Civicus Monitor
  • GLOBAL FINDINGS 2024
  • PUBLICATIONS
  • Data
  • WATCHLIST
  • EXPLORE
  • ABOUT
Civicus Monitor
  • GLOBAL FINDINGS 2024
  • PUBLICATIONS
  • Data
  • WATCHLIST
  • EXPLORE
  • ABOUT
Civicus Monitor
  • GLOBAL FINDINGS 2024
  • PUBLICATIONS
  • Data
  • WATCHLIST
  • EXPLORE
  • ABOUT

Civic space at risk: Donald Trump’s first 100 days and the growing crackdown on dissent

DATE POSTED : 14.05.2025

Introduction

Donald Trump’s authoritarian second term shows a swift assault on civic freedoms

In March 2025, the CIVICUS Monitor added the United States of America (USA) to its watchlist due to an alarming and rapid deterioration of civic freedoms. Since returning to office on 20th January 2025, President Donald Trump has unleashed a barrage of executive orders and other governmental actions that have severely impacted activists, civil society organisations, and independent journalism.

The administration’s moves include an arbitrary freeze and cancellation of funding targeting organisations domestically and abroad, sustained crackdowns on peaceful pro-Palestine solidarity movements across university campuses, new barriers blocking public access to government information, and a surge in attacks against journalists investigating the unchecked expansion of executive power.

It has also withdrawn from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Human Rights Council, exited the Paris Climate Agreement, rejected the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, and announced sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), targeting its personnel as well as individuals and entities that cooperate with it.

As President Trump hits his 100th day back in office, the assault on fundamental freedoms is only accelerating. Pro-Palestine activists, independent media outlets, universities, and legal professionals who challenge government actions are facing repression (see below freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly).

Meanwhile, the broader human rights situation is deteriorating at a pace few anticipated. President Trump signed 217 executive orders in his first 100 days, dismantling federal policies and agencies with profound implications for democracy, rule of law and human rights. By the end of April 2025, courts had issued at least 123 rulings that, at a minimum, temporarily halted some of the administration’s orders.

In response, President Trump reacted with hostility, including calling for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration in a case concerning deportation flights. In addition, the legislative branch has escalated efforts to limit judicial oversight. On 9th April 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1526, which—if approved by the Senate— would mean that “federal district courts would no longer be able to issue nationwide injunctions when examining federal policies, even if those policies have nationwide effects.”

Several executive orders have eliminated federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, falsely framing them as discriminatory. In some agencies, employees have reportedly faced dismissal or disciplinary action solely for their alleged involvement in DEI-related activities. The rollback is not limited to the government. Major corporations have reversed internal diversity policies and slashed equity-focused programmes under political and financial pressure.

Behind the rhetoric of “keeping promises,” the current administration has expanded federal power to target immigrants, people of colour, women and LGBTQI+ people, particularly trans and non-conforming people (see expression). Mass deportations without due process have become a cornerstone of the government’s brutal and racist anti-migration policy.

A stark illustration came on 15th March 2025, when US authorities unlawfully removed and forcibly disappeared at least 238 Venezuelan migrants, under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a law intended for wartime. They were transferred to the Centre for Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) in El Salvador, a facility known for conditions amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Deportation decisions reportedly relied on discriminatory criteria, such as tattoos, perceived gang affiliation, and socio-economic status.

On 20th April 2025, the US Supreme Court temporarily blocked the administration from carrying out further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, after a prior ruling had allowed removals to continue only if detainees were given minimal due process. The case is just one of dozens challenging Trump’s immigration crackdown: by the end of March, federal courts had issued at least 40 orders blocking these executive decisions.

Through the expansion of isolated detention facilities—such as the Guantánamo military base—, the revocation of over 500,000 temporary protected statuses for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, and the implementation of third-country expulsions to countries including Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico and Panama, the government has normalised practices amounting to gross human rights violations, including enforced disappearance, torture, and arbitrary detention. Alarmingly, at least four US citizens, among them three children, were also unlawfully deported in March and April 2025. In addition, the administration deported a valid visa holder in March 2025, despite a court order prohibiting her removal.

In parallel, the administration has intensified efforts to restrict reproductive rights. On 24th January 2025, the State Department announced that the USA would rejoin the so-called Geneva Consensus Declaration, a non-binding agreement that seeks to restrict abortion access and undermine reproductive autonomy. Initially endorsed during the final months of Trump’s first term, the declaration has been widely criticised for promoting anti-reproductive and anti-LGBTQI+ rights. Concurrently, President Trump has nominated officials opposed to reproductive rights to lead key federal agencies responsible for overseeing access to reproductive health care.

The decision comes at a time when the landscape for reproductive rights in the country is undergoing a profound crisis. Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which overturned Roe v. Wade, state legislatures across the country have moved swiftly to pass increasingly extreme abortion bans. Many of these laws criminalise abortion at nearly every stage of pregnancy and target not only patients seeking care, but also doctors, advocates and others who provide support.

Environmental protection and climate change regulations are being dismantled. For instance, on 8th April 2025, under the banner of “American energy dominance,” President Trump signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to target state-level climate laws—many of which are designed to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for decades of environmental harm.

Although legal experts have characterised the order as largely symbolic and lacking enforceable authority, federal agencies have already begun mobilising to challenge these laws, weaponising administrative mechanisms to kneecap state-led climate action. On 24th April 2025, the US President also signed an executive order to accelerate the approval of deep-sea mining licences and permits. It sidesteps customary international law, prompting warnings over its potential impact on ocean ecosystems and the food chain.

The assault on climate protection and environmental safeguards is unfolding alongside a radical restructuring of the federal government. Central to this effort is billionaire Elon Musk, who has been installed as Senior Advisor to the President and de facto leader of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). His role goes beyond advisory: he has exercised extraordinary authority to slash entire agencies, cancel contracts and access sensitive government data.

Since January 2025, the Department of Energy has terminated between 1,200 and 2,000 employees, including critical staff from the National Nuclear Security Administration. The Forest Service cut about 10 per cent of its workforce, affecting crucial wildfire prevention and land management roles. The Veterans Affairs Department, the USDA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education, and the Small Business Administration all executed sweeping purges of probationary employees, often overnight and without warning. In March 2025, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and related ombudsman offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were closed.

According to The New York Times, the administration’s workforce reductions could affect at least 12 per cent of the 2.4 million civilian federal employees, which is likely to rise. DOGE remains unchecked, mainly by a Republican-controlled Congress, though it has faced frequent legal challenges. While thousands of dismissed workers were briefly reinstated by court orders in February 2025, two rulings in early April 2025 by the Supreme Court and an appeals court sided with the administration, blocking the reinstatements. No official tally of the cuts exists.

As Trump’s second term moves forward, the contours of a transformed USA are coming into view: a country where dissent is punished, civil society is targeted, and human rights are rolled back.

🇺🇸#USA added to our latest watchlist:

🟢Threats to civic freedoms under Trump administration
🟢Ongoing crackdowns on protests are backed by legislative push
🟢Journalists face unprecedented restrictions

Country rated as Narrowed: https://t.co/cCOqc2rysP pic.twitter.com/yEyZIZG25R

— CIVICUS Monitor (@CIVICUSMonitor) March 10, 2025

Association

Pro-Palestinian students and faculty face unprecedented repression across campuses

On 8th March 2025, four plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, operating under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), unlawfully arrested and arbitrarily detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist, while he was walking to his residence on the campus of Columbia University, New York.

According to legal filings and documentation by the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the agents informed Khalil that the Department of State had revoked his student visa. Upon being presented with evidence of his lawful permanent residence status, the agents claimed that his permanent residency had also been revoked. Despite the absence of any formal criminal charges, Khalil was handcuffed and removed without explanation, while agents threatened to arrest his eight-months-pregnant US citizen spouse.

On 9th March 2025, civil society organisations, including the CCR, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Khalil before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Shortly thereafter, Khalil was transferred to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Centre, also known as the LaSalle Detention Centre, in Jena, Louisiana—approximately 1,600 kilometres from his residence— without notification to his legal representatives or family.

The facility has been repeatedly criticised for poor detention conditions, including allegations of inadequate medical care and incidents of physical and sexual abuse. Louisiana now detains the second-largest number of immigrants in the country, after Texas, with ICE detention centres located in remote rural areas, many repurposed from former private prisons. This significantly hinders access to legal representation and support from civil society organisations.

On the following day, legal representatives filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order to require Khalil’s return to New York to proceed with his habeas corpus petition, challenging his arrest as a violation of his freedoms of expression and due process under the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.

On 11th April 2025, a judge ruled that Khalil was removable under immigration law. The decision followed the presentation of government evidence consisting solely of a letter signed by the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, which reportedly stated that Khalil had not engaged in criminal activity but was being targeted based on his political expression.

Khalil currently faces deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i), a provision which allows for the removal of non-US citizens if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual’s presence or activities in the USA may have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.

According to Amnesty International, “the US government is relying on an obscure and rarely used statute to revoke his status and try to deport him.” This legal provision has been applied in only 15 out of more than 11 million removal cases since 1990. To date, it has resulted in the deportation of just four people.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ACLU (@aclu_nationwide)

At this time, he is subject to two proceedings: an immigration case before an immigration judge in Louisiana and a federal case challenging the constitutionality of his detention before a district court in New Jersey. His legal representatives seek immediate release and reunification with his spouse and community.

Prior to his detention, Khalil was reportedly subjected to interim suspension by Columbia University in connection with his lead negotiator role during the 2024 Palestinian Solidarity Encampment. He and other students engaging in similar activism allegedly faced harassment and doxxing by pro-Israel groups. Civil society organisations have expressed concern that these actions formed part of a broader pattern of reprisals and may have contributed to the circumstances leading to his detention.

“While Mahmoud Khalil has been unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, including in one of the harshest ICE facilities in the country, he remains a lawful permanent resident with the rights to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and due process—rights that all who live in the US, regardless of immigration status, unquestionably have,” said Justin Mazzola, Deputy Director of Research at Amnesty International USA.

Khalil’s case marks a sharp escalation in the targeting of foreign-born students and faculty engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy on university campuses, particularly those calling for divestment and investment transparency from companies linked to Israel’s military or defence sector. It reflects a broader wave of repression, in which the government employs immigration law as a tool to retaliate directly against those who express opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza that “are consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”

For instance, on 17th March 2025, DHS agents wearing military-style clothing unlawfully arrested and arbitrarily detained Khan Suri as he returned home from an iftar gathering. Agents refused to verify his valid immigration documentation, cited his “social media activity” as justification, and stated that a senior State Department official had ordered his removal. He was transported in an unmarked vehicle, deprived of legal explanation, and denied contact with legal counsel or his family for an extended period.

Over the subsequent days, DHS officials transferred Suri between multiple detention facilities across three states, where he was repeatedly shackled, denied adequate food and water and prevented from observing religious practices. It was only after legal intervention that he was permitted access to basic religious items and a bed. Despite officials conceding that Suri had committed no offence, they maintained his restrictive classification and barred him from engaging in any meaningful activity during his detention.

Suri is a Georgetown professor and postdoctoral scholar on religion and peace processes in the Middle East and South Asia. He is an Indian national in the US with lawful status as a visiting scholar (J-1 visa holder).

The events leading up to Suri’s arbitrary detention provide critical context. Just one month prior, Suri and his spouse, Mapheze Saleh—a Palestinian American—were targets of coordinated online smear campaigns and doxxing after publicly criticising Israel’s actions in Gaza. Pro-Israel groups, including CAMERA.org and Canary Mission, published defamatory materials and disseminated the couple’s personal information, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and silencing.

According to media reports, Canary Mission, a shadowy organisation founded nearly a decade ago, maintains an online blacklist targeting students, academics and professionals it accuses of “anti-Israel activity,” primarily on US university campuses. Operating without named leadership and funded through anonymous channels like the Central Fund of Israel, Canary Mission has created a climate of fear for pro-Palestinian activism. Those listed in its database have reported harassment, disciplinary action, and in some cases, the loss of employment. Several have faced detention at Israeli border crossings. Since the second Trump administration began, some of Canary Mission’s targets have been facing deportation from the USA.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ACLU Of Virginia (@acluva)

On 25th March 2025, six plainclothes ICE agents abducted and arbitrarily detained Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national, former Fulbright scholar, and PhD student at Tufts University, while she was walking to an iftar dinner with friends, planning to break her Ramadan fast in Somerville, Massachusetts. She held a valid F-1 student visa, which the government had quietly revoked four days prior to her arrest. At the time of her detention, no criminal charges had been brought against her.

ICE agents forced her into a waiting vehicle and transferred her between multiple locations before detaining her in a facility in Louisiana. Her legal representatives were allegedly unable to locate her for nearly 24 hours. Despite suffering multiple asthma attacks in detention, she reportedly did not receive appropriate medical care.

During a federal court hearing, Öztürk described the traumatic circumstances of her arrest. “I had never seen police approach and take someone away like this. I thought they were people who had doxxed me and I was afraid for my safety. During the night they came to my cell multiple times and asked me questions about wanting to apply for asylum and if I was a member of a terrorist organisation. I tried to be helpful and answer their questions but I was so tired and didn’t understand what was happening to me.”

Her arbitrary detention followed a series of public statements and activities supporting Palestinian rights. In early March 2025, she became aware that she had been reportedly doxxed by the pro-Israel group Canary Mission for co-authoring an opinion piece co-published in The Tufts Daily in March 2024, entitled “Try Again, President Kumar: Renewing Calls for Tufts to Adopt March 4 TCU Senate Resolutions.” The article criticised the university’s stance regarding demands to acknowledge and respond to the situation in Gaza. According to the university, the publication of the opinion piece did not constitute a violation of any Tufts policies.

On 18th April 2025, the District Court for the District of Vermont ruled that Öztürk’s habeas corpus petition should proceed in Vermont and ordered her return no later than 1st May 2025, setting hearings for her release on bail and on the merits of her petition. However, on 28th April 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed this order pending an emergency motion by the Government. She continues to fight against her deportation.

Similarly, on 14th April 2025, ICE agents in plain clothes abducted and arbitrarily detained Mohsen Mahdawi in Colchester, Vermont, shortly after he attended a naturalisation interview—one of the final steps in the process of acquiring US citizenship. Agents transported him in an unmarked vehicle. He had not been charged with any criminal offence.

Mahdawi, a Palestinian national born and raised in a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, has resided lawfully in Vermont for ten years as a permanent resident. He is also a student at Columbia University and a known organiser of pro-Palestinian campus protests in 2024.

Within an hour, Mahdawi’s legal team filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention on the grounds of violations of his constitutional freedoms, including freedom of expression and due process. ICE attempted to transfer him to a detention facility in Louisiana; however, a federal judge issued an emergency temporary restraining order to prevent his removal from Vermont.

On 30th April 2025, a federal judge ordered Mahdawi’s release on bail, pending adjudication of his habeas petition. The government’s request to stay the release order for seven days was denied. The order permits Mahdawi to remain in Vermont and travel to New York for his studies and legal consultations. His federal court case will proceed in parallel with separate immigration proceedings.

As reported by The New York Times, the federal judge, in granting Mahdawi’s release, emphasised his deep ties to the community and found no indication that he posed a threat to public safety. The court reviewed over 90 statements submitted by community members, academic experts, and professors—many of whom identified as Jewish—who affirmed Mahdawi’s peaceful character and expressed strong support for his release. The judge also spoke of the “extraordinary circumstances” of Mahdawi’s detention and the present moment in history.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The People's Forum (@peoplesforumnyc)

On 23rd April 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies conducted coordinated raids on several residences in Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Canton Township, Michigan. The operations formed part of a year-long investigation into property damage involving pro-Palestinian graffiti—including the phrases “Divest” and “Free Palestine”—reportedly directed at the homes of University of Michigan officials. Authorities estimated total damages at approximately USD 100,000.

According to Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE) and the TAHRIR Coalition—student organisations engaged in non-violent advocacy for divestment from Israel—at least six activists were detained and later released without charge. Reports indicated that electronic devices and other personal property were seized, and in at least one instance, law enforcement refused to present a warrant at the time of entry, and one person was compelled to submit a DNA sample. At another location, police forcibly entered a residence after prolonged negotiations. The presence of ICE agents during the operation could not be independently verified.

The Maurice & Jane Sugar Law Centre for Economic & Social Justice, representing two of the activists whose homes were raided, raised concerns regarding the selective targeting of students perceived to be vocal in pro-Palestinian advocacy. John Philo, the Centre’s legal director, highlighted that the raids occurred within a broader context of campus protest and calls for divestment in the wake of the Palestine-Israel conflict.

In November 2024, 40 students were arrested during a sit-in; 36 of those cases were later dismissed by the local prosecutor, and the remaining four were referred to diversion programmes. Following lobbying by members of the University’s Board of Regents—six of whom had financially supported the Attorney General’s political campaigns—Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel assumed jurisdiction from the local district attorney, a move that departed from standard prosecutorial practice.

The sequence of events has raised serious concerns among civil society organisations regarding potential retaliatory actions linked to the peaceful expression of pro-Palestine activism:

“We call into question the aggressive nature of this morning’s raids of activists’ homes, which follows the recent misuse of prosecutorial power in Michigan and throughout our country against pro-Palestinian activists. In any other context, such minor infractions would be handled by local law enforcement or referred to local, elected prosecutors — not escalated to federal intervention. This disproportionate response further fuels the perception that Muslim and Arab students, and those who stand in solidarity with them, are being treated overly hostile by law enforcement compared to those who commit harm toward American Muslims,” said Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI)—the country’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation.

These cases, including those of Ranjani Srinivasan, Yunseo Chung and others, form part of a broader pattern of punitive measures targeting international students based on their exercise of protected rights to political expression and association. They follow a campaign led by President Trump’s administration to criminalise dissent on university campuses, often framed through allegations of “antisemitism” or “unauthorised protest.” The White House has characterised many universities as “leftist” and “anti-American,” alleging they host “Hamas sympathisers” and “radicals.”

On 29th January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order purportedly aimed at combating “antisemitism,” which calls for the cancellation of visas and the deportation of non-US citizen college students and others who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests. This measure complements an earlier executive order issued that month called “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.”

Weeks later, on 27th March 2025, the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent formal letters to five academic institutions, mischaracterising peaceful protest activities as antisemitic conduct and requesting extensive institutional disclosures, including thousands of private students’ records.

These executive actions conflate legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with hate speech and “material support for terrorism,” facilitating state action against people and academic institutions based on their political opinion, ethnic background or cultural identity. This narrative underpins increased scrutiny of academic institutions perceived as critical of the USA policy, stifling freedom of expression on campuses.

At the centre of this strategy is a newly launched programme named “Catch and Revoke”—a joint initiative involving the State Department, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. As reported by Axios, the programme deploys artificial intelligence to monitor thousands of student visa holders’ social media accounts, scanning for content interpreted as sympathetic to Hamas or other designated groups. Those flagged by the AI system risk visa revocation and removal proceedings. Alarmingly, “Catch and Revoke” draws on public demonstrations reports and legal complaints from anti-Palestinian groups, along with deportation and blacklist efforts by private citizens.

The broader infrastructure underpinning these developments precedes the current administration. Since the Obama era, US federal agencies have quietly built out mechanisms to track speech online. Under Trump’s first term, visa applicants began submitting social media handles for screening, with the data stored in government databases indefinitely. The Biden administration temporarily blocked a plan to expand this to more than 33 million people, citing a lack of demonstrated utility. The second Trump administration appears determined to revive and deepen these efforts.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially estimated that 300 student visas would be revoked. Yet recent data compiled by Inside Higher Ed suggests that the actual figure has surpassed 1,800—spread across dozens of institutions nationwide since January 2025. Rubio has claimed that foreign students have misused their immigration status “not just to study but to participate in movements that vandalise universities, harass students, take over buildings and cause chaos.” However, aside from a handful of high-profile incidents, little public evidence has been provided to justify the scale of enforcement. Many institutions have reported the terminations without citing specific misconduct.

In response, on 17th March 2025, nine UN Special Rapporteurs urged the US Department of Homeland Security and ICE to immediately cease repressive and retaliatory actions against international students and lawful permanent residents engaged in pro-Palestinian university protests. The experts denounced the deportations and visa revocations as “disproportionate, unnecessary and discriminatory,” warning that such measures undermine freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and academic freedom.

They expressed alarm over the chilling effect of reprisals targeting students, faculty and others who have participated in peaceful demonstrations. The experts highlighted the impact on women students and the long-term harm caused by removing people from educational programmes, describing such practices as characteristic of authoritarian systems.

Activist and lawyer targeted by US border agents at airports

On 8th April 2025, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials detained and interrogated Devyn Elijah Springer—known professionally as Musa—, a US citizen, queer activist and journalist, upon arrival at Tampa International Airport following travel to Cuba. CBP agents questioned Musa regarding their political affiliations, travel arrangements and associations with international scholars and activists. The interrogation, which extended over three hours, involved agents from a counterterrorism unit and included repeated questioning, physical searches—including invasive pat-downs—and the search and seizure of Musa’s luggage, notebooks and electronic devices. Musa was denied access to legal counsel when requested and was ultimately released without charge after missing their connecting flight.

CBP officials unlawfully confiscated Musa’s laptop and phone, which contained sensitive and confidential material related to their journalistic work, including protected sources, manuscripts and media files. The devices also held information governed by medical privacy regulations due to Musa’s employment at a reproductive justice organisation. Despite repeated efforts to communicate with CBP, the devices had not been returned at the time of writing. The seizure and prolonged detention have resulted in professional disruption, economic loss and ongoing concern over the potential breach of privileged communications and sensitive data.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Center For Constitutional Rights (@ccrjustice)

In a separate case, on 6th April 2025, CBP officials detained and interrogated civil rights attorney Amir Makled, a US citizen, at Detroit Metropolitan Airport as he re-entered the USA from the Dominican Republic with his family. While the rest of his family were permitted to proceed without incident, CBP officers requested the intervention of a Tactical Terrorism Response Team (TTRT) agent after scanning Makled’s passport. He was subsequently separated from his family and subjected to prolonged questioning regarding his professional background and legal practice.

During his detention, CBP officers acknowledged familiarity with Makled’s work and demanded access to his mobile phone and passcode. Makled refused, citing attorney-client privilege and the confidential nature of communications stored on the device. Despite his objections, agents pressured him and eventually demanded access to his contact list. Although no legal justification was provided for the search or detention, Makled complied with the request to avoid confiscation of his phone. He was released after nearly two hours without formal explanation or documentation of the incident.

Makled is currently representing a student facing charges in connection with a pro-Palestinian protest at the University of Michigan. He interpreted that his detention was linked to this case, and that the CBP’s actions reflect a broader pattern of harassment targeting lawyers, journalists and activists perceived to challenge or criticise government policy on Palestine.

Yale suspends scholar over alleged ties to Palestinian solidarity organisation

On 4th March 2025, Yale Law School suspended Helyeh Doutaghi, Associate Research Scholar and Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy Project, alleging that she refused to cooperate with an internal inquiry into her purported links to the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network—an international solidarity group designated as a terrorist organisation by Canada and the United States in October 2024.

Doutaghi is a recognised scholar in international law, political economy and armed conflict. She completed her PhD in Legal Studies at Carleton University in 2024, with a dissertation focused on the origin, mechanisms, and global impact of US and international sanctions against Iran. Throughout her academic career, she has consistently advocated for the rights and self-determination of oppressed populations, including Palestinians.

According to Yale Law School (YLS), the suspension was prompted by Doutaghi’s alleged refusal to confirm whether she had engaged in prohibited activities involving individuals or entities listed on the US Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Nationals list. The University stated it made repeated requests for engagement prior to taking action. However, Doutaghi has refuted both the substance and the process, alleging retaliatory intent and procedural irregularities.

“I was given only a few hours’ notice by the administration to attend an interrogation based on far-right AI-generated allegations against me,” Doutaghi stated in a public post, describing how she faced online harassment, death threats, and discrimination during Ramadan. “I endured all of this while fasting, and my request for religious accommodations was dismissed. Just a few hours later, YLS placed me on leave, revoked my IT access, and banned me from campus. I was afforded no due process and no reasonable time to consult with my attorney.”

Her suspension has triggered concern among scholars and civil society organisations, many of whom see the case as part of an escalating pattern of institutional retaliation against voices supporting Palestinian rights. Over 1,000 scholars have signed a public letter of support, condemning Yale’s handling of the matter and the broader implications for academic freedom and due process. The letter reads:

“We are particularly troubled about the source of the allegation and its handling: the online publication that Yale Law School relied on was unattributed, unsourced, and had no responsible human author. Accusations levelled by humans can be subject to scrutiny, questioning, and, in case of frivolous and malicious accusations, be subject to accountability measures. But this is not only an example of the threats of poorly managed AI, as serious as that is. The events targeting Dr. Doutaghi speak to an alarming failure by powerful education institutions to stand up for the rights of their students, faculty and staff, in particular those with precarious immigration status. It is the role of universities, particularly those who are so well endowed with financial resources, to stand up as protectors of democracy, the importance of knowledge, the sharing and dissemination of reasoned speech.”

The signatories called on Yale University, Yale Law School and the Law and Political Economy Project to publicly apologise and take steps to restore Doutaghi’s professional reputation and standing. They further urged universities across the country to defend scholars engaged in critical research and to reject the encroachment of politically motivated censorship, particularly when amplified by unreliable automated tools.

Suspended for Pro-Palestine Speech: My Statement on Yale Law School’s Embrace of AI-Generated Smears 1/3 pic.twitter.com/9GomHHXTNO

— Helyeh Doutaghi (@Helyeh_Doutaghi) March 12, 2025

Funding withdrawn from Asian American organisation over solidarity with Palestine

On 30th January 2025, the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, one of the most prominent social justice funders in the USA, abruptly terminated its relationship with 18 Million Rising (18MR), cancelling the final $250,000 payment of a multi-year grant. The decision followed a 15-month-old Instagram post in which 18MR expressed solidarity with Palestinians and called on Asian Americans to speak out against Israeli oppression.

The grant cancellation, which represents a quarter of 18MR’s annual operating budget, was conveyed during a Zoom meeting between Wellspring executives and 18MR’s executive director, Irma Shauf-Bajar. According to Shauf-Bajar, Wellspring claimed that their board objected not to the broader campaign but specifically to the wording of the Instagram post. The post, published in the days following the 7th of October 2023, referred to Palestinians “rising up against Israeli settler colonial violence” and concluded with a call to end both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Wellspring reportedly interpreted the message as “welcoming” the attack—a characterisation that Shauf-Bajar firmly denies.

18MR is among the largest Asian American advocacy organisations in the USA. Its work spans racial justice, abolition, and democratic participation, with a mission to build collective power for marginalised communities. The loss of funding, Shauf-Bajar noted, is more than financial—it signals a deepening climate of repression for organisations engaging in Palestine solidarity work:

“It is deeply disheartening that the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund leadership chose to revoke our funding due to our solidarity with the Palestinian People, especially at a time when the world bears witness to genocide funded by US tax dollars. This act of censorship betrays the principles of partnership and reflects the chilling realities of our current political climate. We are in a pivotal moment, facing the rise of fascism, and it is imperative that we organise and fight to preserve what remains of our democracy. At 18 Million Rising, we stand unwavering in our principled commitment to solidarity with Palestine and all oppressed peoples of the world. As a leader, I carry the weight of responsibility for my team and accountability to the communities we serve. While fear is ever-present, my dedication to our peoples movement reminds me to release that fear and use that energy into action. We are called to act boldly, and we will answer that call.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 18 Million Rising (@18millionrising)

Reproductive healthcare providers arrested, facing felony charges under Texas abortion ban

On 17th March 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the arrest of Maria Margarita Rojas, a qualified midwife operating in the Houston area, for allegedly performing an abortion and practising medicine without a licence. Rojas was first arrested on 6th March 2025 while driving to one of her clinics. Although Rojas posted bond on 6th March, she remained detained until the following day and was released under electronic monitoring.

The charges, brought under Texas’s near-total abortion ban, carry a potential sentence of up to twenty years in prison. One day later, two of Rojas’s colleagues—Jose Ley and Rubildo Labanino Matos—were also arrested. Ley faces similar accusations of unlicensed medical practice and abortion provision, while Matos has been charged with conspiracy and unauthorised medical practice. A temporary restraining order has since been filed to close the clinics associated with Rojas.

At a 27th March 2025 court hearing, Rojas’s legal team argued that the case lacked evidentiary foundation, describing her telemedicine-based practice as lawful and within the scope of midwifery. They criticised the arrest affidavit as speculative and raised procedural concerns, including the use of an arrest warrant rather than a criminal complaint and the absence of a grand jury indictment.

Rojas’s clinics primarily served low-income and Spanish-speaking patients—communities long identified by reproductive rights organisations as disproportionately affected by healthcare inequalities and surveillance. Advocates warned that the arrests may establish a precedent for punitive legal action against providers serving structurally marginalised populations.

“These actions send a chilling message. This is not just about enforcing a law—it’s about isolating and punishing providers who serve people with the least access to care and political protection,” said Paula Ávila-Guillén, a Colombian human rights lawyer and the Executive Director of The Women’s Equality Centre.

Texas has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US, imposing a near-total ban on abortion, with limited exceptions. Essential reproductive healthcare providers who violate Texas’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties. Rojas’s prosecution is apparently the first criminal case in Texas for alleged abortion provision since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 (see introduction).

In a separate case from December 2024, Paxton’s office sued New York-based physician Margaret Daley Carpenter for mailing abortion medication to Texas residents. On 13th February 2025, a Collin County judge barred the physician—who was neither present in court nor represented—from continuing to prescribe to Texas patients and imposed fines exceeding USD 100,000.

While some courts have resisted extraterritorial applications of state abortion bans, legal clarity remains elusive. On 31st March 2025, a federal judge in Alabama ruled that state authorities could not prosecute individuals or organisations assisting pregnant people in travelling out of state to obtain lawful abortion services.

President Trump targets law firms, lawyers and prosecutors

Since March 2025, President Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign targeting law firms that have challenged his administration or previously investigated him. A memo issued on 22nd March 2025 instructs the US Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to sanction legal professionals who engage in what the administration characterises as “unreasonable” or “frivolous” litigation against the federal government.

Framed as an effort to uphold professional ethics, the memo has in practice paved the way for executive orders targeting at least 200 law firms, many of which are considered among the most prominent in the USA, including firms such as Paul Weiss, Perkins Coi, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey LLP, and WilmerHale. According to legal experts, these actions are aimed at chilling dissent and deterring clients from engaging legal representation that may be critical of the administration.

Notably, on 14th March, when Donald Trump issued an executive order against a New York-based firm that once employed Mark Pomerantz, a former special prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s inquiry into Trump’s finances, the order accused the firm of “unlawful discrimination” for implementing DEI initiatives and sought to revoke the security clearances and government building access of its attorneys. Such measures would have severely impaired the firm’s capacity to operate, particularly in federal litigation.

However, on 20th March, President Trump withdrew the order, announcing a deal with the firm’s chairman. As part of the agreement, Paul Weiss reportedly committed to providing $40 million in pro bono services aligned with the administration’s priorities and ending its DEI policies.

The broader context signals a concerted strategy to erode checks on executive power. On 5th February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a directive accusing prosecutors like Jack Smith and Letitia James of “the pursuit of improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions,” specifically around the events of 6th January 2021. Moreover, over 50 federal prosecutors have reportedly been dismissed, including Adam Schleifer, who was removed after pursuing a case against a Trump supporter.

Funding freeze and tax threats to Harvard raise alarms over academic freedom and political interference

On 11th April 2025, the Trump administration issued a formal letter to Harvard University demanding extensive changes as a condition for continued federal support. These included diminishing the role of students and faculty in university governance, the immediate referral of foreign students with conduct violations to immigration authorities, the discontinuation of all DEI programmes, and the imposition of external audits on several academic departments. The administration further requested access to detailed hiring and admissions data disaggregated by race and nationality, alongside the imposition of mandatory plagiarism screenings for academic appointments.

Three days later, Harvard issued a formal response rejecting the federal demands and reaffirming its institutional autonomy. The university stated that it would not surrender its independence or forgo its constitutional protections, in what was widely interpreted as a significant institutional repudiation of executive overreach. “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

Hours later, the US Department of Education announced the freezing of approximately USD 2.2 billion in grants and USD 60 million in contracts, alleging failing to adequately protect Jewish students on campus from antisemitic discrimination and harassment, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A task force within the Department accused the university of promoting an “entitlement mindset” and failing to meet applicable standards; however, it provided no specific legal findings to support these allegations. “The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.”

Critics have argued that conditioning federal support on ideological conformity may contravene constitutional protections, including academic freedom, under the pretext of addressing campus antisemitism. “They’re attempting to undermine and destabilise and ultimately control higher education. And at one level, it’s an assault on higher education; at another level, it could be seen as prevalent to a full-on assault on democracy. So I think this is a threat to the future of the United States of America, and because of this country’s role in the world, a threat to the entirety of the globe at this moment,” said Todd Wolfson, the president of the American Association of University Professors.

In parallel, the administration threatened to initiate proceedings to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code—a process which falls under the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Media reports have suggested that the Treasury Department informally requested the IRS to consider revocation, raising serious concerns regarding potential political interference in regulatory decision-making.

The National Council of Nonprofits explained that the executive branch lacks the authority to unilaterally redefine eligibility criteria under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Code establishes that tax-exempt status applies to organisations that are “organised and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes,” or other specified public interest activities. Amendments to this statutory framework fall within the remit of Congress. Furthermore, the IRS may only revoke an organisation’s tax-exempt status upon determining non-compliance with applicable legal standards, and it must follow due process.

Harvard is among dozens of universities targeted in recent weeks. The current administration has justified its actions against academic institutions as part of an extensive campaign to address alleged antisemitism, following nationwide student-led protests against Israel’s war on Palestine.

In March 2025, the Department of Education notified at least 60 institutions—including Columbia University, Northwestern University, the University of Michigan, and Tufts University—alleging non-compliance with anti-discrimination obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to these warnings, the administration has reportedly suspended access to federal research funding at several universities, raising concerns about the politicisation of regulatory enforcement mechanisms and the chilling effect on academic freedom.

More than 150 presidents of US colleges and universities have signed a joint statement condemning what they describe as “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” by the Trump administration, marking the strongest coordinated response to date from the higher education sector:

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding. -

Texas bill to weaken anti-SLAPP protections

On 18th February 2025, Representative Mano DeAyala (R-Houston) introduced House Bill 2988, which seeks to amend the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), a key legal safeguard enacted in 2011 to protect against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits.

Under the current TCPA, defendants who successfully invoke the statute can have claims dismissed early and recover legal costs — an essential deterrent that levels the playing field for individuals without the resources to defend themselves. HB 2988 would eliminate the mandatory reimbursement of attorneys’ fees for those targeted by SLAPP suits, a move that civil society organisations argue would severely undermine the law’s purpose. Without the promise of fee recovery, many victims of these lawsuits could struggle to secure legal representation, leaving them exposed to legal intimidation for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

While DeAyala has maintained the reforms are necessary to prevent misuse of the statute—claiming it is being deployed as a delaying tactic with few consequences—free speech defenders argue the proposal reflects a troubling shift. For example, Laura Prather, Chair of the Media Law practice at Haynes Boone, warned that the bill could have chilling effects. “Right now, under the law, you get your fees back. It helps you get a lawyer to begin with. It helps deter frivolous lawsuits. And it helps make you whole when somebody targets your constitutional rights by filing a bogus lawsuit against you,” she said.

More concerningly, HB 2988 forms part of a broader legislative trend to curtail the scope of the TCPA. Senate Bill 336, sponsored by Senator Bryan Hughes, and its companion HB 2459, led by Representative Jeff Leach, propose further rollbacks. These bills would eliminate the stay on discovery and trial court proceedings during interlocutory appeals in cases where a judge deems a motion untimely, frivolous, or subject to an exception.

Expression

Journalists attacked while covering protests

On 26th March 2025, sergeants-at-arms at the Tennessee State Capitol physically pulled independent journalist Jordyn Gualdani, a wheelchair user, while he documented a protest during a House Education Committee meeting. The protest opposed a bill allowing local school boards to deny enrolment in public schools to children residing in the state without legal status.

According to the US Press Freedom Tracker, journalists moved to the front of the room to document the protest when protesters began chanting as the vote commenced. At that point, Capitol security began pushing journalists away from the protest and towards the back of the chamber. Gualdani described how one officer grabbed his shoulder and pulled him backwards, which nearly destabilised his wheelchair. He emphasised that officials often label his presence a “fire hazard,” even when he remains in designated areas that do not obstruct movement. Capitol security personnel have repeatedly engaged in discriminatory and obstructive conduct towards Gualdani, despite his visible press identification.

Photojournalist Seth Herald, who covered the hearing for Reuters, confirmed that sergeants-at-arms pushed journalists during the protest. He reported that one officer attempted to force him into a crowded space and responded dismissively when Herald raised concerns about interference with his work. Both journalists described increasingly restrictive and inconsistent rules on press positioning inside committee rooms, which they believe aim to deter effective media coverage.

Independent journalist Jordyn Gualdani was pulled by the shoulder by a sergeant-at-arms while documenting a protest March 26 at the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville It’s part of a pattern, he said, of discriminatory behavior toward him as a visibly disabled journalist:

[image or embed]

— U.S. Press Freedom Tracker (@pressfreedomtracker.us) April 4, 2025 at 8:32 PM

Journalist interrogated and phone searched by DHS at Newark Airport

On 24th March 2025, DHS agents detained and interrogated freelance journalist and Palestinian American national Hebh Jamal upon her arrival at Newark Liberty International Airport with her husband and two children. Jamal, who lives in Germany with her family and advocates for Palestinian rights, reported that agents questioned her about her travel history, professional activities and recent publications. They searched her mobile phone, demanded her contact details and social media handles, and compelled her to write down her device password under threat of force. Jamal noted that the officers already knew of her journalistic work and activism.

The agents also interrogated her husband, a German national, photographed every page of his passport, and asked about his past residence in Gaza and his family members. They warned him not to engage in any political activity, which Jamal interpreted as a veiled threat. Border officials separated the couple during the secondary screening process, which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Before departure from Frankfurt Airport, reportedly, four DHS agents also approached Jamal at the gate, stating they were looking for her husband. One officer claimed they needed to verify his ESTA visa.

Jamal later informed Amnesty International of the incident and sought assistance in assessing whether DHS agents had installed spyware on her phone. She waited until she left the USA to speak publicly about the experience, expressing concern that further action could result in increased harassment.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hebh Jamal (@hebh_jamal)

Dismantling of USAGM threatens independent media

On 14th March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order initiating the dismantling of seven federal entities, among them the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM)—the public body responsible for overseeing Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and other international broadcasting networks. The decision ordered operations to be reduced to the legal minimum and effectively froze the functioning of USAGM’s media arms. This came after Trump announced in December 2024 that he would change VOA’s leadership to “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media.”

Almost overnight, over 4,600 employees were thrust into uncertainty. The immediate impact has been severe. VOA placed nearly all of its staff on administrative leave, while funding grants to RFE/RL and RFA were abruptly terminated. Satellite broadcast services supporting Russian-language programming from RFE/RL’s Current Time network—an outlet blacklisted by Moscow—were cut off in early April 2025. These measures have not only imperilled the livelihoods of thousands but also weakened the editorial infrastructure of outlets that provide independent reporting in countries where press freedom is threatened.

At least 84 staff members at USAGM networks risk deportation if their contracts are terminated. Among them, 23 could face imprisonment or persecution in states such as Belarus, Russia, Myanmar and Vietnam. Some have already endured repression.

Several lawsuits have followed. For example, on 22nd April 2025, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order halting planned mass terminations:

“The court's preliminary injunction instructs the government to take all necessary steps to restore staffing and resume USAGM's radio, television, and digital content. It also requires the agency to provide monthly compliance reports and reinstate congressionally approved grant funding to ensure that outlets can fulfil their mandate to deliver accurate, objective, and comprehensive journalism.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by CPJ (@committeetoprotectjournalists)

White House tightens grip on press access

On 15th April 2025, the White House announced that it will no longer reserve a regular slot in the presidential press pool for three independent news agencies, including The Associated Press (AP), marking a significant departure from decades of established practice. The decision follows a protracted legal dispute with the AP over press access. It has also raised serious concerns regarding government restrictions on access to timely, nonpartisan reporting for AP’s wide network of subscribers, interfering in media freedoms and eroding press independence in the USA.

As previously reported, on 11th February 2025, two journalists from the AP were banned from access to White House-related press briefings due to the agency’s editorial policy to continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its internationally recognised denomination rather than the presidentially decreed “Gulf of America.” AP filed a lawsuit against administration officials, but a federal judge denied the agency’s request for the immediate restoration of full access to presidential events for its journalists, ruling that access to the president is at his discretion and not a constitutional right.

For two months, AP journalists and photographers have been denied access to presidential events typically covered by the press pool. However, on 8th April 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s actions constituted a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression and prohibits state retaliation against protected speech. Judge Trevor McFadden ordered the immediate restoration of full access for AP reporters.

Despite the ruling, the White House has responded with a revised press policy that allows AP and other wire services occasional—rather than routine—access to events. Implementation of this policy has been inconsistent. For example, an AP photographer was permitted into the Oval Office on 10th April, following several days of exclusion. Meanwhile, at least two pool reports were withheld from official distribution channels on 7th and 8th April. These reports included one noting the cancellation of a press conference between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and another highlighting the exclusion of AP reporters from presidential travel coverage.

Officials target independent journalists amid rising hostility towards media

Between February and March 2025, actions by senior US officials raised concerns about growing hostility towards independent media. Public stigmatisation of journalists and efforts to discredit critical reporting reflect an increasingly adverse environment for press freedom. This situation, coupled with President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, echoed and amplified by his allies, has contributed to a chilling effect across newsrooms. The following incidents illustrate this trend:

On 21st February 2025, during a press conference at the White House, President Trump publicly reprimanded a journalist for reading her question from notes. The exchange occurred shortly after the swearing-in ceremony of Howard Lutnick as Secretary of Commerce. When correspondent Kate Sullivan asked about digital service taxes, the president interrupted, querying her use of notes. In a further instance during the same press engagement, President Trump mocked another reporter from ABC News, who had raised concerns about public criticism directed at Elon Musk and his temporary advisory committee on DOGE. He asked, “Who do you work for?” and, upon receiving an answer, added, “No wonder.”

On 7th March 2025, Trevor Stanley, acting as personal legal counsel to US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, issued a cease and desist letter to The Dakota Scout, an independent news outlet based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The letter followed the publication of an investigative report, jointly produced by The Dakota Scout and KSFL-TV, examining the use of two taxpayer-funded credit cards during Noem’s tenure as Governor of South Dakota.

The investigation reportedly reviewed thousands of pages of financial records, revealing approximately USD 650,000 in expenditures. These expenses primarily related to travel and accommodation costs incurred by Noem’s security detail while accompanying her to political events, including campaign rallies and partisan conferences. The report stated that the credit card receipts were only released following a public records lawsuit initiated by the outlet, and that The Dakota Scout was subsequently threatened with a restraining order aimed at recovering the disclosed documents.

In his correspondence, Stanley alleged that The Dakota Scout had published “false, misleading, and inaccurate statements” and claimed that Noem had personally charged only USD 2,000. He demanded that the outlet cease further reporting to the contrary, threatening legal action and citing potential claims for compensatory and punitive damages totalling “millions of dollars.”

Use of federal regulatory powers to target news media

Between January and April 2025, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, initiated a series of regulatory proceedings against major media outlets, prompting concern regarding the use of state authority to exert pressure on journalists and restrict independent reporting.

Since assuming the position on 20th January 2025, Carr—a senior Republican figure and political appointee of President Trump—has led investigations targeting NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR and PBS, in addition to cable-affiliated entities and private corporations. For example, the FCC reinstated complaints about the editorial content and programming decisions made in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, including ABC News’ moderation of the televised debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and Vice President Kamala Harris’s appearances on 60 Minutes (CBS) and Saturday Night Live (NBC).

The reopening of these complaints forms part of a broader trend under Carr’s leadership, marked by intensified use of litigation to silence media dissent. Notably, in December 2024, ABC News agreed to pay Donald Trump USD 15 million in a defamation case widely regarded by legal experts as defensible. Trump alleged that the network’s anchor, George Stephanopoulos, defamed him by saying that a federal jury had found him liable for rape when in fact it had found him liable for sexual abuse.

Legal experts warned that such outcomes risk institutionalising self-censorship and setting dangerous precedents for smaller news organisations. “When they settle, not only are they putting a target on their back, they’re putting a target on the backs of smaller outlets that don’t have those kinds of legal resources,” said Seth Stern, an attorney and director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation. These lawsuits, including another filed in December 2024 against the Des Moines Register for allegedly publishing an inaccurate poll, appear designed to deter critical reporting.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by CPJ (@committeetoprotectjournalists)

Mississippi court orders removal of editorial criticising local official

On 18th February 2025, the Hinds County Chancery Court in Mississippi ordered The Clarksdale Press Register to remove from its website an editorial published on 8th February 2025. The editorial criticised the Clarksdale city administration for failing to adequately inform the public and local media about a meeting concerning proposed tax increases on alcohol, tobacco and cannabis products, intended to fund the city’s police force. The editorial expressed support for the intended purpose of the tax but raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency, as the meeting reportedly occurred in private and notice was limited to a posting at city hall.

The court concluded that the editorial amounted to defamation against public officials, asserting that it had been published with “actual malice in reckless disregard of the truth,” and found that it interfered with the officials’ ability to advocate for legislative measures during the current session. On that basis, the court granted the City of Clarksdale’s request for the editorial’s removal. The newspaper complied with the order.

Press freedom organisations have condemned this decision, as it ignores the constitutional prohibition on “prior restraints” censoring the press. “This case strikes at the very core of why local journalism is important—it keeps the public informed about what is happening in their community and holds government officials to account,” said CPJ US, Canada and Caribbean program coordinator Katherine Jacobsen.

Kehlani concert cancelled over pro-Palestinian expressions

On 23rd April 2025, Cornell University cancelled a scheduled performance by R&B artist Kehlani, following complaints addressed to the university’s president alleging that the singer had expressed “antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiments” and that her participation would foster “division and discord” on campus. The artist had been invited to perform at Slope Day, an annual university celebration marking the end of the academic year.

Following the announcement of Kehlani’s participation, some students and parents expressed concern over the artist’s political views, specifically her public expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Kehlani, whose first two albums ranked in the top three of the US Billboard charts in 2017 and 2020, has on several occasions publicly supported Palestinian rights.

The concert’s cancellation took place in the broader context of increased political scrutiny of academic institutions. Earlier in April, the Trump administration froze approximately USD 1 billion in federal funding to Cornell University (see above). Furthermore, the cancelled concert marked the second high-profile musical event that week to draw criticism over artists supporting Palestinian rights, following backlash against the Irish hip-hop group Kneecap, who concluded their Coachella performance in California with pro-Palestinian messages.

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban law despite concerns over free expression

On 17th January 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which prohibits TikTok from operating in the country unless divested from Chinese ownership, does not infringe the First Amendment.

The Court upheld the government’s national security justification, setting a concerning precedent for disproportionate restrictions on free speech.

Although the ban officially took effect on 19th January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on 20th January suspending its enforcement for 75 days, with the President maintaining full discretion over its implementation and expanding his executive authority.

On 4th April 2025, President Trump issued a second executive order extending the deadline by 75 days. As of now, the situation remains unresolved. TikTok must comply with the legal requirement to divest from Chinese ownership by 19th June 2025 or face a nationwide ban under US law.

Trump’s #TikTok Executive Order aims to consolidate his power over the digital public sphere. Our statement from @ramyakrishnan.bsky.social below. knightcolumbia.org/content/trum...

[image or embed]

— Knight First Amendment Institute (@knightcolumbia.org) January 21, 2025 at 11:10 PM

Texas drag show bans spark legal pushback

On 28th February 2025, the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents adopted a resolution banning drag performances from being held in university “Special Event Venues.” The resolution described such performances as inconsistent with the institution’s values and stated they could contribute to a hostile environment for women in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Citing the “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order by President Trump and a letter of support from Governor Abbott, the Board further asserted that university-hosted drag events might breach federal and state directives concerning “gender ideology”. As a result, the Chancellor instructed university presidents to cancel scheduled drag events and revise venue-use policies accordingly. The Queer Empowerment Council’s annual event, Draggieland 2025, was subsequently cancelled and ticket purchases refunded.

Shortly afterwards, the University of Texas (UT) System Board of Regents issued a similar ban, asserting that public university venues should not host drag shows. UT officials echoed the rationale used by Texas A&M, referencing executive orders and concerns regarding the depiction of women. On 24th March 2025, a federal judge struck down Texas A&M’s drag ban, ruling that drag “is speech and expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

Following this, on 22nd April 2025, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas called on the university to withdraw its ban, arguing that it mirrors the same policy that was recently struck down in court. They referred to the recent federal judgment, which affirmed that expressive content of this nature falls under constitutional protection, including within the context of public higher education institutions.

“The University of Texas System must immediately rescind its unconstitutional anti-drag policy, which is an affront to its students’ First Amendment rights and its stated commitment to free speech and academic freedom. The UT System’s vague and discriminatory ban on drag performances will make its campuses less free, less fair, and less welcoming for every student — especially LGBTQIA+ students. Texans expect state institutions to vigorously protect our fundamental rights and freedoms, no exceptions,” said Chloe Kempf, staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas.

Charges dropped against journalists charged while covering protests

On 18th January 2025, officers from the Gary Police Department arrested freelance photojournalist Matthew Kaplan while he documented a demonstration against planned mass deportations. The protest took place near the Gary/Chicago International Airport, where protesters marched from a nearby train station to oppose the use of the facility by ICE for deportation flights. After approximately ten minutes near the airport, the group began walking back. Police officers followed them, ordered them off the highway, and began arresting people, including Kaplan.

Kaplan, who was photographing a detained protester being escorted to a police vehicle, described how an officer grabbed him without warning. Officers transported Kaplan to the Gary Police Station and held him for approximately two hours before releasing him on charges of disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, and resisting law enforcement.

In late March 2025, a judge granted the motion to dismiss the charges, and court officials cancelled Kaplan’s scheduled April trial.

“I’m almost 70, and I’ve been photographing demonstrations for years now. Even though I didn’t have a press pass, I felt like it was clear that I was acting like a journalist. As I was sitting there in lockup, I was feeling that, however bad this is for me, I was pretty sure I was going home. But there are a lot of people who are much more afraid than I am right now,” said Kaplan.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Matthew Kaplan (@mkaplanphoto)

Portland settles lawsuit over police violence against journalists during 2020 protests

On 5th March 2025, the Portland City Council approved a settlement agreement to resolve a lawsuit brought by nine journalists and legal observers who sustained injuries during racial justice protests in 2020. The Council authorised a payment of USD 938,328 to the plaintiffs, each of whom documented the protests in a non-participatory capacity. The plaintiffs included independent reporters and volunteer legal observers who alleged that officers from the Portland Police Bureau used excessive force against them while they exercised their constitutional freedoms to report on protests.

According to the original complaint filed on 28th June 2020, Portland police officers struck the plaintiffs with batons and rubber bullets, sprayed them with pepper spray and tear gas, and, in some cases, arrested them without lawful grounds. The plaintiffs also reported that law enforcement personnel seized their equipment, despite clear identification as members of the press or legal observer corps. In response, the City agreed not only to financial compensation but also to amend the Portland Police Bureau’s policy manual to include enhanced protections for journalists and legal observers through 31st December 2028.

Deputy City Attorney Denis Vannier advised the Council that the decision to settle stemmed from a comprehensive review of the evidence and other legal considerations, without disclosing specific details publicly. The vote passed with near-unanimous support.

Two convicted for plotting to kill Iranian American journalist

On 20th March 2025, a federal jury convicted Rafat Amirov and Polad Omarov of five criminal offences, including conspiracy to commit murder for hire, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, and money laundering. The proceedings established that the defendants conspired to assassinate Iranian American journalist and activist Masih Alinejad at her residence in New York. Prosecutors presented evidence linking the plot to a transnational repression effort reportedly orchestrated by a network in Iran, which included senior officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The verdict marked a significant development in efforts to address transnational repression targeting dissidents abroad. Alinejad, known for her campaigns advocating for women’s rights in Iran, including the “My Stealthy Freedom” initiative, has faced sustained threats from Iranian authorities. The court heard that prior attempts to abduct her, including a failed kidnapping scheme in Turkey in 2018 and another in New York, were part of an ongoing strategy to silence her activism. The prosecution argued that by 2022, the Iranian government had engaged organised crime figures based in Eastern Europe to carry out the assassination.

Alinejad, who has resided in the USA since 2009 following reprisals in Iran, did not attend the trial but publicly welcomed the verdict as a measure of justice. “I am relieved that after nearly three years, the men who plotted to kill me have been found guilty. But make no mistake, the real masterminds of this crime are still in power in Iran,” she said.

Peaceful Assembly

Nearly 100 arrested during peaceful protest calling for the release of a Palestinian student

On 13th March 2025, New York City police arrested 98 protesters in a non-violent sit-in at Trump Tower, organised by Jewish Voice for Peace. The protest demanded the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil (see association). Protesters, many wearing T-shirts reading “Jews say stop arming Israel”, chanted slogans in support of Khalil and against the Trump administration’s stance on Palestine-related activism. Charges against protesters include trespassing, obstruction and resisting arrest.

The protest formed part of a nationwide wave of student- and community-led mobilisation opposing the criminalisation of pro-Palestinian expression. Peaceful protests linked to Khalil’s case were previously held on 11th and 12th March, reflecting mounting concern over the use of immigration laws to suppress dissent.

Protesters arrested and tasered at town hall meeting in Georgia

On 15th April 2025, Acworth Police officers arrested three protesters and used Tasers against at least two during a public town hall hosted by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene in Acworth, Georgia. The event, attended by pre-screened constituents, was disrupted by several protesters who displayed signs and voiced dissent. Police removed six protesters, citing prior knowledge of potential disruptions based on online activity. According to the Acworth Police Department, the use of force occurred after two protesters allegedly resisted and harmed officers. Charges include obstruction, battery and violation of a municipal ordinance for the use of profane language.

The incident forms part of a broader trend in which town hall meetings have faced increasingly restrictive environments. Numerous lawmakers across party lines have encountered public criticism and protests from constituents in recent weeks. Several members of Congress, including Republican Representatives and Senators, have since cancelled in-person events or shifted to remote formats. House leadership has publicly discouraged in-person engagement, citing concerns over security and alleged politically motivated disruptions.

Jury verdict against Greenpeace underscores use of SLAPPs to silence environmental defenders

On 19th March 2025, a jury in North Dakota found Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, and Greenpeace International liable for over USD 660 million in a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer. The company alleged that Greenpeace entities organised protests, published defamatory statements and contributed to financial losses linked to opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline.

As documented by CIVICUS Lens, the Dakota Access Pipeline project provoked sustained protest from Indigenous communities in 2016 and 2017, particularly members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who expressed concern over environmental risks to their water sources. Tensions escalated when construction personnel bulldozed a site considered sacred by the community. At the height of mobilisation, thousands gathered in protest camps. Law enforcement and private security responded with militarised violence.

While Greenpeace entities supported the protests, their role remained subsidiary. Greenpeace Inc. provided training in non-violent direct action and published materials consistent with those produced by other organisations that were not subject to litigation. Greenpeace International was one of approximately 500 organisations that signed a joint open letter in solidarity. Protesters did not act under the direction of Greenpeace, and many participants were unaware of the organisation’s involvement.

Despite this, the jury held Greenpeace solely responsible for the alleged damage and disruption. The decision to pursue litigation against Greenpeace appears to reflect a broader strategy to deter public criticism of fossil fuel companies. The CEO of Energy Transfer publicly acknowledged that the lawsuit aimed to “send a message.”

The lawsuit has been widely recognised as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), intended to retaliate against peaceful protests opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline between 2016 and 2017. CIVICUS have condemned this lawsuit as a blatant attempt to silence the claims of the indigenous-led movement, who protested to protect their land and territory.

The case against @Greenpeace exemplifies a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (#SLAPP), retaliating against #peacefulprotests opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline.

These protests supported the @StandingRockST’s efforts to protect its water & land. #WeWillNotBeSilenced pic.twitter.com/GQLKWRLS5K

— CIVICUS (@CIVICUSalliance) March 25, 2025

Proposed State laws threaten freedom of assembly

As previously reported, the first months of 2025 have seen an alarming legislative push in 22 states, further threatening restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly. At least 41 state-level bills introduced between January and April 2025 would impose new restrictions on protests. Notably, bills in Indiana (SB 286), Iowa (HF 25), Missouri (HB 601), New York (S 723), and North Dakota (HB 1240) seek to criminalise the use of masks during protests. They could also expose protesters to heightened surveillance technologies and intimidation tactics, as evidenced by the doxing attempts over the past year against pro-Palestine protesters.

Meanwhile, Minnesota’s new bill (SF 1363) introduces new civil and criminal liabilities for those supporting protesters who engage peacefully in demonstrations on a critical public service facility, pipelines or other utility property. These restrictions show a broader trend since 2017 of escalating constraints on protests and could trigger a new wave of repression against those expressing dissenting views.

On 24th March 2025, the Senate and General Assembly of New Jersey passed bill A4652, a legislative proposal that significantly expands the scope of criminal liability for protest-related activities. The bill creates a new offence of “inciting a public brawl,” defined broadly to include any person who “acts with purpose to organise or promote” a group of four or more people to engage in “disorderly conduct.” Under New Jersey law, “disorderly conduct” includes behaviour that merely risks “public inconvenience,” such as “tumultuous conduct”—a vague standard frequently used to criminalise protesters.

The legislation introduces heightened penalties for organisers, promoters and participants in protests that might result in even minimal disruption to nearby public events. If a person organises a gathering “with purpose to disrupt” or “knowing” a disruption is likely, the offence becomes a felony punishable by up to 18 months’ imprisonment and a USD 10,000 fine. The bill does not define “organising” or “promoting,” nor does it require the disturbance to be substantial or prolonged. The bill is currently being considered by Governor Phil Murphy.

Lawmakers push to criminalise boycotts

On 31st January 2025, a bloc of Republican legislators led by Congressman Michael Lawler introduced H.R. 867, the “IGO Anti-Boycott Act”. The bill seeks to amend the 2018 Anti-Boycott Act by expanding its reach to include international governmental organisations (IGOs), including the United Nations. If enacted, it would criminalise compliance with or support for boycott initiatives launched, specifically those perceived to target Israel.

The proposed legislation has drawn criticism for its potential to infringe upon protected fundamental freedoms. At its core, H.R. 867 would expose individuals, civil society organisations and businesses to fines of up to USD 1 million and imprisonment for up to 20 years for honouring boycott calls—even those grounded in internationally recognised human rights frameworks.

Congressman Lawler has defended the bill as a bipartisan measure to “protect US citizens and allies from economic warfare,” referencing the UN’s historical criticism of Israel’s human rights record. Yet civil society organisations view the bill as part of a broader campaign to silence dissent. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has asserted that:

“The right to boycott is an intrinsic part of the First Amendment and a cornerstone of American democracy – from resisting British colonial rule to supporting civil rights and opposing apartheid in South Africa. That right must not be infringed. This bill would criminalise U.S. individuals and businesses who support peaceful, internationally-recognised calls for human rights accountability. It would chill constitutionally protected political speech and advocacy, particularly efforts to end U.S. complicity in Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. And it would set a dangerous precedent by empowering the federal government to punish Americans for exercising moral, ethical, and political convictions.”

As of April 2025, the bill is under review by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mass clemency for Capitol attack convicts

On 20th January 2025, President Donald Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people convicted in connection with the 6th January 2021 Capitol attack, including leaders of armed extremist groups. The decision included those convicted of violent offences against law enforcement and seditious conspiracy, effectively removing legal accountability for serious crimes that sought to disrupt democratic processes.

Human rights experts and civil society organisations have expressed alarm that the pardons undermine the rule of law and embolden violent non-state actors. The action risks legitimising political violence and creates a precedent that may encourage future attacks on democratic institutions. It also signals impunity for ideologically motivated violence and may weaken protections for journalists, government officials, and marginalised communities who are often targets of such threats.

“Hands Off” movement spurs unprecedented wave of nationwide protest against Trump administration

On 5th April 2025, the country experienced its largest single-day mobilisation since the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) began tracking protest activity in 2020. More than 1,100 protests were held across all 50 states under the “Hands Off” banner, coordinated by grassroots networks including Indivisible and the 50501 movement. The protests denounced a broad array of policy measures advanced by the Trump administration, including the dismantling of federal institutions through DOGE, as well as rollbacks on migrants’ rights, reproductive autonomy and environmental protections.

The protests remained largely peaceful and faced minimal counter-mobilisation. Protesters expressed concern over the administration’s alleged erosion of democratic governance and the growing concentration of power within the executive branch, often pursued through non-transparent and extralegal frameworks. Critics contend that DOGE’s interventions have significantly weakened essential public services and curtailed institutional accountability.

A second nationwide mobilisation on 19th April drew thousands more to the streets in major cities such as New York, Washington D.C. and Chicago, alongside smaller cities. Solidarity demonstrations were also reported internationally, including in Dublin and other cities. The 50501 movement led over 400 coordinated actions advancing a common message: resistance to perceived authoritarianism and the defence of democratic principles.

Protesters displayed placards with slogans such as “It’s Our Turn to Fight Tyranny” and “The Fascists Are Coming”, coinciding with commemorations of the 250th anniversary of the American Revolutionary War. Organisers estimate that total participation may exceed 11 million people—roughly 3.5 per cent of the US population—indicating a concerted push to catalyse a sustained civic movement.

Protesters condemn visit by Israeli officials facing ICC arrest warrants

On 7th February 2025, more than 500 people gathered in Chicago to protest a speaking event by former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, amid ongoing international scrutiny over Israel’s war in Gaza. Gallant, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, visited the USA despite facing arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity and violations of international humanitarian law.

The protest took place outside Anshe Emet Synagogue, where Gallant was scheduled to speak at an event hosted by Friends of the Israel Defence Forces (FIDF). Organised by a coalition of advocacy groups—including the Coalition for Justice in Palestine, US Palestinian Community Network, Palestinian Youth Movement Chicago, Jewish Voice for Peace Chicago and IfNotNow Chicago—the protest drew attention to the impunity of senior Israeli officials.

Protesters carried Palestinian flags and gathered for speeches delivered by local community leaders, including a rabbi and a member of Anshe Emet. Rabbi Brant Rosen, one of the speakers, stated: “War criminals need to be held to justice. Hosting one in a synagogue is an affront to Palestinians and a disgrace to the Jewish community.”

Two days earlier, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the White House to denounce the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to reject President Trump’s recent call for the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. The protest, organised by the Palestinian Youth Movement and anti-war coalitions, accused both leaders of promoting policies amounting to ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

The protest featured chants of “Free Palestine” and “Palestine is not for sale” as protesters waved Palestinian flags and held placards condemning the government’s ongoing military support to Israel.

Guam protesters link anti-militarism to global struggles for justice

On 20th January 2025, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, dozens of protesters gathered in Dededo, Guam, to call attention to the ongoing impacts of militarism, systemic racism and colonial legacies—issues they argue are central to the late civil rights leader’s legacy.

Organised by Prutehi Guåhan, the protest took place near the Micronesia Mall intersection. Protesters carried signs bearing messages such as “Fight Against Fascism” and “Fight the War Machine,” while Palestinian flags were raised in solidarity with civilians affected by the 15-month war between Israel and Palestine.

“Today was a call to action against fascism, racism, imperialism, and militarism—core issues Dr. King actively opposed,” said Monaeka Flores, a representative of Prutehi Guåhan. “His legacy is often sanitised. But he consistently warned about the dangers of the ‘three evils’: racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.”

Flores noted that the demonstration occurred amidst ongoing military build-up on Guam, which remains a strategically significant US territory in the Indo-Pacific region. “We are being built up for war. MLK Day reminds us to challenge systemic oppression and the militarisation imposed on our communities,” she added.

Civic Space Developments
Country
United States of America
Country rating
Narrowed
Category
Latest Developments
Tags
funding restriction,  office raid,  CSO closure,  intimidation,  harassment,  travel ban,  HRD detained,  excessive force,  public vilification,  torture/ill-treatment,  censorship,  access to info. law,  surveillance,  private sector,  non state actors,  positive court ruling,  religious groups,  positive CS development,  attack on journalist,  negative court ruling,  protest,  political interference,  restrictive law,  protestor(s) detained,  HRD prosecuted,  transnational repression, 
Date Posted

14.05.2025

Back to civic space developments

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Site by DEV | Login

Privacy Policy

Contact us privacy@civicus.org