How Anti-BDS Laws Silence Free Speech

The House of Representatives recently passed an amendment banning any "politically motivated boycott of Israel, making Israel the only country that has this title. In the United States, you can boycott other states, other allies, but not a country committing a genocide. These acts, beyond justifying genocide in Gaza, are another step in the Trump administration's attacks on the First Amendment. Republicans are aware of this and have pushed these laws in disingenuous ways. In this instance, Rep. Boebert slipped the measure into the Pentagon budget, allowing for little debate and barring contractors that engage in boycotts from any federal contracts. This provision shields Israel from any accountability for human rights abuses by penalizing one of the few tools available to society outside of the region: boycotting. Regardless of one's stance on Middle Eastern politics, this should alarm anyone who emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech.

The constitutional stakes of this action, and the effects that anti-BDS (boycott, divest, and sanctions) laws have, are enormous. For centuries, political boycotts have been a form of American tradition and resistance, from the Montgomery bus boycott to campaigns against the Vietnam War, to protests against apartheid in South Africa. In NAACP v. Caliborne Hardware, it has been made clear that nonviolent protests for social change are protected under our First Amendment. Our federal government's financial and criminal penalties against boycotts of Israel show that our Congress and state legislatures are not engaging in entural constitutional policymaking, but outright authoritarian discrimination against viewpoints. Anti-BDS laws constitute an example of textbook punishment against people for their political opinions.

Despite these obvious violations against our rights, brought up by groups such as the ACLU, lawmakers have pressed forward. Ideologically motivated courts have followed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in Arkansas Times v. Waldrip that federal contracts are now required to certify that they would not boycott Israel. In the highest level of our judicial system, federal courts are now creating new exceptions that undercut our principles of freedom of speech. In the past, earlier courts in Kansas and Arizona have struck down similar laws, recognizing them for what they are, unconstitutional restraints on political speech. However, the political climate since Trump's victory has changed the Overton window, and this seems to also apply to the courts. This is only made worse by the Supreme Court being the most ideologically based that it ever has been.

Beyond legal measures, the political implications of these measures are clear. 38 states already have anti-BDS legislation enacted, with many of these laws requiring companies, individuals, and teachers to sign a loyalty pledge to Israel as a condition for doing their job. This compelled speech should be treated as it is, antithetical to the idea of a free country. These laws not only silence any voices speaking up for Palestinian rights, but also set a precedent for other social movements, whether it be climate activists pressing for fossil fuel divestment or labor union organizers pushing for employment rights.

The danger is not confined to Israel-Palestine politics. By codifying the suppression of disfavored political boycotts, the government opens the door to silencing dissent across the spectrum. Legal scholars have warned, as noted by Haaretz, that if this framework is accepted, nothing would prevent lawmakers from penalizing boycotts of gun manufacturers, fossil fuel companies, or corporations that bankroll political campaigns. What begins as an attack on BDS metastasizes into an architecture of repression.

At its heart, the anti-BDS campaign is about narrowing the boundaries of acceptable dissent. When Rep. Boebert can slip a sweeping restriction on political expression into the Pentagon budget without meaningful debate, it signals a dangerous erosion of democratic norms. As Defending Rights & Dissent policy director Chip Gibbons has emphasized, the government has no business punishing citizens for their political beliefs. That principle is not left-wing or right-wing — it is the cornerstone of a constitutional democracy. To abandon it in the service of shielding a foreign government from criticism is to betray the very freedoms lawmakers claim to defend.