constitution and deserve the right to a free and independent press," said ouster journalist Lara Korte.
Aug 22, 2026
Correspondent Lara Korte, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, and publisher Max Lederer were fired from their posts at Stars and Stripes on Friday, in the latest attack on press freedom by President Donald Trump and members of his administration—this time targeting the paper that provides daily news to U.S. service members worldwide.
"I consider it a great privilege to live alongside members of the military and share their stories," said Korte in a social media post following her ouster. "It’s a shame for the institution and service members, who swore to defend the Constitution and deserve the right to a free and independent press."
Korte said she was "informed that the Department of Defense is firing me for insubordination after I told a CBS reporter that I work for Stars and Stripes—not the Pentagon, not any administration, and not any policymaker."
Slavin explained that he and Korte were fired specifically over an interview they gave earlier this year with CBS News, in which they said they were independent of the Pentagon and the White House and that they would resist any effort to censor the news military members receive. Even though the military publication operates within the US Department of Defense, it has always enjoyed editorial independence.
Editor in Chief of Stars and Stripes Erik Slavin speaks out after he was fired by the Pentagon today: "They said that I was insubordinate for responding to a hypothetical about censorship and saying it was a red line... I reaffirmed what the law says, what the DOD regs say, which… pic.twitter.com/KrBwY4gTug
— Erin Burnett OutFront (@OutFrontCNN) August 22, 2026
“I stand by the principle that Stars and Stripes must remain editorially independent, as required by law and by the department’s own policies,” he said in a statement Friday.
Press freedom advocates slammed the move by the DoD.
"Today's firings are an ugly, un-American attack on our free press," said the free speech group Fire in a statement. "America's brave service members swore an oath to defend the Constitution. They deserve the free and independent press our Founders fought for 250 years ago, not Pravda-style propaganda. The United States is uniquely committed to freedom of the press, and has been since our founding. Accepting censorship means losing our national identity."
Speaking with the Associated Press, Slavin said his firing for insubordination was for saying in the CBS interview "that hypothetical censorship of news for service members would constitute a red line” for him.
“We need to be able to provide independent news to service members,” he had told CBS in July. “If we can’t do that, if we were turned into something other than that, if we were public relations? Yeah, that’s the foxhole.”
- YouTube
According to reporting by Stars and Stripes, Lederer was also fired Friday, though he had announced his retirement earlier this week, on Tuesday.
In a letter to the outlet's staff, later posted online, Lederer explained, “It has become clear that my philosophy of leadership, and my understanding of value and mission of the Stars & Stripes, differ in fundamental ways from the direction of the leadership of the Department of Defense."
Replacing Lederer as the new publisher of Stars and Stripes is Capt. William Urban, a longtime public relations officer and communications specialist inside the US military with no professional experience in the field of journalism.
Urban previously served, as he explained in a memo to newspaper staff on Friday, as a "spokesman for some of the hardest Public Affairs assignments in the Navy and Department of War for more than 20 years."
"Does repeatedly being at the center of a media firestorm qualify me to help lead Stars and Stripes?" Urban asked in his letter. "No, but it is not a bad place to start."
Apparently, a public relations expert is exactly what The Pentagon, under the leadership of Secretary of State Pete Hegseth and President Trump, has been looking for.
Earlier this week, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote to Secretary Hegseth about their concerns over the "shakeup" at Stars and Stripes, represented by Lederer's retirement announcement and the news that Urban would replace him.
“The placement of an active-duty Public Affairs officer in the senior leadership of an organization whose credibility depends on its independence from the military chain of command raises serious questions,” the Senators wrote in a letter.
“For generations, American servicemembers, particularly those stationed overseas and in combat zones, have relied on Stars and Stripes for credible and independent news," the Senators added. "That trust depends on preserving a clear separation between independent journalism and the Department’s public affairs apparatus. At this critical moment of leadership transition, that independence must not be compromised.”
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