This update covers developments relating to the freedoms of expression, association and assembly in the United States of America from 1st March to 30th April 2026.
Context
Lawless war on Iran
Following weeks of illegal military action on Iran, the USA has escalated the conflict, with President Donald Trump threatening to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges on 5th April 2026 because of the country’s blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. Days later, President Trump posted on Truth Social that “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” These statements sparked great concern from lawmakers and legal experts, who noted that such actions would amount to serious violations of international law, including potential war crimes.
International accountability for U.S. attacks on Venezuela
On 13th March 2026, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held a hearing on the U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean, assessing their legality and impact on communities. Major civil society organisations, including the ACLU, Centre for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group as well as UN experts conveyed the illegality of these strikes under domestic and international law.
Voting rights slashed
On 31st March 2026, the administration issued an Executive Order (EO) entitled, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, which tasks the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) with determining vote-by-mail eligibility based on federal voter lists, and refusing to deliver ballots sent by anyone not included on newly created federal mail voter lists.
The order states that this will ensure “only citizens receive and cast ballots” in an effort to “reduc[e] the risk of fraud.” The Brennan Centre for Justice noted in its analysis of the EO that it would “block eligible American citizens from voting, undermine voter privacy, and expose election officials and others to criminal prosecution simply for doing their jobs.”
While the SAVE Act, a bill which would require individuals to show proof of citizenship to register to vote, has stalled in the Senate, similar bills are emerging and passing at the state level. Florida, Mississippi, Utah and South Dakota have all passed laws codifying this requirement. These restrictions could have implications on upcoming primary and mid-term elections across the country.
On 29th April 2026, in a ruling on Louisiana v. Callais et al., the Supreme Court of the United States struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protected against racial discrimination in voting. This decision allows for lawmakers to carry out redistricting of the Congressional map, taking away voting power from Black and other minority communities.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “Under the court’s new view of section 2, a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.” Following the decision, Governor Jeff Landry of Louisiana suspended the state’s primary election, creating challenges as some voters had already cast their ballots by way of mail-in ballots or early-voting.
Last month's Supreme Court ruling opened the door for states to draw maps that dilute the power of voters of color. That doesn't change the fact it's discriminatory and undemocratic for politicians to manipulate elections through redistricting. Our Voting Right Project director shares the latest.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) May 13, 2026 at 7:59 PM
[image or embed]
Association
Clampdown on civil society organisations
On 21st April 2026, a federal grand jury in Alabama indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the 55-year-old civil rights organisation, on 11 counts of alleged wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to conceal money laundering for paying informants to infiltrate extremist groups. The Justice Department alleges that the SPLC has long paid informants to infiltrate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a far-right hate group, to collect and share information with law enforcement to prosecute and end their work.
The indictment also alleges that these initiatives are not what donors thought they were financially supporting and the organisation misled them: “According to the indictment starting in the 1980s, the SPLC began operating a covert network of individuals who were either associated with violent and extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction. Unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organisers of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.”
In response, on 28th April 2026, the SLPC filed motions arguing that top officials had made false statements regarding the informant programme. Specifically, that acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said publicly that the government had “no information” that “suggests that” the SPLC “shared what they learned [from the informant programme] with law enforcement.” However, the SPLC affirmed that they have been sharing information from the informant programme with law enforcement for the last 40 years and more.
When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system. When threats and other unlawful activity were revealed, the SPLC immediately passed that information to law enforcement officials, local, state and federal, and assisted in efforts to prevent violence and stop criminal activity.
- Bryan Fair, interim president and CEO, SPL.
One week later, Fidelity Charitable blocked the SPLC from receiving donor-advised grants, citing standard protocol during an ongoing investigation, an example of de-risking. This is the latest attack on nonprofit organisations under this administration, but it is not going unanswered. Civil society organisations across the sector have stated their support for the esteemed civil rights group, condemning the administration’s politicised targeting.
In a separate incident, on 6th April 2026, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 1471 into law, granting his office the authority to designate groups recommended by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement chief as a “domestic terrorist organisation” and enforce at the state level foreign terrorist organisation designations made at the federal level. This law will go into effect on 1st July 2026, and will have financial and criminal implications for organisations found to provide “material support” to these listed groups.
As analysed by the civil society organisation Charity and Security Network, “the process by which Florida law enforcement would recommend groups is shrouded in secrecy and could allow the state to skirt due process without clear evidence of engaging in terrorism. Designation of groups itself, regardless of a challenge to the designation, could result in frozen assets and impede the ability of political targets, like nonprofits, from continuing their work while the challenge is ongoing.”
Florida signed a law letting the gov. designate "domestic terrorist organizations" without due process — cutting off public funding & criminalizing "material support" to listed orgs. This law can easily be weaponized against political targets, including #nonprofits. bit.ly/47Qz5Q0
— Charity & Security Network (@charitysecurity.bsky.social) April 9, 2026 at 11:06 PM
[image or embed]
This comes after Gov. DeSantis designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organisation in the United States, and the Muslim Brotherhood, as Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTOs) in December 2026, a move that is being challenged in the courts. The legislation also prevents Florida courts from applying foreign or religious laws, including Sharia law, when doing so would violate constitutional rights.
In response, the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Florida (CAIR) condemned the Florida legislature’s passage of a draconian and unconstitutional police state bill.
"CAIR also condemned the insertion of ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ provisions that purport to ban courts from ever upholding ‘sharia law,’ even though courts can and sometimes must uphold last wills & testaments, burial instructions, private contracts, and arbitration decisions based on religious tradition."
On 18th March 2026, CBS News reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were forming a “mission control command centre” that would serve as “a new initiative to investigate nonprofit organisations over suspected possible links to domestic terrorism.” In tandem with this initiative, the Trump Administration released its FY 2027 FBI Budget Request to Congress, noting the development of an FBI “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Centre (JMC) to “proactively identify networks and prosecute domestic terrorist and related criminal actors.” The coordination across agencies to target civil society organisations and actors carrying work forward that is not aligned with that of the administration sets a dangerous precedent.
Major meatpacking industry strike
In mid-March 2026, nearly 4,000 workers in the meatpacking industry went on strike in Greeley, Colorado. JBS U.S. workers protested unsafe and unjust working conditions and compensation. According to the independent media outlet Democracy Now, this is the first major strike in the meatpacking industry in 40 years.
After three weeks, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) won most of their demands including an increase in wages and policy change on personal protective equipment:
“Organising 3,800 workers across dozens of languages was no small feat. Building up to the strike, a system of union representatives, walking stewards (shop stewards who are paid full-time by the employer to carry out steward duties), and 90 picket captains laid the foundation for a united picket line. A communication system via text, email, and social media, translated into the most commonly spoken languages—Spanish, Burmese, French, and Haitian Creole—kept members informed. Pre-strike meetings were held to register members for strike benefits, while also informing members of their rights to picket. Unity around demands, plus widely and deeply felt grievances against the company kept members steadfast during the strike. The picket line was filled with joyful chanting, singing and dancing to music from around the world, buoyed by the support that flowed in from the community, other unions, and supporters from afar. UFCW members and staff from as far away as Boston, Minneapolis, and Seattle came to support the picket line.”
Peaceful Assembly
Protest as terrorism according to a Texas jury
On 13th March 2026, a federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas, convicted nine people (Benjamin Song, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Savanna Batten, Ines Soto, Elizabeth Soto and Daniel Sanchez-Estrada) in connection with events following a 4th July 2025 protest outside the Prairieland Detention Centre in Alvarado.
Protesters stated they had no plan for causing violence in preparing for the demonstration, but planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the detainees inside the facility. The noise demonstration started peacefully but escalated, with reports of vandalism, spray painting graffiti, and slashing tyres in the parking lot. Armed officers arrived at the scene, and while there are conflicting accounts on what officially transpired, it was established that one officer drew his gun on the protestors in the parking lot, after which one of the activists, Benjamin Song, fired his weapon, resulting in that officer being shot and sent to hospital. The officer survived and was released the following morning. Multiple defendants were arrested in connection with the case in the months following the initial incident.
Prosecutors alleged that defendants vandalised property, used fireworks and carried out a coordinated attack in which an Alvarado police officer was shot and injured. Federal authorities described the defendants as members of an “antifa” cell and relied on evidence that included political literature, encrypted communications, black clothing and alleged protest planning. However, defence lawyers and supporters disputed that characterisation, arguing that the prosecution blurred the line between alleged criminal conduct and protected political activity.
The convictions included rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorism, obstruction, and attempted murder of an Alvarado police officer. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Song faces a minimum sentence of 20 years and a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Arnold, Evetts, Morris, Rueda, Batten, Elizabeth Soto, and Ines Soto face a minimum penalty of 10 years and a maximum sentence of 60 years in prison, while Sanchez-Estrada faces up to 40 years in prison. A further seven people who pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists each face up to 15 years.
It follows the administration’s issuance of National Security Presidential Memo-7 (NSPM-7), a directive to quell “domestic terrorism and political violence,” and the domestic terrorist organisation designation of “Antifa,” demonstrating a concerted effort to target and frame dissent to the administration as dangerous.
Notably, days after these convictions, documents disclosed through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made clear that the FBI concluded that Antifa posed “no threat to national security” back in 2018. This evidence should have been shared with the defence to ensure a fair trial. This is the first prosecution in which the U.S. government sought to convict protesters for material support for terrorism domestically for being connected to an “Antifa” cell.
On 19th March 2026, around 30 people gathered outside the Whipple Federal Building, near Minneapolis, to protest the recent guilty verdict. The demonstration lasted several hours and remained peaceful. Deputies from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office monitored the protest after participants briefly moved into the roadway near the building’s north-east entrance.
As the gathering continued, additional law enforcement vehicles arrived and positioned themselves around the area. Observers reported at least 12 police vehicles at the scene, creating a large police presence relative to the size of the assembly. Authorities made no arrests, and observers reported no violence. However, the scale of the deployment raised concerns among participants and observers about the policing of peaceful assemblies.
On 27th March 2026, lawyers representing nine of the defendants filed motions seeking to overturn the jury’s verdicts. The defence teams submitted motions for judgments of acquittal under Rule 29 and, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the legal framework governing federal criminal proceedings in the US.
The lawyers argued that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence to support the convictions and contended that the court should vacate the verdicts because no rational juror could find that the prosecution had proved each element of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard required for criminal convictions.
The case raises broader concerns for civil society organisations. These include the expanded application of material support for terrorism statutes to protesters without an alleged link to an officially designated terrorist organisation; the use of First Amendment-protected activity and materials, including political literature, pamphlets and book club participation, as alleged evidence of criminal intent; reported irregular rulings and sanctions by the trial judge, including a mistrial linked to a T-shirt worn by a defence lawyer; and restrictions on the defendants’ ability to present self-defence arguments despite the presence of armed police officers in a protest setting.
New York approves protest perimeter plan amid concerns over chilling effect
On 26th March 2026, the New York City Council passed a bill, Int. 175-B, that would allow law enforcement to establish security perimeters around educational facilities during demonstrations. One month later, ahead of the deadline, Mayor Zohran Mamdani vetoed the bill, noting its overbroad nature and concern that it would limit anti-ICE and pro-Palestine protests across the city.
While the parallel bill concerning educational facilities was vetoed by the Mayor, on 26th March 2026, the New York City Council approved Local Law 2026/082, requiring the New York Police Department (NYPD) to develop response plans for the possible use of security perimeters around houses of worship and educational facilities during protests involving risks of obstruction, intimidation, injury or interference:
“This bill would require the Police Commissioner to establish a plan to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation, and interference at places of religious worship while preserving and protecting the rights to free speech, assembly, and protest. The plan would include considerations for [NYPD] to use in determining whether, when, and the extent to which security perimeters may be used to protect entry to and egress from places of religious worship, and for communication with stakeholders, including the public, persons seeking to assemble or protest, and affected religious leaders. The Commissioner would be required to submit a proposed plan and a final plan to the Mayor and Speaker of the Council no later than 45 days and 90 days, respectively, after the bill’s effective date. The final plan would also be posted on NYPD’s website.”
Civil liberties organisations, including the New York City Bar Association, Knight First Amendment Institute, and New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), criticised the proposals as unnecessary and warned that they could chill protected protest activity. “By deploying the NYPD to establish no-speech zones across all five boroughs, these bills will flood our streets with cops for no reason and potentially curtail the hard-fought, vital civil rights protections solidified in the 2024 Payne protest settlement […].”
Lawmakers advance bills that may restrict protest rights
Since February 2026, bills have been introduced at the federal and state levels to restrict protests. In Georgia, House Bill 1322, which would have increased the penalty for rioting from a misdemeanour to a felony, failed to advance through the legislative process. However, on 23rd March 2026, the Georgia General Assembly approved Senate Bill 443 (SB 443), amending provisions related to the obstruction of highways, streets, sidewalks and other public passages. The legislation increases penalties for such offences and introduces enhanced sanctions in certain circumstances. Under the law, obstructing a public passage constitutes a serious misdemeanour punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to USD 5,000. The measure also establishes civil liability, allowing individuals found responsible for obstruction offences to be sued for damages arising from the incident.
The law was enacted in May 2026 and is scheduled to enter into force in July 2026. It could disproportionately affect peaceful protesters, particularly those participating in demonstrations that temporarily block roads.
Bills in Louisiana (HB 429) and Missouri (SB 1800) that would make trespassing on “critical infrastructure” a terrorism offence and limit student protest on campuses by restricting financial aid to those who engage in prohibited activity, respectively, are still pending.
Lastly, bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate entitled, “Stop Proxy Organisations Nurturing Subversive Operations and Riots (SPONSOR) Act,” that would expand civil and criminal liabilities for fiscal sponsors that support demonstrations. Congress and state-level bodies continue to target dissent and civil society organisations that support it, demonstrating a concerted effort to contract civic space.
“No Kings” protests return
On 28th March 2026, protesters mobilised for the third “No Kings” demonstration since President Trump took office last year. Over 8 million people gathered in every state across the U.S., as well as countries across the world, pushing back against immigration enforcement, the war in Iran, voting rights, and more. St. Paul, Minnesota, was the epicentre of the day of action, following a violent immigration enforcement operation in the state earlier in the year, during which ICE agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. This action served as one of the largest in U.S. history, building on momentum from two previous “No Kings” protests in 2025.
Expression
Federal Communications Commission wreaks havoc
On 14th March 2026, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr called out broadcasters for reportedly perpetuating “fake news” in their coverage of the war in Iran, noting that if outlets do not “operate in the public interest,” their licences will be rescinded. President Trump doubled down on these sentiments, alleging that media outlets in the U.S. were working with outlets in Iran to disseminate inaccurate stories about war-related developments.
Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter addressed to Carr, the day after the Chairman posted this threat on X, calling it “the latest and most dangerous step in a sustained campaign to use the FCC’s licensing authority as a weapon against broadcasters and journalists whose coverage displeases the Trump administration.” In this letter, Markey called for Carr’s resignation. Senator Markey and Senator Luján (D-NM) introduced a bill in the Senate (S.867 - Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act of 2025) in March 2025, to assert and clarify that the FCC cannot take such action.
In response to news coverage of a U.S. airman who was shot down by Iran’s air defence and went missing for two days, President Trump remarked on 6th April 2026 that information about who leaked this story was a matter of “national security. And the person that did the story will go to jail if he doesn't say.” This threat builds upon previous attacks on the media in relation to the Iran War.
On 19th March 2026, the FCC approved the merger of Nexstar and Tegna, leading to a significant monopoly over news stations across the country. In response, Reporters Without Borders flagged that in order to move the deal forward, the Commission waived its Broadcast Ownership Rules establishing limitations on the number of stations an entity can own.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has also raised concerns over “a pattern of politicised threats and retaliatory actions from the FCC in the second Trump administration,” pointing to Nexstar’s response to attacks on the late-night show host, Jimmy Kimmel. On 17th April 2026, a federal judge blocked the merger after a lawsuit was filed by eight Attorneys General and DirecTV detailing the harmful implications of this sale on journalism, consumers, and federal regulation.
A decision by the US broadcast regulator to approve the merger of Tegna and Nexstar broadcasting companies — in clear violation of its own norms and regulations — is a concerning sign of government sponsored media concentration in the United States.https://t.co/w84cEIoJbf
— Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom) March 20, 2026
Social media’s dark cloud
On 25th March 2026, a jury in California found that Google and Meta were liable for USD 6M in damages for utilising designs in their social media platforms that were addictive and harmful to young people. KGM, a 20-year-old woman who was the plaintiff in the case, alleged that her use of these platforms at a young age contributed to her depression and caused her to develop body dysmorphia. Snap Inc., TikTok and Snapchat’s parent company, settled this case earlier in the year.
In March 2026, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, put out an updated Community Standards policy noting that posts with the word “antifa” along with language that implies violence are a violation of the company’s standards. Published in H1 2026 Integrity Report on 19th March, Meta shared that it would “remove QAnon and Antifa content when combined with content-level threat signals.” This change conveys alignment with the administration’s clampdown on antifascist advocacy and rhetoric.
For years, social media companies including Meta and YouTube have profited from targeting children and young people with addictive design features that prioritise engagement over wellbeing.
- Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Senior Director of Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns.
Pentagon press policy fight continues
On 20th March 2026, a federal judge blocked a policy issued by the Department of Defence (DoD) in the fall, denying Pentagon access to media outlets that refused to sign a pledge agreeing not to cover unauthorised information. As previously documented by the CIVICUS Monitor, the New York Times had filed a lawsuit in December alleging that the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments.
In response to the decision, the DoD closed down the space where journalists have long operated in the Pentagon building. On 9th April 2026, the same federal judge ruled against the Department once again, stating that the DoD was in violation of his previous order granting media access to the Pentagon. On 27th April 2026, a federal appeals court decided that while this policy is being challenged in the court, the Pentagon can carry forward its policy requiring journalists to be escorted in the building.
Immigration Enforcement and Targeting of Journalists
On 19th March 2026, reporter Estefany Rodriguez was released from ICE custody after being detained for two weeks. At the time of her detention, Rodriguez was in the U.S. legally and had an asylum case open. Attorneys have argued that her detention was due to her reporting on immigration enforcement action in the U.S. and was a violation of her constitutional rights.
A coalition of 46 organisations signed on to a letter calling for her release in early March, raising First Amendment concerns. CPJ Regional Director of the Americas Jose Zamora stated that “her detention has had a chilling effect, undermining journalists’ ability, especially local reporters, to cover their communities without fear of retaliation.”
Privacy rights tackled by Congress
On 27th March 2026, Congress members introduced the Privacy Protection Updates Act in both chambers (S.4268 and H.R.8093), which would protect materials searched and seized illegally. This comes after the FBI raid of Hannah Natanson’s home, the Washington Post journalist whose devices were taken in January as part of an investigation. While neither bill has co-sponsors as of this writing, it is an important step taken to safeguard the role of the press in a democratic society.