Dear Comrades,

Across the country, people who have dedicated their lives to humanitarian aid, international friendship, anti-war organizing, labor solidarity, and support for the right of all peoples to determine their own futures are expressing growing concern. The increasing use of surveillance, sanctions, “foreign agent” allegations, politically motivated prosecutions, deportation threats, doxxing, and other efforts to criminalize dissent are no longer isolated incidents. Increasingly, they appear to be part of a broader effort to intimidate those who challenge U.S. foreign policy, militarism, colonialism, and endless war.

Whether one’s work has been in solidarity with Cuba, Palestine, Haiti, Puerto Rico, the liberation struggles of Africa, or any other struggle for national liberation and self-determination, the question confronting all of us is the same: How do we defend the democratic right to engage in international solidarity?

History teaches us that periods of political repression rarely remain confined to one movement. From the Palmer Raids and McCarthyism to COINTELPRO and more recent investigations of anti-war and international solidarity organizations, governments have repeatedly relied on legal, administrative, and investigative mechanisms not only to prosecute individuals, but also to intimidate movements and chill constitutionally protected political activity.

That history is one of the reasons the Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network has been organized. This fall, the Network will convene a national educational forum to examine the growing challenges facing political expression and international solidarity, share legal and historical resources, strengthen communication among affected movements, and begin building a broad, non-sectarian national educational and defense network. We don’t seek to promote fear, but to ensure that movements are informed, connected, and prepared to defend the First Amendment, the right to dissent, and international solidarity work.

It is in that spirit that I would like to offer a few reflections on the implications of the recent prosecution of the Uhuru 3 – Chairman Omali Yeshitela of the African People’s Socialist Party (APSP) and Penny Hess and Jesse Nevel, leaders of organizations in the broader Uhuru Movement that work in solidarity with the APSP and what it may mean for all of us engaged in international solidarity work.

Their prosecution should concern everyone engaged in international solidarity work – it raises broader questions about the expanding legal and political tools available to the U.S. government to investigate, burden, or prosecute movements engaged in international advocacy.

The most immediate concern is the possible use of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In the Uhuru 3, the government alleged that defendants acted under the direction or control of a foreign government without registering under FARA. The defense vigorously disputed those allegations. While each case necessarily turns on its own facts, it would be naïve not to recognize that FARA could increasingly become a mechanism for scrutinizing international solidarity work involving countries targeted by U.S. foreign policy.

For example, take the National Network on Cuba (NNOC) where many work openly with the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) and other Cuban institutions in organizing delegations, educational exchanges, conferences, humanitarian projects, and campaigns against the blockade. Those relationships are public and political—not clandestine. Nevertheless, with ICAP now sanctioned by the U.S. government, it is prudent to consider how existing laws and government policies could be used to discourage or burden work.

Nor is FARA the only legal mechanism available. Over many decades, the federal government has relied upon a wide array of statutes and investigative powers to target international solidarity and dissident movements. These have included:

• • Treasury Department sanctions and embargo regulations administered through the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), including restrictions on travel, financial transactions, and organizational activities.

• • Federal conspiracy statutes, often alleging coordinated efforts to violate other federal laws.

• • False statement statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1001) arising from communications with federal investigators.

• • Wire fraud, mail fraud, or financial reporting allegations, where prosecutors contend that organizations concealed or misrepresented financial relationships.

• • Tax and nonprofit enforcement, including challenges to nonprofit status, reporting obligations, or fundraising activities.

• • Customs, export control, and sanctions enforcement relating to shipments, equipment, or financial transactions involving sanctioned countries.

• • Immigration authorities, including visa denials or restrictions affecting invited international speakers and delegations.

• • Congressional investigations and administrative proceedings, often used to compel testimony or publicly stigmatize organizations.

At the same time, these attacks are not going unanswered. The Uhuru 3 have responded by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that their prosecution was politically motivated and intended to punish constitutionally protected political expression, association, and international solidarity. Nerdeen Kiswani, chair of Within Our Lifetime, has likewise fought back by filing a lawsuit against Betar US and others, alleging defamation and a coordinated campaign of harassment, intimidation, and false accusations designed to portray her as a supporter of terrorism, damage her reputation, endanger her safety, and suppress Palestine solidarity organizing. Mahmoud Khalil has also fought back by filing a $20 million administrative claim against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and other constitutional violations arising from his detention and the government’s attempt to deport him because of his protected political advocacy.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of these cases, they demonstrate an important reality: movements are increasingly refusing to be intimidated. They are fighting back in the courts as well as in the streets, challenging politically motivated prosecutions, coordinated defamation campaigns, government overreach, and efforts to criminalize dissent and international solidarity.

For those of us engaged in international solidarity work, the lesson is clear. We cannot afford to confront these challenges in isolation or remain confined within our own organizational silos. We need to learn from one another’s experiences, share legal strategies and political analyses, exchange educational resources, publicize important litigation, and strengthen our collective capacity to respond. That is precisely the kind of educational, communications, and solidarity work the Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network can help foster by bringing movements together to better understand these emerging threats and develop informed, cooperative responses.

Even when no criminal conviction results, governments have historically relied upon investigative tools that can themselves become forms of political pressure, including FBI investigations, grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, electronic surveillance, informants, seizure of records and computers, and lengthy investigations that consume enormous organizational resources while chilling constitutionally protected speech and association.

History teaches us that periods of political repression rarely remain confined to one movement. During the McCarthy era, organizations supporting peace, anti-colonial struggles, labor rights, civil rights, and international solidarity all found themselves subjected to investigations, loyalty inquiries, blacklists, prosecutions, passport restrictions, surveillance, and political harassment. COINTELPRO similarly demonstrated how intelligence and law enforcement agencies sought to disrupt organizations through infiltration, informants, disinformation, selective prosecutions, and efforts to divide movements from within. More recently, anti-war organizations, Palestinian solidarity groups, environmental activists, and others have faced various forms of federal investigation or legal scrutiny.

Of course, none of this means that advocacy itself is unlawful. The First Amendment protects the rights to organize, publish, protest, educate, travel under applicable law, and advocate for changes in U.S. foreign policy. But history reminds us that legal processes themselves can become instruments of political pressure, particularly during periods of heightened international conflict.

For that reason, I believe that this moment calls for broad, principled, and non-sectarian discussion. Whether or not organizations agree on every political question, defending the constitutional rights of people to organize, educate, advocate, and engage in international solidarity without unwarranted government repression is in all of our collective interests.

This is not simply about one organization or one prosecution. It is about preserving the democratic space in which all of us—whether working in solidarity with Cuba, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuela, or any other struggle for justice—can continue our work without fear that lawful political advocacy will become the basis for government intimidation or prosecution.

History also offers another lesson. Time and again, movements facing political repression have fought back—and often prevailed. From those who opposed the Vietnam War, defended the Cuban Revolution, and stood with the peoples of Nicaragua, South Africa, Palestine, and other liberation struggles, to those who challenged McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, and government surveillance, broad coalitions of lawyers, labor unions, civil rights organizations, faith communities, journalists, and grassroots activists mounted vigorous legal defenses, organized public education campaigns, exposed government abuses, and won important legal, political, and public opinion victories. Their success rested not on sectarianism or isolation, but on solidarity.

Thus, this is an opportunity for the Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network to help convene a broader educational discussion on the implications of these developments for all international solidarity movements. One of the Network’s central purposes is to educate about threats to political expression, strengthen communication among affected movements, share legal and historical resources, and help build principled, non-sectarian solidarity in defense of the First Amendment and the right to dissent. This issue reaches far beyond any one organization or one prosecution. It raises fundamental questions about the democratic space in which all of us—whether working in solidarity with Cuba, Palestine, Haiti, Venezuela, or other struggles for self-determination—must be free to organize, educate, advocate, and build international solidarity without fear that lawful political activity will become the basis for government intimidation or prosecution.

This is not a call for alarm, but for preparation. If one movement’s rights can be weakened today, others may find themselves confronting the same tactics tomorrow.

Rather than allowing repression to divide us, this is an opportunity to deepen cooperation among labor, peace, civil rights, immigrant rights, faith-based, legal, media, and international solidarity organizations. The strongest protection against repression has never been silence or isolation—it has always been education, communication, and solidarity.

That is the vision behind the Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network. We hope to help build a national educational and communications network that strengthens existing movements, encourages collaboration across struggles, and helps ensure that no organization stands alone when democratic rights come under attack. The challenges confronting international solidarity movements today are too significant for any one organization to address alone. They call for greater communication, deeper political understanding, and stronger cooperation across movements.

The Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network was created to help foster that educational and communications infrastructure. We invite all those committed to defending political expression and international solidarity to join us in planning our National Fall Forum on Political Expression and the Right to Dissent. Together, we can assess the changing legal and political landscape, learn from the growing body of litigation and resistance, share resources and strategies, and build the educational and communications network needed to strengthen all our movements.

To participate in planning the Forum, become involved with the Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network, or receive future updates, please contact us:

action@IdaBWellsMediaDefense.org

The history of international solidarity has never been easy. Every generation has confronted efforts to silence dissent, criminalize opposition, and isolate those who challenge war, colonialism, racism, and injustice. Every generation has also produced courageous people who defended those rights, expanded democratic space, and left a stronger movement for those who followed.

That history is now ours to continue.

In Solidarity

Mimi Rosenberg,
member of the Ida B. Wells Media Defense Network,
for more information: action@IdaBWellsMediaDefense.org