Press freedom under pressure as crackdown on pro-Palestine solidarity continues

Introduction

Donald Trump elected president for a second time

On 6th January 2025, Congress formally announced President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election. In November 2024, Trump won most the Electoral College votes, defeating Kamala Harris to become the 47th president of the United States (US). The election results signal a significant political shift, with Republican support surging nationwide. While the Democratic Party expanded its voter base in 2020, the 2024 results revealed that 90 per cent of counties returned to the Republicans, marking a decisive electoral swing.

Trump’s victory speech received an enthusiastic response from his supporters. Declaring his second term a “golden age” for America, he promised sweeping policy changes with far-reaching domestic and international implications. During his campaign, Trump proposed a series of controversial policies, including new restrictions on abortion, immigration, and LGBTQI+ rights.

Dr. Gloria Yayra A. Ayee, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, remarked on the broader significance of Trump’s return to power:

“Trump’s second term will prompt critical considerations about the future of democracy and human rights in the United States. The prospect of increased executive power and authoritarian tendencies could potentially erode civil liberties, and safeguarding robust legal frameworks will be critical for ensuring that constitutional rights are protected. Trump’s win also mirrors broader transformations across the globe and reflects developments in the international political arena as different nations wrestle with identity, governance, and human rights.”

Expression

Journalists forcibly removed from Blinken’s final briefing after pressing on Israel-Palestine conflict

On 16th January 2025, security officers forcibly removed two journalists from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s final news briefing at the State Department in Washington, D.C., after they interrupted his remarks with questions about the Biden administration’s role in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

According to the US Press Freedom Tracker, during the press briefing, Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, questioned the administration’s actions in the ongoing conflict, specifically referencing the number of journalists killed and asserting they were “on the receiving end” of US-supplied weapons. Blinken continued his remarks and stated that he would take questions after his speech. Security officers then escorted Blumenthal out of the room.

Approximately five minutes later, independent journalist Sam Husseini interrupted Blinken, asking whether the Geneva Conventions applied to Palestinians. Blinken reiterated that he would take questions later and proceeded with his briefing. Husseini interrupted again, asserting his right to ask questions and engaging in a brief exchange with a State Department official.

After being informed that his questions would not be addressed, multiple security officers approached him, lifted him from his chair and removed him from the room. Husseini was ultimately handcuffed but later released without charges.

Charges dropped against photojournalist journalist arrested while covering a protest

On 14th November 2024, disorderly conduct charges against photojournalist Olga Fedorova were dropped. Olga was among at least three journalists arrested while covering a peaceful protest outside the Israeli consulate in Chicago in August 2024, coinciding with demonstrations near the Democratic National Convention.

Recent cases, such as this one involving Federova, raise concerns regarding the criminalisation of journalists while covering protests. According to the US Press Freedom Tracker, law enforcement authorities have arrested or detained journalists at least 48 times in 2024—exceeding the total from the previous two years combined. Notably, nearly 90 per cent of these arrests occurred in connection with protests related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Association

Texas Attorney General sues New York doctor in landmark abortion shield law challenge

On 13th December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a civil lawsuit against a New York-based physician for providing a medication abortion—mifepristone—to a 20-year-old resident of Collin County, Texas. The lawsuit alleges that the physician contravened Texas law governing the practice of medicine and seeks monetary damages of up to $250,000. 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.

“This lawsuit is another effort from Ken Paxton intended to have a chilling effect among providers even in states where abortion is protected. Abortion bans are dangerous and are costing people across the country their lives, freedom, and control. The American people have made clear time and again that they do not want lawmakers interfering with their personal decisions and yet, once again, Texas lawmakers are in a race to the bottom filing harmful litigation. We must continue fighting back on these efforts and protect patients' access to care,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The case represents the first legal challenge to New York’s abortion provider shield law, which is designed to protect healthcare providers from out-of-state investigations and prosecutions related to abortion care. The law stipulates that “New York courts and officials will not cooperate if a state with an abortion ban tries to prosecute, sue or otherwise penalise a New York health care provider who offers abortion via telemedicine to a patient in that state, as long as the provider complies with New York law.”

According to the Society of Family Planning, medication abortion is the predominant method of abortion in the country, with the overall number of abortion procedures increasing since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation. In the second quarter of 2024, more than 9,700 abortions per month were facilitated via telehealth under the legal protections of shield laws.

Fabricated image targets pro-Palestinian student group

On 1st January 2025, a student group at the University of Missouri, the Mizzou College Republicans, disseminated a fabricated image in a social media post, falsely attributing it to Mizzou Students for Justice in Palestine (MSJP). The image posted on Yik Yak—an app for anonymous messages within a five-mile radius that gained popularity on college campuses in 2015— misrepresented a statement from MSJP, alleging that its members celebrated Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the person who drove his car into a crowd in New Orleans on New Year’s Eve, killing 14 people before police fatally shot him.

The College Republicans included the fabricated image in a social media post, along with a statement from their president: “I demand that Mizzou’s administration take action in condemning Mizzou Students for Justice in Palestine and discipline the students who published this hateful, racist post.” Boone County Republicans, another local Republican group, further amplified the post on their social media platforms.

In response, MSJP called for an investigation into the person behind the fabricated social media post and those who amplified it, including Mizzou College Republicans and the university’s social media administrators. MSJP accused them of contributing to the organisation’s defamation. Isleen Atallah, MSJP president, stated that the incident damaged MSJP’s reputation and caused members to leave, fearing for their safety on campus:

“We can’t safely exist either as Palestinian students or pro-Palestinian advocates on this campus or anywhere in the US without being scrutinised and called ‘terrorist-sympathisers. The main effect is that there is a feeling of unsafety now, and there is also distrust in the administration.”

On 3rd January, Brenden Poteet, president of the College Republicans, publicly apologised and deleted the post, describing it as “hasty” but “without malicious intent.”

House passes bill granting executive branch unchecked power to revoke nonprofit tax status

On 21st November 2024, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. While Section 2 of the bill provides necessary tax relief for US nationals and their spouses who are unlawfully or wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad, Section 4 would allow the Treasury Department to unilaterally revoke the tax-exempt status of non-profits it deems to be supporting terrorism without due process guarantees.

This provision would grant the executive branch sweeping authority to financially cripple civil society organisations based on broad and vague criteria. The move has raised concerns among human rights advocates regarding the disproportionate impact on humanitarian aid and civil society operations in conflict zones, as well as on groups systematically targeted in the post-9/11 era.

“Any trade union, church, philanthropic, nonprofit media outlet or social welfare organisation could become a target if they fall out of favor with the current administration. At any time, this agenda would allow a sitting president—Democratic or Republican—to use their power to punish ideological opponents without fundamental due process,” said a free speech coalition, Americans Against Government Censorship.

According to the NEO Law Group, the bill emerged in response to pro-Palestinian campus protests, with lawmakers citing national security concerns to justify scrutiny of progressive organisations.

Justice Department proposes to expand FARA, sparking legal uncertainty

On 2nd January 2025, the Justice Department announced significant revisions to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a law originally designed to counter foreign influence. FARA mandates the registration of individuals or entities acting as agents of foreign principals in the US while engaging in specified activities but does not prohibit such conduct. Non-compliance may result in civil enforcement or criminal prosecution.

These changes, the first in nearly 30 years, follow a year of intensified scrutiny and enforcement, prompting concerns that the law could be used to suppress dissent. According to legal experts, these revisions would introduce significant regulatory changes that could broaden the scope of required registrations, particularly for state-owned enterprises and entities operating under the “domestic interest” exemption. For example, the introduction of a new two-part test for the “domestic interest” exemption under Section 613(d)(2) would complicate FARA’s already complex regulatory landscape.

The Justice Department’s discretionary authority to assess foreign influence under “a non-exhaustive set of factors” lacks clear statutory grounding, potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement:

“The first part of the test makes the exemption categorically unavailable if a foreign government or political party influences the activities or is the principal beneficiary; if the intent of the activities is to benefit a foreign government or political party’s political or public interests; or if the actions are undertaken on behalf of an entity directed by a foreign government or political party and promotes their political or public interests (such as a state-owned enterprise).

If a potential registrant clears the first part of the test, the second part determines if the domestic interest exemption applies to their activities by laying out a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test with a ‘non-exhaustive’ list of factors. These factors are (1) whether the public and relevant government officials already know about the relationship between the agent and the foreign principal; (2) whether the commercial activities further the commercial interests of a foreign commercial entity more than those of a domestic commercial entity; (3) the degree of influence (including through financing) that foreign sources have over domestic non-commercial entities, such as nonprofits; (4) whether the activities concern U.S. laws and policies applicable to domestic or foreign interests; and (5) the extent to which any foreign principal influences the activities.”

This ambiguity is particularly concerning for nonprofit organisations receiving foreign funding, as the absence of bright-line rules leaves them vulnerable to shifting interpretations.

Peaceful Assembly

Court sentences climate activists to prison over National Archives protest

In early November 2024, the US District Court for the District of Columbia sentenced climate activists Jackson Green and Donald Zepeda to 24 months and 18 months in prison, respectively, followed by two years of supervised release. The court also ordered them to pay $58,607.59 in restitution to the National Archives.

On 14th February 2024, Green and Zepeda poured red powder over the protective case housing the US Constitution at the National Archives Museum in Washington, D.C. The activists stated that their protest sought to highlight the climate crisis and urge President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency. The National Archives confirmed that the Constitution remained undamaged, as the powder consisted of pigment and cornstarch. However, the museum closed for four days, and conservation and clean-up efforts cost over $50,000. The prosecutor charged both activists with destruction of government property, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of ten years.

Zepeda initially pleaded not guilty in February but changed his plea to guilty in August. Green, affiliated with the group Declare Emergency, faced an additional charge for vandalism related to a November 2023 incident at the National Gallery of Art. The court imposed a concurrent 90-day sentence for that offence and ordered him to pay $706 in restitution. Prosecutors sought a two-year sentence for Green and a four-year sentence for Zepeda, citing Zepeda’s prior convictions for burglary, trespassing, and property damage.

The case raises concerns regarding the proportionality of sentencing for peaceful climate-related protest. Climate Rights International criticised the sentences as excessive, warning of a broader trend of heightened legal responses to climate activism in democratic societies:

“It’s disgraceful that peaceful activists are subjected to lengthy prison sentences while the corporations that have driven us into this crisis continue to operate with impunity. Instead of targeting activists trying to raise awareness of the existential threat of climate change and its impacts on people, the government should take urgent steps to limit the emissions that have caused the climate crisis,” said Brad Adams, Executive Director at Climate Rights International.

Ongoing crackdown on pro-Palestine protests

On 12th November 2024, police arrested nine people for blocking an entrance to the White House to demand that the Biden administration enforce US laws mandating an arms embargo on Israel. The protest, organised by the Democrats for Human Rights coalition, was held in response to allegations of human rights violations committed by Israeli forces in Palestine.

Protesters displayed banners condemning Israel’s actions and called for immediate policy action. “As [President Joe] Biden’s 30-day deadline for Israel to stop violating our laws in Gaza expires, we are sitting in and peacefully blocking the gate at the White House. US law requires an arms embargo. As Democrats for Human Rights, we call upon Biden to uphold the law: arms embargo now!” said a protester.

On 11th December 2024, police forcibly evicted Mamayan Jabateh a fourth-year Resident Advisor at the University of Chicago, from their dormitory due to participation in a pro-Palestine protest earlier this year. During the protest, the university’s private police force used pepper spray on students, while city police used batons against protesters. Jabateh now faces court proceedings and a university disciplinary trial. Meanwhile, the university has barred them from campus under threat of arrest, without justification.

On the same day, the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University suspended Nadine Fattaleh, a Palestinian PhD student, for one year for merely being in the library during a nonviolent protest. Ten other students were also suspended, with further disciplinary action expected.