Censorship

The United States has revoked the visa of Nigerian author and playwright Wole Soyinka, who became the first African writer to win the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1986.

Speaking at Kongi’s Harvest Gallery in Lagos on Tuesday, Soyinka read aloud from a notice sent on October 23 from the local US consulate, asking him to arrive with his passport so that his visa could be nullified.

The author called it, with characteristic humour, a “rather curious love letter” to receive.

“We request you bring your visa to the US Consulate General Lagos for physical cancellation. To schedule an appointment, please email — et cetera, et cetera — in advance of the appointment,” Soyinka recited, skimming the letter.

Closing his laptop, the author joked with the audience that he did not have time to fulfil its request.

“I like people who have a sense of humour, and this is one of the most humorous sentences or requests I’ve had in all my life,” Soyinka said.

“Would any of you like to volunteer in my place? Take the passport for me? I’m a little bit busy and rushed.”

Soyinka’s visa was issued last year, under US President Joe Biden. But in the intervening time, a new president has taken office: Donald Trump.

Since beginning his second term in January, Trump has overseen a crackdown on immigration, and his administration has removed visas and green cards from individuals whom it sees as out of step with the Republican president’s policies.

At Tuesday’s event, Soyinka struck a bemused tone, though he indicated the visa revocation would prevent him from visiting the US for literary and cultural events.

“I want to assure the consulate, the Americans here, that I am very content with the revocation of my visa,” Soyinka said.

He also quipped about his past experiences writing about the Ugandan military leader Idi Amin. “Maybe it’s about time also to write a play about Donald Trump,” he said.

Nobel Prize winners in the crosshairs

Soyinka is a towering figure in African literature, with a career that spans genres, from journalism to poetry to translation.

He is the author of several novels, including Season of Anomy and Chronicles from the Land of the Happiest People on Earth, as well as numerous short stories.

The 91-year-old author has also championed the fight against censorship. “Books and all forms of writing are terror to those who wish to suppress the truth,” he wrote.

He has lectured on the subject in New York City for PEN America, a free speech nonprofit. As recently as 2021, he returned to the US to present scholar and former colleague Henry Louis Gates Jr with the nonprofit’s Literary Service Award.

But Soyinka is not the first Nobel winner to see his US visa stripped away in the wake of Trump’s return to office, despite the US president’s own ambitions of earning the international prize.

Oscar Arias, a former president of Costa Rica and the winner of the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize, also found his visa cancelled in April.

Arias was previously honoured by the Nobel Committee for his efforts to end armed conflicts in Central American countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.

While the letter Arias received from the US government gave no reason for his visa’s cancellation, the former president told NPR’s Morning Edition radio show that officials indicated it was because of his ties to China.

“During my second administration from 2006 to 2010, I established diplomatic relations with China, and that’s because it has the second-largest economy in the world,” Arias explained.

But, Arias added, he could not rule out the possibility that there were other reasons for his visa’s removal.

“I have to imagine that my criticism of President Trump might have played a role,” Arias told NPR. “The president has a personality that is not open to criticism or disagreements.”

Soyinka likewise has a reputation for being outspoken, both about domestic politics in his native Nigeria and international affairs.

He has, for example, denounced Trump on multiple occasions, including for the “brutal, cruel and often unbelievable treatment being meted out to strangers, immigrants”.

In 2017, he confirmed to the magazine The Atlantic that he had destroyed his US green card — his permanent residency permit — to protest Trump’s first election in 2016.

“As long as Trump is in charge, if I absolutely have to visit the United States, I prefer to go in the queue for a regular visa with others,” he told the magazine.

The point was, he explained, to show that he was “no longer part of the society, not even as a resident”.

In Tuesday’s remarks, Soyinka reaffirmed that he no longer had his green card. “Unfortunately, when I was looking at my green card, it fell between the fingers of a pair of scissors, and it got cut into a couple of pieces,” he said, flashing his tongue-in-cheek humour.

He also emphasised he continues to have close friends in the US, and that the local consulate staff has consistently treated him courteously.

His work had long caused him to face persecution in Nigeria — though, famously, during a stint in solitary confinement, he continued to write using toilet paper — and eventually, in the 1990s, he sought refuge in the US.

During his time in North America, he took up teaching posts at prestigious universities like Harvard, Yale and Emory.

Targeting ‘hostile attitudes’

The Trump administration, however, has pledged to revoke visas from individuals it deems to be a threat to its national security and foreign policy interests.

In June, Trump issued a proclamation calling on his government tighten immigration procedures, in an effort to ensure that visa-holders “do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles”.

What qualifies as a “hostile attitude” towards US culture is unclear. Human rights advocates have noted that such broad language could be used as a smokescreen to crack down on dissent.

Free speech, after all, is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and is considered a foundational principle in the country, protecting individual expression from government shackles.

After Arias was stripped of his visa, the Economists for Peace and Security, a United Nations-accredited nonprofit, was among those to express outrage.

“This action, taken without explanation, raises serious concerns about the treatment of a globally respected elder statesman who has dedicated his life to peace, democracy, and diplomacy,” the nonprofit wrote in its statement.

“Disagreements on foreign policy or political perspective should not lead to punitive measures against individuals who have made significant contributions to international peace and stability.”

International students, commenters on social media, and acting government officials have also faced backlash for expressing their opinions and having unfavourable foreign ties.

Earlier this month, Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino voiced concern that members of his government had seen their visas cancelled over their diplomatic ties to China.

And in September, while visiting New York City, Colombian President Gustavo Petro saw his visa yanked within hours of giving a critical speech to the United Nations and participating in a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza.

The US Department of State subsequently called Petro’s actions “reckless and incendiary”.

Separately, the State Department announced on October 14 that six foreign nationals would see their visas annulled for criticising the assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a close associate of Trump.

Soyinka questioned Trump’s stated motives for cancelling so many visas at Tuesday’s literary event in Lagos, asking if they really made a difference for US national security.

“Governments have a way of papering things for their own survival,” he said.

“I want people to understand that the revocation of one visa, 10 visas, a thousand visas will not affect the national interests of any astute leader.”

British political commentator and journalist Sami Hamdi has been detained by federal authorities in the United States in what a US Muslim civil rights group has called an “abduction”.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned Hamdi’s detention at San Francisco airport on Sunday as “a blatant affront to free speech”, attributing his arrest to his criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Hamdi, a frequent critic of US and Israeli policy, had addressed a CAIR gala in Sacramento on Saturday evening and was due to speak at another CAIR event in Florida the next day before his detention by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

CAIR said he was stopped at the airport following a coordinated “far-right, Israel First campaign”.

“Our nation must stop abducting critics of the Israeli government at the behest of unhinged Israel First bigots,” it said in a statement. “This is an Israel First policy, not an America First policy, and it must end.”

In a statement seen by Al Jazeera, friends of Hamdi called his arrest “a deeply troubling precedent for freedom of expression and the safety of British citizens abroad”.

The statement called for the United Kingdom Foreign Office to “demand urgent clarification from the US authorities regarding the grounds for Mr Hamdi’s detention”.

Al Jazeera was told that he remains in US custody and has not been deported.

“The detention of a British citizen for expressing political opinions sets a dangerous precedent that no democracy should tolerate,” the statement added.

Hamdi’s father, Mohamed El-Hachmi Hamdi, said in a post on X that his son “has no affiliation” with any political or religious group.

“His stance on Palestine is not aligned with any faction there, but rather with the people’s right to security, peace, freedom and dignity. He is, quite simply, one of the young dreamers of this generation, yearning for a world with more compassion, justice, and solidarity,” he added.

Earlier this morning, ICE agents abducted British Muslim journalist and political commentator Sami Hamdi at San Francisco Airport, apparently in response to his vocal criticism of the Israeli government during his ongoing speaking tour.

We can confirm that Mr. Hamdi has not been… https://t.co/dfcVGvz6UX

— CAIR National (@CAIRNational) October 26, 2025

‘Proud Islamophobe’

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin confirmed Hamdi’s detention on Sunday, claiming without evidence that he posed a national security threat. “This individual’s visa was revoked, and he is in ICE custody pending removal,” she wrote on X.

Hamdi has been outspoken in accusing US politicians of actively enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and has been widely quoted, challenging Western governments directly over arms transfers and diplomatic cover for Israeli war crimes.

His detention comes amid a wider pattern of US authorities blocking entry to Palestinian and pro-Palestine voices.

In June, two Palestinian men, Awdah Hathaleen and his cousin, Eid Hathaleen, were denied entry at the same airport and deported to Qatar. Weeks later, Awdah was reportedly killed by an Israeli settler in the occupied West Bank.

Far-right activist and ally of US President Donald Trump, Laura Loomer, who has publicly described herself as a “proud Islamophobe” and “white advocate”, immediately celebrated online for playing a part in Hamdi’s detention.

“You’re lucky his only fate is being arrested and deported,” she wrote, falsely branding him “a supporter of HAMAS and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Loomer has previously pushed conspiracy theories, including the claim that the September 11 attacks in the US were an inside job.

Loomer and others credited the escalation against Hamdi to the RAIR Foundation, a pro-Israel pressure network whose stated mission is to oppose “Islamic supremacy”. RAIR recently accused Hamdi of trying to “expand a foreign political network hostile to American interests” and urged authorities to expel him from the country.

On Sunday, Shaun Maguire, a partner at the tech investment firm Sequoia and a vocal defender of Israel, alleged without evidence that Hamdi had tried to get him fired through an AI-generated email campaign, claiming: “There are jihadists in America whose full time job is to silence us.”

Hamdi’s supporters and civil rights advocates say the opposite is true, and that this detention is yet another case of political retaliation against critics of Israel, enforced at the border level before a single public word is uttered.

CAIR says it intends to fight the deportation order, warning that the US is sending a chilling message to Muslim and Palestinian speakers across the country.

Reporters must promise not to publish unauthorised material to obtain press credentials.

Major media organisations, including conservative outlets, say the Pentagon is placing unlawful restrictions on journalists and their ability to cover the US military under a new set of reporting guidelines.

The guidelines were first announced in a September memo from the Department of Defense, and said that reporters must sign an affidavit pledging they would not publish unauthorised material – including unclassified documents – to keep their Pentagon press credentials.

Following pushback from the media, the wording was modified last week to say that reporters must simply “acknowledge” the new rules, but many organisations remain critical of the latest version of the rules.

Media companies, including public broadcaster NPR, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, and the Reuters and Associated Press news agencies, have all said they will not sign the rules in recent statements.

They also say the rules violate the US Constitution, which offers broad protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment. These rights were reaffirmed in a landmark 1971 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co v United States, that allowed US media to publish classified military documents during the Vietnam War.

“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information. We will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government,” said Matt Murray, executive editor of The Washington Post, in a statement on X.

Conservative news outlets The Washington Times and Newsmax, a cable news channel and competitor to Fox News, also said they would not sign the rules.

Newsmax cited “unnecessary and onerous” rules in a statement to Axios.

The Pentagon Press Association, an industry group representing defence reporters, said in a statement on Monday that the Pentagon has the right to make its own reporting rules, but they cannot set “unconstitutional policies as a precondition” to report there.

The association previously said the rules were “designed to stifle a free press”, and could open reporters up to legal prosecution.

The Pentagon reporting rules have been championed by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News presenter who was sworn into his post in January under President Donald Trump.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department had “good faith negotiations” with the Pentagon Press Association, but that “soliciting [military] service members and civilians to commit crimes is strictly prohibited” in a statement on X.

Video platform settles lawsuit filed in response to Trump’s suspension over the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

YouTube has agreed to pay $24.5m to settle a lawsuit brought by United States President Donald Trump after the platform suspended his account in response to the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.

Under the settlement, YouTube, which is owned by Google parent company Alphabet, will contribute $22m on Trump’s behalf to the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit that is overseeing a $200m project to construct a ballroom at the White House, a court filing showed on Monday.

The remaining $2.5m will go to other plaintiffs in the case, including the American Conservative Union and American author Naomi Wolf, according to the filing at the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

The settlement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by YouTube, and was reached for the “sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation”, according to the filing.

The payout is a relatively small sum for YouTube, whose advertising revenues came to nearly $9.8bn in the second quarter of 2025 alone.

The settlement comes after Meta Platforms and X earlier this year agreed to multimillion-dollar payouts to resolve Trump’s claims that he was unduly censored following the January 6 attack, which was carried out by Trump supporters motivated by his false claim that the 2020 election had been “stolen”.

John P Coale, a Trump ally and lawyer who brought the three cases, said he was pleased with the outcome.

“Very much so,” Coale told Al Jazeera. “As is the president and the other plaintiffs.”

Coale said the three cases had netted $60m in total.

“We believe we changed the behaviour,” he said.

After de-platforming Trump over fears his false claims about the 2020 presidential election were driving violence, Big Tech has moved to curry favour with his administration since his return to the White House.

Earlier this month, tech CEOs, including Google’s Sundar Pichai, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Apple’s Tim Cook, lavished praise on Trump at a White House dinner event and expressed support for his administration’s initiatives on artificial intelligence.

Media companies have also paid out large sums to resolve Trump’s legal claims.

Paramount Global said in July that it had agreed to pay $16m to resolve Trump’s claims that CBS News’s 60 Minutes programme had deceptively edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

In December, ABC News agreed to contribute $15m to Trump’s library to settle claims that he had been defamed by its anchor, George Stephanopoulos.

Timothy Koskie, a postdoctoral researcher at the School of Media and Communications at the University of Sydney, said that YouTube’s settlement dealt a blow to hopes for a consistent approach to content moderation by social media platforms.

“Unfortunately, with the erosion of a rules-based order, we simply can’t expect to get consistent treatment from anyone who seeks to benefit from this administration,” Koskie told Al Jazeera.

“That is going to include an incredibly large swath of companies that we engage with in our daily lives, particularly, but very much not exclusively, the platforms. Rather than removing censorship, this vigorously empowers it in an especially selective vein.”

“Further, the US historically set precedents for many governments around the world,” he added.

In Hollywood, something shifted in the six days between the time that Walt Disney Co. dropped “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” “indefinitely,” following Kimmel’s comments about the suspect in the shooting death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and the late-night comedian’s return.

For many, Kimmel’s rebound appears to be a win for free speech and a testament to the power of boycotts against powerful corporate interests. However, for other writers, particularly comedy scribes, who view the events that transpired in the darkest, most McCarthy-esque terms, the fight over comedy may have just begun.

“There’s fear and outrage at the same time,” said Emmy-winning comedy writer Bruce Vilanch, who for years was the head writer for the Oscars and “Hollywood Squares” and has written jokes for comics including Billy Crystal and Bette Midler.

“Ever since ‘woke’ started before COVID and George Floyd, comedy became a minefield. And then, last week, it became a nuclear garden,” he said.

Indeed, the day after Disney announced Kimmel’s return, President Trump told reporters that TV networks critical of him are an “arm of the Democrat Party,” and said, “I would think maybe their license should be taken away.” Angered that Kimmel was returning to the airwaves, he took to social media to threaten ABC and called for the late-night scalps of NBC’s Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon.

Such ominous threats have cast a pall in writers rooms across the industry.

One showrunner currently developing multiple series, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that many of her colleagues have started to become more cautious about incorporating certain elements in their stories, something they didn’t do before. Others are having discussions privately rather than posting them on social media.

Several writers and showrunners who have worked on late-night shows, sitcoms and films declined to share their thoughts on the matter with The Times, citing fear of reprisals.

The cascade of anxiety comes at a time when Hollywood continues to struggle to get on solid footing after the pandemic lockdown, the dual labor strikes in 2023 and cost-cutting across the media landscape.

“Artists are already very concerned about our consolidated media ecosystem. A small shrinking number of gatekeepers control what Americans watch on TV, and these conglomerates are now being coerced into censoring us all by an administration that demands submission and obedience from what should be a free and independent media,” said television writer Meredith Stiehm, who is the outgoing president of Writers Guild of America West, during a rally in support of Kimmel outside the El Capitan Theatre last week.

“This cowardice has not only put the livelihoods of 20 writers, crew members and performers in limbo,” she said. “It has put our industry and our democracy in danger.”

Political satire has long held a mirror to human folly while challenging power with humor.

More than 2,400 years ago, Greek playwright Aristophanes’ biting, satirical comedies such as “Lysistrata” ridiculed Athens leaders during the Peloponnesian War. Many of the English nursery rhymes that are now viewed as sweet stories of princesses and fairies began appearing during the 14th century as veiled swipes at the monarchy. Rather than a lovely children’s melody, “Baa Baa Black Sheep” is said to be a critique of the wool tax imposed by King Edward I.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the brilliant satirical singer-songwriter (and mathematician) Tom Lehrer skewered taboo topics of the day such as the Catholic Church, militarism and racial conflict in America through parody songs.

In the early 1970s, George Carlin’s controversial monologue about the “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” set off a landmark Supreme Court case that broadened the definition of indecency on public airwaves and set a free speech precedent for comedians.

Every presidential campaign season has become must-see TV on “Saturday Night Live.” Think Dana Carvey’s George H.W. Bush, Phil Hartman’s Bill Clinton, Tina Fey’s Sarah Palin or Alec Baldwin’s Donald Trump.

But now the political climate has changed drastically.

“It’s a dark time for comedians and, by extension, for all Americans,” said a statement put out by hundreds of comedians under the banner Comedians4Kimmel in the wake of his ouster.

“When the government targets one of us, they target all of us. They strike at the heart of our shared humanity. They strip away the basic right every person deserves: to speak freely, question boldly, and laugh loudly.”

What’s different now is that where once market and cultural forces placed pressures on comedians — see Ellen DeGeneres and Roseanne Barr — the squeeze is now coming directly from the government. (Barr, who was fired from her eponymous reboot in 2018 after she made a racist tweet about senior Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, has accused ABC of having a “double standard.”)

“That’s just called censorship,” said Vilanch. “This is the government actually intervening in the most capricious way.”

It’s not just late-night comedy that is deemed offensive, Trump has made public a rolling perceived enemies list, and he is going after them with vigor.

Just last week, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted, and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said that she would “absolutely target” people who engaged in “hate speech.”

This month, Trump sued the New York Times for $15 billion, claiming that the paper and four of its journalists had engaged in a “decades-long pattern … of intentional and malicious defamation.” A federal judge dismissed the suit. In July, he sued the Wall Street Journal and its owner, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, for $10 billion, claiming defamation. That suit is ongoing.

What’s deemed funny or offensive has shifted through the years. Comedy writers have long pushed that line and adjusted. But after the cultural wars and trigger warnings of recent years, where writers adapted to audience sensitivities, they are now facing an era where offending the president and his administration itself is considered illegal.

”So much was going on before,” said a veteran late-night TV writer. “It just feels like another brick in the wall of the world that I have worked in for the past 35 years no longer exists.”

The uproar over Kimmel began after the comedian seemed to suggest during his monologue that Tyler Robinson, the Utah man accused in the shooting death of Kirk, might have been a pro-Trump Republican.

Last Tuesday, after Kimmel came back on air with a defiant defense of free speech, several writers sighed a breath of relief, seeing his return as a victory.

“It would have been scary if this actually ended in his firing,” said the former late-night writer.

But the culture and free speech wars are not over.

“I think [comedy] will get sharper,” said Vilanch. “It will get sharper and probably meaner because people are angry, and they want to fight back. And that’s always what happens when you try and shut people down. They come back stronger.”

EXPLAINER

As Kimmel returns, he is expected to address the controversy that led major station groups to drop his late-night comedy show.

Comedian Jimmy Kimmel returns to ABC on Tuesday in the United States after being suspended for nearly a week following controversial remarks about the alleged assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which provoked backlash from the administration of President Donald Trump.

As he takes the stage again, Kimmel is expected to address the controversy, which stirred outrage among some viewers, triggered threats of federal regulatory action, sparked a debate over freedom of speech, and led two major television station groups to pull the late-night comedy show Jimmy Kimmel Live! from their schedules.

Here is what we know:

When will Jimmy Kimmel come back on air?

Jimmy Kimmel Live! is scheduled to return on Tuesday night in its regular 11:35pm ET slot (03:35 GMT on Wednesday), airing on ABC, with episodes also available to stream on Hulu.

However, Sinclair Broadcast Group – a major operator of local TV stations that include more than 30 ABC affiliates – announced that those stations will avoid Kimmel’s show, and instead, will air local news programming. Washington, DC, and parts of California and Florida will be among the parts of the US that will be affected by Sinclair’s decision.

Separately, Nexstar, also a big owner of ABC affiliate stations, announced on Tuesday that it will replace Jimmy Kimmel Live! with different programming.

Where can you watch it?

Viewers in major US markets, such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, where Disney owns and operates local ABC affiliates, will be able to watch the show. It will also be available nationwide on abc.com and via streaming on Hulu.

You can also watch ABC on the following platforms:

• DirecTV
• FuboSling
• Hulu + Live TV
• Full episodes of Jimmy Kimmel Live! are available the next day on Hulu and Disney+, with clips posted to the show’s YouTube channel after an episode airs, including Kimmel’s opening monologue.

What is expected to happen on the show?

Kimmel is expected to address the events of the past week – in terms of what happened to him. But how he does this, and what else he focuses on, is unclear.

What happened to Kimmel and his show?

On September 10, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at a university event in Utah. After a 33-hour manhunt, police arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson and charged him with aggravated murder.

Prosecutors have since said that though Robinson comes from a staunchly Republican family, his own politics had veered to the left in recent years, based on interviews with his relatives.

Before those revelations from prosecutors, Kimmel had criticised President Donald Trump and his supporters over their response to Kirk’s death. On his show, he accused the “MAGA gang” of twisting the story for political gain by suggesting that the suspected assassin was left-leaning. Kimmel also mocked Trump’s reaction to Kirk’s death – the president had described the killed activist as a close friend, but then, in public comments, also appeared distracted about renovations at the White House – as childish.

Kimmel’s remarks led to a strong backlash. On September 17, broadcast groups Nexstar and Sinclair pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! from their stations.

The dispute grew after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr called for action against Kimmel, Disney and ABC, a move some condemned as government overreach.

Since the suspension, some viewers have begun cancelling subscriptions to Disney+ and Hulu, using hashtags like #CancelDisney and #CancelABC to protest.

Who are the guests expected in this show?

US reports say that on Tuesday, Jimmy Kimmel Live! will host American actor Glen Powell and Canadian singer-songwriter Sarah McLachlan. The following night, the guests are set to include American actors Ethan Hawke and Lisa Ann Walter.

On Thursday, the show’s couch will feature retired American football star Peyton Manning and actor Oscar Nunez, with Alex G taking the stage as the musical act.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on Monday accused Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr of unlawfully intimidating television broadcasters into toeing a conservative line in favor of President Trump, and urged him to reverse course.

In a letter to Carr, Bonta specifically cited ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air after Kimmel made comments about the killing of close Trump ally Charlie Kirk, and Carr demanded ABC’s parent company Disney “take action” against the late-night host.

Bonta wrote that California “is home to a great many artists, entertainers, and other individuals who every day exercise their right to free speech and free expression,” and that Carr’s demands of Disney threatened their 1st Amendment rights.

“As the Supreme Court held over sixty years ago and unanimously reaffirmed just last year, ‘the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,’” Bonta wrote.

Carr and Trump have both denied playing a role in Kimmel’s suspension, alleging instead that it was due to his show having poor ratings.

After Disney announced Monday that Kimmel’s show would be returning to ABC, Bonta said he was “pleased to hear ABC is reversing course on its capitulation to the FCC’s unlawful threats,” but that his “concerns stand.”

He rejected Trump and Carr’s denials of involvement, and accused the administration of “waging a dangerous attack on those who dare to speak out against it.”

“Censoring and silencing critics because you don’t like what they say — be it a comedian, a lawyer, or a peaceful protester — is fundamentally un-American,” while such censorship by the U.S. government is “absolutely chilling,” Bonta said.

Bonta called on Carr to “stop his campaign of censorship” and commit to defending the right to free speech in the U.S., which he said would require “an express disavowal” of his previous threats and “an unambiguous pledge” that he will not use the FCC “to retaliate against private parties” for speech he disagrees with moving forward.

“News outlets have reported today that ABC will be returning Mr. Kimmel’s show to its broadcast tomorrow night. While it is heartening to see the exercise of free speech ultimately prevail, this does not erase your threats and the resultant suppression of free speech from this past week or the prospect that your threats will chill free speech in the future,” Bonta wrote.

After Kirk’s killing, Kimmel said during a monologue that the U.S. had “hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Carr responded on a conservative podcast, saying, “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Two major owners of ABC affiliates dropped the show, after which ABC said it would be “preempted indefinitely.”

Both Kirk’s killing and Kimmel’s suspension — which followed the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” by CBS — kicked off a tense debate about freedom of speech in the U.S. Both Kimmel and Colbert are critics of Trump, while Kirk was an ardent supporter.

Constitutional scholars and other 1st amendment advocates said the administration and Carr have clearly been exerting inappropriate pressure on media companies.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Carr’s actions were part of a broad assault on free speech by the administration, which “is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st amendment.”

Summer Lopez, the interim co-chief executive of PEN America, said this is “a dangerous moment for free speech” in the U.S. because of a host of Trump administration actions that are “pretty clear violations of the 1st Amendment” — including Carr’s threats but also statements about “hate speech” by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and new Pentagon restrictions on journalists reporting on the U.S. military.

She said Kimmel’s return to ABC showed that “public outrage does make a difference,” but that “it’s important that we generate that level of public outrage when the targeting is of people who don’t have that same prominence.”

Carr has also drawn criticism from conservative corners, including from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. He recently said on his podcast that he found it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Cruz said he works closely with Carr, whom he likes, but that what Carr said was “dangerous as hell” and could be used down the line “to silence every conservative in America.”

The Irish rap group has been denied entry for their alleged support for Hamas and Hezbollah, accusations the group denies.

Irish band Kneecap has slammed the Canadian government for banning the rap trio from entering the country over accusations that it was endorsing political violence and terrorism by supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Kneecap has emerged as one of the most controversial groups in the music business, with gigs cancelled and the rappers barred from other countries over their strident pro-Palestinian stance.

Vince Gasparro, a Liberal member of the Canadian parliament and parliamentary secretary for combating crime, on Friday said Kneecap members were deemed ineligible for entry because of actions and statements that violate Canadian law.

Kneecap has “publicly displayed support for terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas” that goes beyond artistic expression, said Gasparro in a video on social media.

“Canada stands firmly against hate speech, incitement to violence and the glorification of terrorism. Political debate and free speech are vital to our democracy, but open endorsements of terrorist groups are not free speech,” he said.

Canada designated both Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations in 2002.

In response, Kneecap said Gasparro’s comments are “wholly untrue and deeply malicious” and threatened to take legal action against him.

“We will be relentless in defending ourselves against baseless accusations to silence our opposition to a genocide being committed by Israel,” it said in a social media post. “There is no legal basis for his actions, no member of Kneecap has ever been convicted of a crime in any country.”

Kneecap was scheduled to perform in Toronto and Vancouver next month.

A message to Vince Gasparro and our many fans across Canada. 👇 https://t.co/66avCapPgn pic.twitter.com/ySsrgpMs6J

— KNEECAP (@KNEECAPCEOL) September 19, 2025

Canada’s immigration ministry declined to comment on the matter, citing privacy reasons.

The Canada-based advocacy organisation Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs said the government’s decision was a stand against “incitement, hate and radicalisation”, while Jewish organisation B’nai Brith called it a “victory”.

Kneecap has faced criticism for political statements seeming to glorify Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanese group Hezbollah, with festivals like Germany’s Hurricane and Southside dropping them from their lineups this past summer.

In May, group member Liam Og O hAnnaidh, who was initially charged under the Anglicised name Liam O’Hanna, and who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was charged with a terrorism offence in the United Kingdom for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag during a performance in London in November 2024. He denies the offence, saying the flag was thrown on stage during the group’s performance.

Kneecap has accused critics of trying to silence the band because of its support for the Palestinian cause throughout Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed more than 65,000 people and reduced much of the enclave to rubble since it began in October 2023. They say they do not support Hezbollah and Hamas, nor condone violence.

In July, Hungary slapped a three-year ban on the Belfast-based group, who had been due to perform at the Sziget Festival in Budapest in August.

Kneecap performed in April at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in California, where they accused Israel – enabled by the US government – of committing genocide against the Palestinians. That prompted calls for the rappers’ US visas to be revoked, and several Kneecap gigs have since been cancelled as a result.

The US senator has labelled Carr’s comments ‘dangerous as hell’ and something ‘right out of Goodfellas’.

A prominent Republican senator has joined the Democrats in criticising threats made by the government of the United States against Disney and local broadcasters for airing Jimmy Kimmel Live.

Ted Cruz, who leads oversight of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), said on Friday that FCC chair Brendan Carr’s threat to take regulatory action against networks over the content of their shows sets a dangerous precedent.

Speaking on his podcast, Cruz labelled Carr’s comments “dangerous as hell” and something “right out of Goodfellas”, referring to Martin Scorsese’s iconic gangster movie.

“That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it’,” Cruz said.

Carr had threatened to fine broadcasters or pull the licences of those who aired Jimmy Kimmel Live on Wednesday, prompting television network ABC – which is owned by Disney – to suspend the late-night talk show.

The owners of dozens of local TV stations affiliated with ABC also said they would no longer air the show.

Carr’s threat came in response to the host’s opening monologue on Monday discussing the murder of Charlie Kirk – a friend and political ally of the president – which caused uproar among President Donald Trump’s supporters.

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said, speaking of 22-year-old Tyler Robinson.

Cruz’s criticism of Carr marks a rare example of a prominent member of Trump’s own party publicly criticising his administration, highlighting deepening bipartisan concerns over attacks on free speech.

“We shouldn’t be threatening government power to force him off air,” Cruz said on his podcast. “It might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel, but when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it,” he added.

Trump, however, said he disagreed with Cruz and called Carr “an incredible American patriot with courage”.

Trump has himself slammed Kimmel’s Kirk monologue, while he also suggested on Thursday that broadcasters critical of his administration should have their FCC-issued licences revoked.

“I’m a very strong person for free speech,” he told reporters at the Oval Office on Friday, when asked to clarify his earlier comments.

But he continued that broadcasters were so critical of him that they represent an extension of the Democratic Party, something he said was “really illegal”.

“That’s no longer free speech … That’s just cheating, and they cheat,” he said.

Prominent Democrats and civil rights groups have condemned the Trump administration’s pressure to punish Kimmel and networks that air his show.

Democrat and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Carr is “one of the single greatest threats to free speech America has ever known”, as he called for him to resign or for Trump to fire him.

Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives on Friday also asked the FCC’s inspector general to investigate Carr’s actions and comments.

The future of Jimmy Kimmel Live remains unclear and Kimmel is yet to publicly comment on his suspension.

United States television host Jimmy Kimmel’s live show was pulled off the air by Disney-owned ABC after he made comments about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot last week in what has been deemed by right-wingers in the US a political assassination.

But critics claim Kimmel’s removal is a violation of his free speech rights, which are enshrined under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

On Thursday, hundreds of Kimmel fans gathered on the streets in Burbank, New York and Hollywood, protesting the removal of his show.

Here is a closer look at what happened and what the US Constitution says about free speech rights.

What happened to Jimmy Kimmel?

Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in front of a crowd of about 3,000 people on September 10 while he was speaking at a university event in Utah.

After a 33-hour manhunt, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was arrested on suspicion of killing Kirk. Robinson has since been charged with aggravated murder.

Some right-wing figures, affiliated with US President Donald Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing, have described Robinson as “left-wing”.

On Monday, Kimmel said on his show: “The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Kimmel continued, criticising the response by Trump – who described Kirk as being “like a son” – to his death. “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel said.

Following a backlash, broadcasters Nexstar and Sinclair said they would pull Kimmel’s late-night show from their affiliated stations.

Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), also said he had a strong case for taking legal action against Kimmel, Disney and ABC.

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, criticised Carr’s response in an interview with CNN. “This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression,” Gomez said.

The FCC has the authority to grant licences to broadcasters, including ABC and its affiliated stations.

Democratic critics have said that pulling his show off the air is an infringement of Kimmel’s right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

What does the First Amendment say?

The First Amendment protects free speech from government interference. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In 1963, the US Supreme Court issued a key ruling that the government cannot create a “system of informal censorship” by putting pressure on private companies.

This was issued after a Rhode Island agency had threatened to prosecute book and magazine distributors for selling publications it considered objectionable.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that, in such situations, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the government’s actions exceeded allowable persuasion and directly caused them harm.

Was the removal of Kimmel’s show unconstitutional?

Experts say Kimmel’s show being pulled is unconstitutional since it infringes the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Ronnie London, a general counsel with free speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told PolitiFact that Carr’s actions are “a classic case of unconstitutional jawboning”, which means improperly using government threats to pursue policy goals.

“The FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views,’” the FCC says on its website.

“Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seek to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.”

How have people reacted to Kimmel’s removal?

Many Democrats, politicians, Hollywood stars and fellow talk-show hosts have stressed the importance of protecting free speech rights.

Former US President Barack Obama shared a series of articles and commentary on X on Friday, saying: “This commentary offers a clear, powerful statement of why freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy and must be defended, whether the speaker is Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.”

This commentary offers a clear, powerful statement of why freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy and must be defended, whether the speaker is Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 19, 2025

In another post, Obama wrote: “This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent – and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

Former late-night host David Letterman said during an event in New York on Thursday: “I feel bad about this, because we all see where this is going, correct? It’s managed media. It’s no good. It’s silly. It’s ridiculous.”

Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement: “The state under Donald Trump has amassed a chilling record of restricting speech, extorting private companies, and dropping the full weight of the government censorship hammer on First Amendment rights.”

Democratic California Senator Adam Schiff posted on X on Thursday: “This administration is responsible for the most blatant attacks on the free press in American history. What will be left of the First Amendment?”

By contrast, the suspension of Kimmel’s show has drawn celebration from the political right.

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC,” Trump continued, referring to late-night show hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.

Conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly wrote on X on Thursday: “I’m not sure who needs to hear this but Jimmy Kimmel got on the air and falsely stated as a fact that Charlie Kirk’s killer was MAGA, smearing an entire movement and Trump in particular with a vile disgusting lie.”

At least 679 titles blacklisted, including texts on human rights, women’s rights and Western political thought.

Afghanistan‘s Taliban-run government plans to remove books written by women from university curricula.

A member of the committee reviewing textbooks confirmed the ban to BBC Afghan on Friday. The blacklisting is part of an educational decree that also prohibits education courses “deemed in conflict with Islamic Sharia”.

The committee member told BBC Afghanistan that “all books authored by women are not allowed to be taught.”

At least 679 titles were banned due to their “anti-Sharia and Taliban policies”, he added.

The books affected cover every field of study, including texts on constitutional law, Islamic political movements and the political system, as well as human rights, women’s studies and Western political thought.

A final list of banned books will be issued to universities at a later date.

A directive, which was seen by BBC Afghan, was signed by the Taliban’s deputy higher education minister, Ziaur Rahman Aryoubi, and the 50-page list of banned books was sent to Afghan universities at the end of last month.

Aryoubi said in a letter to the universities that the decisions had been taken by a panel of “religious scholars and experts” and that the banned books should be replaced with course materials that “do not conflict with Islam”.

The decree is the latest in a series of restrictions the Taliban has imposed since returning to power four years ago.

The Taliban has cracked down on many aspects of education, from firing hundreds of professors on the grounds that they “opposed” the group’s ideology to increasing mandatory religious coursework across all faculties.

Women have been particularly affected. They are no longer allowed to attend school past the sixth grade (age 12).

Universities have also been ordered to stop teaching 18 subjects, six of which are specifically about women, including gender and development. Another 201 courses were under review.

‘Misogynistic mindset’

Zakia Adeli, the former deputy minister of justice before the Taliban’s return in August 2021 and author of Political Terminology and International Relations, one of the banned books, told BBC Afghan that she was unsurprised by the move.

“Considering what the Taliban have done over the past four years, it was not far-fetched to expect them to impose changes on the curriculum,” said Adeli.

“Given the Taliban’s misogynistic mindset and policies, it is only natural that when women themselves are not allowed to study, their views, ideas and writings are also suppressed.”

Sources in the capital Kabul told the Independent Persian outlet that the ban on such a large number of textbooks would cripple the country’s higher education system, as universities will now have to dedicate significant resources to finding and acquiring replacements.

Alongside the female-authored books, a further 300 written by Iranian authors or issued by Iranian publishers are being targeted.

Sources, including one on the book review committee, said this was to “prevent the infiltration of Iranian content” into the country’s curriculum.

In recent years, the relationship between the two neighbouring countries has been strained, particularly over water rights. This tension has been further compounded by Iran’s ejection of more than 1.5 million Afghans who had been living in the country.

Disney-owned ABC has pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live off the air indefinitely after the host caused controversy with remarks about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live will be preempted indefinitely,” an ABC spokesperson said, declining to share any further details.

Prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with Kirk’s murder. Robinson is accused of having shot and killed Kirk while the conservative activist was speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10. Robinson surrendered after a two-day manhunt.

Here’s what Kimmel said that led to outrage among conservatives, and what the ABC and others have said since:

What happened?

In his opening monologue on Monday, Kimmel, a vocal critic of US President Donald Trump, accused “the MAGA gang” of trying to “score political points” from Kirk’s murder, saying they were quick to blame the left before much was known about the shooter’s motives. MAGA, or “Make America Great Again”, is the right-wing political movement that forms Trump’s base.

“The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said on his show. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.

He continued to criticise Trump’s reaction to the shooting.

“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel added.

The remarks angered conservatives and triggered pushback from the Trump administration.

Brian Kilmeade can keep his job after saying we should kill the homeless, but Jimmy Kimmel gets suspended for this? pic.twitter.com/now6OJqQ8r

— Mike Nellis (@MikeNellis) September 18, 2025

“What he said on Monday was he suggested the suspected shooter of Charlie Kirk was a pro-Trump Republican,” Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro noted, adding that Kimmel spoke before authorities released text messages showing the suspected killer was actually politically opposed to Kirk.

The next day, Robinson appeared in court, charged with aggravated murder. A precise motive remains unclear, but in court documents, prosecutors have cited his relatives telling them that he had veered to the left politically in recent years, and thought Kirk was full of hate.

In text messages to his flatmate and romantic partner after Kirk’s assassination, Robinson said: “I had enough of his hatred.” Then, in a separate message, he added: “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

Yet Kimmel returned to the topic on Tuesday night, where he accused Trump of “fanning the flames” by attacking people on the left. The Trump administration has said it will crack down on left-wing groups, whom it accuses of ratcheting up hate against conservatives. On Wednesday, Trump also said that he planned to designate the Antifa left-wing political movement a “terrorist” organisation.

Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), told right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday that he had a strong case for taking action against Kimmel, ABC and Disney. The FCC is responsible for granting licences to broadcasters such as the ABC and its affiliates.

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said. “They have a licence granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.”

According to a Bloomberg report, quoting sources, Kimmel had planned to address the backlash on his show on Wednesday and rehearsed it that morning.

Carr also urged media companies that own local television stations to “push back”.

What was the fallout?

Nexstar, which owns several ABC affiliates, appeared to follow that call, announcing it would drop Jimmy Kimmel Live from its affiliates even before ABC itself confirmed the suspension.

The company said on Wednesday it would not air the show “for the foreseeable future, beginning with tonight’s show”.

Kimmel’s remarks about Kirk were “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse,” Nexstar added.

Carr expressed approval for Nexstar’s decision, thanking them “for doing the right thing”.

Nexstar, which describes itself as the country’s largest local television and media company, needs FCC approval for its $6.2bn deal to acquire smaller rival Tegna.

I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.

Local broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest. While this may be an unprecedented decision, it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community… https://t.co/Px5boYbqNR

— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) September 17, 2025

What was Trump’s reaction?

Trump described it as “great news for America” shortly after ABC revealed Kimmel had been suspended.

“The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump said.

He then criticised two other late-night hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, who he described as “two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible.”

JD Vance, the US vice president, earlier this week urged Americans to turn in fellow citizens who mocked the assassination.

In July, after CBS cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Trump said: “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!”

CBS said the ‘Late Show’ was dropped for financial reasons but its timing, three days after Colbert blasted a settlement between Trump and CBS parent company Paramount, led two senators to question whether politics were at play.

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to @ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done…” – President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/Vhj6DQSssu

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 18, 2025

Who is Jimmy Kimmel?

Jimmy Kimmel is among the most recognisable figures in US late-night television. He has hosted Jimmy Kimmel Live on ABC since 2003, making him one of the longest-serving talk-show hosts still on air.

Before breaking into television, Kimmel built his career in radio, working as a host in Seattle, Tampa, and Tucson before eventually moving to Los Angeles, where he transitioned into TV.

Over the years, Kimmel has become known for his monologues, celebrity interviews and viral comedy segments. He has also taken on a more political edge in recent years, frequently criticising Trump and weighing in on social debates.

Kimmel has also hosted Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, which won him an Emmy, and big live events like the Oscars.

In recent years, according to reports, Kimmel has scaled back his workload, often taking summers off from the show. His current contract with ABC is set to expire in less than a year, raising questions about whether he will extend his run or step away after two decades on air.

When his contract extension was announced, he joked, “After two decades at ABC, I am now looking forward to three years of what they call ‘quiet quitting.’”

How popular was his show?

Late-night viewership, like much of traditional television, has been declining as audiences migrate to streaming platforms and social media.

According to Nielsen, a United States media audience measurement firm, Jimmy Kimmel Live drew an average of 1.57 million viewers per episode during the broadcast season that ended in May.

During the same period, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert led the field, averaging 1.9 million viewers.

The US Television Database showed Jimmy Kimmel Live attracting about 1.1 million viewers per episode – a 0.35 percent rating, down 11 percent from the previous month – based on audience measurements for the period ending August 31, 2025.

Remember when the notion of government censorship in the U.S. seemed like the plot of an Orwellian novel, or something that happened in other places, countries where masked militia kidnap people off the street and disappear them? Our 1st Amendment rights as Americans seemed to guarantee that would never happen here. The state could not take away our free speech.

It turns out we don’t need a state-sponsored crackdown to punish those who express sentiments that offend, because the private sector has stepped in to do the job. An office supply store, a news network and an airline carrier are among companies that recently fired staff who made comments about influencer Charlie Kirk’s death that were interpreted as celebratory, insensitive or blaming the conservative activist’s polarizing viewpoints for his targeted killing.

Now Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah says that she was unfairly fired over thoughts she expressed following the assassination of Kirk last week in Utah. She wrote: “The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being ‘unacceptable’, ‘gross misconduct’ and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false.”

“They rushed to fire me without even a conversation,” Attiah said. “This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold.” She said that in her posts she exercised “restraint even as I condemned hatred and violence.”

Her comments were largely about gun violence and issues of race. Attiah mentioned Kirk directly in just one post, paraphrasing from a comment he made about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and former Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, both of whom are Black. “’Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot’ — Charlie Kirk,” she wrote.

Attiah didn’t celebrate the death of Kirk in her posts or make light of his slaying, but she didn’t mourn him either. In the current political environment, that alone could be enough to make her employer nervous, even compared to all the other truly awful stuff out there.

Sadly, the cruel, inhumane and politicized responses that followed Kirk’s tragic killing shouldn’t surprise anyone. Social media behaved as it always does — as a repository for every good, bad and really bad impulse experience following a tragedy or crisis.

The same quotient of 20% civility, 80% ugliness enveloped X, YouTube, TikTok and the like when three months ago Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were assassinated in their home in a politically motivated attack. Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were also allegedly shot by the same suspect in their home but survived.

The difference back in June? There wasn’t a mass movement to fire, cancel or silence those who minimized the tragic killings or, worse, turned them into a trolling opportunity. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah blamed the killings on the left — “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way,” he wrote on X — and posted a picture of suspect Vance Boelter with the caption “Nightmare on Waltz Street.” It was a crass reference to Tim Walz, Minnesota’s Democratic governor, who was Kamala Harris’ running mate in the 2024 presidential election. Lee (who is now publicly mourning Kirk’s death) was taking his cues from the top.

President Trump’s short condemnation of Hortman’s killing on Truth Social stated that “such horrific violence will not be tolerated.” There was no lengthy eulogy, he did not attend the funeral, and when asked the day after Hortman’s killing if he had called Walz, the president said, “I could be nice and call, but why waste time?”

In response to Kirk’s killing, Trump issued an order to lower American flags to half-staff at the White House, all public buildings, U.S. embassies and military posts. He announced he would posthumously award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And during an appearance Friday on “Fox & Friends,” he promised vengeance against the left for Kirk’s killing, though the suspect — let alone his motives — were still unknown at the time.

“I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less,” Trump said. “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime. They’re saying, ‘We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.’ The radicals on the left are the problem. And they’re vicious, and they’re horrible, and they’re politically savvy.”

The prospect of retribution from a thin-skinned leader leaves no mystery as to why major media outlets such as the Post, “60 Minutes” and MSNBC appear to be reshaping their newsrooms to be less critical of the current administration. The same now goes for break rooms, shop floors and office cubicles across all sectors of American working life. It’s not the Big Brother scenario envisioned in George Orwell’s cautionary tale about a totalitarian state, “1984,” but it’s a start.

A coordinated online doxxing campaign has emerged in the wake of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s killing, targeting academics, teachers, government employees and others who have posted critical remarks about him.

At least 15 people have been fired or suspended from their jobs after discussing the killing online, according to a Reuters tally on Saturday based on interviews, public statements and local press reports. The total includes journalists, academic workers and teachers.

On Friday, a junior Nasdaq employee was fired over her posts related to Kirk.

Others have been subjected to torrents of online abuse or seen their offices flooded with calls demanding they be fired, part of a surge in right-wing rage that has followed the killing.

Chaya Raichik, who runs the right-wing “Libs of TikTok” account and is known for her anti-immigrant activism, is at the forefront of the campaign. She has shared names, photos and workplace details of individuals who expressed little sympathy for Kirk’s death.

In one case, Raichik targeted a lecturer at California State University, Monterey Bay, who reportedly wrote in an Instagram story: “I cannot muster much sympathy, truly. People are going to argue ‘He has a family, he has a wife and kids.’ What about all the kids, the many broken families from the over 258 school shootings 2020–present?”

Raichik reposted the lecturer’s photo, accusing him of mocking Kirk’s assassination.

The lecturer has not commented, but several teachers across the United States – including in California, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas – have been suspended or dismissed over similar online remarks. Union leaders condemned Kirk’s killing, but also warned against punishing educators for free speech.

Raichik has also targeted members of the military. One Coast Guard employee is under investigation after posting a meme saying he did not care about Kirk’s death. A former Twitter worker was also singled out for criticising the New York Yankees for holding a moment of silence for Kirk.

A newly registered site, “Expose Charlie’s Murderers,” has 41 names of people it alleges were “supporting political violence online” and claims to be working on a backlog of more than 20,000 submissions.

A Reuters review of the screenshots and comments posted to the site shows that some of those featured joked about or celebrated Kirk’s death. One was quoted as saying, “He got what he deserved”, and others were quoted providing variations on “karma’s a bitch.” Others, however, were critical of the far-right figure while explicitly denouncing violence.

Some institutions have already taken disciplinary action. Middle Tennessee State University dismissed an assistant dean after she wrote: “Looks like ol’Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy.” The comment referred to Kirk’s 2023 defence of gun violence, in which he argued: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment … That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Even quoting that remark has been enough for some to be targeted.

Republican response

Some Republicans want to go further still and have proposed deporting Kirk’s critics from the US, suing them into penury or banning them from social media for life.

“Prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined if you are sick enough to celebrate his death,” said conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a prominent ally of Trump and one of several far-right figures who are organising digital campaigns on X to ferret out and publicly shame Kirk’s critics.

The wave of firings and suspensions has raised concerns over free expression, while far-right activists celebrate what they see as a campaign of accountability.

US lawmaker Clay Higgins said in a post on X that anyone who “ran their mouth with their smart**s hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man” needed to be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”

The US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said on the same site that he had been disgusted to “see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action.”

Republicans’ anger at those disrespecting Kirk’s legacy contrasts with the mockery some of the same figures – including Kirk – directed at past victims of political violence.

For example, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was clubbed over the head by a hammer-wielding conspiracy theorist during a break-in at their San Francisco home shortly before the 2022 midterm elections, Higgins posted a photo making fun of the attack. He later deleted the post.

Loomer falsely suggested that Paul Pelosi and his assailant were lovers, calling the brutal assault on the octogenarian a “booty call gone wrong.”

Speaking to a television audience a few days after the attack, a grinning Kirk called for the intruder to be sprung from jail.

“If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out,” he said.

Since the controversial ban on July 7, more than 700 people have been detained at peaceful protests.

London’s Metropolitan Police say at least 60 people will face prosecution for “showing support” for Palestine Action, the activist group outlawed as a “terrorist organisation” last month for protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Three others have already been charged.

“We have put arrangements in place that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary,” the force said in a statement on Friday.

Since the controversial ban on July 7, more than 700 people have been detained at peaceful protests, including 522 arrested at a protest last weekend for holding signs backing the group, believed to be the largest number of arrests at a single protest in the capital’s history.

Critics, including the United Nations, Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have called the ban an overreach that risks stifling free speech.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the latest decisions were the “first significant numbers” from recent demonstrations, adding: “Many more can be expected in the next few weeks. People should be clear about the real-life consequences for anyone choosing to support Palestine Action.”

The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned against a “heavy-handed” approach, urging the government and police to ensure protest policing is proportionate and guided by clear legal tests.

The initial three prosecutions earlier this month stemmed from arrests during a July demonstration, with defendants charged under the Terrorism Act. Police said convictions for such offences could carry sentences of up to six months in prison, along with other penalties.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley praised the rapid coordination between officers and prosecutors, saying he was “proud of how our police and CPS teams have worked so speedily together to overcome misguided attempts to overwhelm the justice system”.

Home Office Minister Yvette Cooper defended the Labour government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, stating: “UK national security and public safety must always be our top priority. The assessments are very clear, this is not a non-violent organisation.”

The group was banned days after claiming responsibility for a break-in at an air force base in southern England, which the government claims caused an estimated 7 million pounds ($9.3 million) in damage to two aircraft. The home office has accused it of other “serious attacks” involving “violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage”.

Palestine Action has said its actions target the United Kingdom’s indirect military support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.

The UK’s Liberal Democrats voiced “deep concern” over using “anti-terrorism powers” against peaceful protesters.

Hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in several UK cities for nearly two years, calling for an end to Israel’s war on Gaza and for the British government to stop all weapons sales to the country.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said last month that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by September unless Israel takes “substantive steps” to end its war on Gaza and commits to a lasting peace process. Many who have been protesting to end Palestinian suffering have said the move is too little, too late.

An outpouring of grief and condemnation has followed the Israeli assassination of five Al Jazeera staff in Gaza, including prominent correspondent Anas al-Sharif.

The drone attack late on Sunday hit a tent for journalists positioned outside the main gate of Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital, killing seven people. Among the dead were Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and Mohammed Noufal.

Just hours earlier, al-Sharif, 28, had posted on X about Israel’s “intense, concentrated bombardment” on eastern and southern Gaza City. Known for his fearless reporting from northern Gaza, he had become one of the most recognisable voices documenting the ongoing Israeli genocide in the enclave.

Al Jazeera Media Network has condemned what it called a “targeted assassination” of its journalists.

Below are a few of the responses to the killing of Al Jazeera staff:

Palestine

The Palestinian mission to the United Nations accused Israel of “deliberately assassinating” al-Sharif and Qreiqeh, describing them as among the “last remaining journalists” in Gaza.

“They have systematically and dutifully exposed and documented Israel’s genocide and starvation,” the mission said on X. “As Israel continues to ethnically cleanse Gaza, its enemy remains the truth: the brave journalists exposing its heinous crimes.”

Iran

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei has called on the world to hold Israel to account after the killing of the five Al Jazeera staff.

“A press badge is no shield against genocidal war criminals who fear the world witnessing their atrocities,” said Baghaei, accusing Israel of assassinating the journalists “in cold blood”.

“Strong condemnation is the bare minimum for any decent human being, but the world must act immediately to stop this harrowing genocide and hold the criminals accountable,” he added.

“Indifference and inaction are complicity in Israel’s crimes.”

United Nations

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, offered condolences to “the Al Jazeera family” and called for an investigation.

“We have always been very clear in condemning all killings of journalists,” Dujarric said. “In Gaza, and everywhere, media workers should be able to carry out their work freely and without harassment, intimidation or fear of being targeted.”

Al Jazeera Media Network has condemned “in the strongest terms” the killing of its journalists in a targeted assassination by Israeli forces.

In a statement, the network said the Israeli military “admitted to their crimes” and deliberately directed the attack at the journalists’ location. It called the assassination “another blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom”.

The strike came amid what Al Jazeera described as the “catastrophic consequences” of Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza, including mass civilian deaths, forced starvation, and the destruction of entire communities.

The network called the killing of al-Sharif, one of Gaza’s most prominent reporters, and his colleagues “a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza”.

Committee to Protect Journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says it is “appalled” by Israel’s killing of Al Jazeera journalists.

“Israel’s pattern of labeling journalists as militants without providing credible evidence raises serious questions about its intent and respect for press freedom,” said the CPJ’s regional director, Sara Qudah.

“Those responsible for these killings must be held accountable,” Qudah added.

Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the CPJ, recalled how Israel accused al-Sharif and others of being “terrorists” last October without evidence.

“We warned back then that this felt to us like a precursor to justify assassination,” she told Al Jazeera. “This is part of a pattern … going back decades, in which it kills journalists.”

Amnesty International

Amnesty International condemned the strike as a war crime under international law and remembered al-Sharif as a “brave and extraordinary” reporter.

In 2024, al-Sharif was awarded Amnesty International Australia’s Human Rights Defender Award for his resilience and commitment to press freedom.

“We at Amnesty International are devastated and heartbroken,” said Mohamed Duar, Amnesty International Australia’s spokesperson on the occupied Palestinian territory. “Anas dedicated his life to standing before the camera, exposing Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, and documenting the truth so the world could bear witness.

“The courageous and brave journalists who have been reporting since the genocide began have been operating in the most dangerous conditions on Earth. At great risk to their lives, they have remained to show the world the war crimes being committed by Israel against almost two million Palestinian women, men and children,” he added.

National Press Club

Mike Balsamo, president of the US-based National Press Club, said the killing of journalists is “a loss felt far beyond one newsroom” and urged a “thorough and transparent” investigation.

“Journalists must be able to work without being targeted or killed,” Balsamo said. “All parties in conflict zones must honour their obligations under international law to protect reporters and ensure they can carry out their work safely.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has condemned Israel’s killing of five Al Jazeera journalists and called on US and international media workers to “stand in solidarity” with their Palestinian colleagues.

“Israel’s ongoing campaign of targeted assassinations of Palestinian journalists is a war crime, plain and simple,” CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement.

“The murder of these Al Jazeera journalists is not an accident or collateral damage – it is part of a consistent, documented policy of silencing media voices and hiding the truth of the genocide being carried out by Israel in Gaza,” Awad said.

Since October 2023, Israel has killed 269 journalists in Gaza, in the deadliest conflict ever recorded for reporters.

Srinagar, India-administered Kashmir – Hafsa Kanjwal’s book on Kashmir has just been banned, but it’s the irony of the moment that strikes her the most.

This week, authorities in India-administered Kashmir proscribed 25 books authored by acclaimed scholars, writers and journalists.

The banned books include Kanjwal’s Colonizing Kashmir: State‑Building under Indian Occupation. But even as the ban was followed by police raids on several bookstores in the region’s biggest city, Srinagar, during which they seized books on the blacklist, Indian officials are holding a book festival in the city on the banks of Dal Lake.

“Nothing is surprising about this ban, which comes at a moment when the level of censorship and surveillance in Kashmir since 2019 has reached absurd heights,” Kanjwal told Al Jazeera, referring to India’s crackdown on the region since it revoked Kashmir’s semiautonomous status six years ago.

“It is, of course, even more absurd that this ban comes at a time when the Indian army is simultaneously promoting book reading and literature through a state-sponsored Chinar Book Festival.”

Yet even with Kashmir’s long history of facing censorship, the book bans represent to many critics a particularly sweeping attempt by New Delhi to assert control over academia in the disputed region.

‘Misguiding youth’

The 25 books banned by the government offer a detailed overview of the events surrounding the Partition of India and the reasons why Kashmir became such an intransigent territorial dispute to begin with.

They include writings like Azadi by Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy, Human Rights Violations in Kashmir by Piotr Balcerowicz and Agnieszka Kuszewska, Kashmiris’ Fight for Freedom by Mohd Yusaf Saraf, Kashmir Politics and Plebiscite by Abdul Gockhami Jabbar and Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora? by Essar Batool. These are books that directly speak to rights abuses and massacres in Kashmir and promises broken by the Indian state.

Then there are books like Kanjwal’s, journalist Anuradha Bhasin’s A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370 and legal scholar AG Noorani’s The Kashmir Dispute 1947-2012, which dissect the region’s political journey over the decades.

The government has blamed these books for allegedly “misguiding youth” in Kashmir and instigating their “participation in violence and terrorism”. The government’s order states: “This literature would deeply impact the psyche of youth by promoting a culture of grievance, victimhood, and terrorist heroism.”

The dispute in Kashmir dates back to 1947 when the departing British cleaved the Indian subcontinent into the two dominions of India and Pakistan. Muslim-majority Kashmir’s Hindu king sought to be independent of both, but after Pakistan-backed fighters entered a part of the region, he agreed to join India on the condition that Kashmir enjoy a special status within the new union with some autonomy guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

But the Kashmiri people were never asked what they wanted, and India repeatedly rebuffed demands for a United Nations-sponsored plebiscite.

Discontent against Indian rule simmered on and off and exploded into an armed uprising against India in 1989 in response to allegations of election fixing.

Kanjwal’s Colonizing Kashmir sheds light on the complicated ways in which the Indian government under its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, consolidated its control over Kashmir.

Some of Nehru’s decisions that have come under criticism include the unceremonious dismissal of the region’s leader Sheikh Abdullah, who advocated for self-rule for Kashmir, and the decision to replace him with his lieutenant, Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad, whose 10 years in office were marked by the strengthening of New Delhi’s rule of Indian-administered Kashmir.

Kanjwal’s book won this year’s Bernard Cohn Book Prize, which “recognizes outstanding and innovative scholarship for a first single-authored English-language monograph on South Asia”.

Kanjwal said the ban gives a sense of how “insecure” the government is.

‘Intensification of political clampdown’

India has a long history of censorship and information control in Kashmir. In 2010, after major protests broke out following the killing of 17-year-old student Tufail Mattoo by security forces, the provincial government banned SMS services and restored them only three years later.

At the height of another civil uprising in 2016, the government stopped Kashmir Reader, an independent publication in Srinagar, from going to press, citing its purported “tendency to incite violence”.

Aside from prohibitions on newspapers and modes of communication, Indian authorities have routinely detained journalists under stringent preventive detention laws in Kashmir.

That pattern has picked up since 2019.

“First they came for journalists, and realising they were successful in silencing them, they have turned their attention to academia,” said veteran editor Anuradha Bhasin, whose book on India’s revocation of Kashmir’s special status in 2019 is among those banned.

Bhasin described the accusations that her book promotes violence as strange. “Nowhere does my book glorify terrorism, but it does criticise the state. There’s a distinction between the two that authorities in Kashmir want to blur. That’s a very dangerous trend.”

Bhasin told Al Jazeera that such bans will have far-reaching implications for future works being produced on Kashmir. “Publishers will think twice before printing anything critical on Kashmir,” she said. “When my book went to print, the legal team vetted it thrice.”

‘A feeling of despair’

The book bans have drawn criticism from various quarters in Kashmir with students and researchers calling it an attempt to impose collective amnesia.

Sabir Rashid, a 27-year-old independent scholar from Kashmir, said he was very disappointed.  “If we take these books out of Kashmir’s literary canon, we are left with nothing,” he said.

Rashid is working on a book on Kashmir’s modern history concerning the period surrounding the Partition of India.

“If these works are no longer available to me, my research is naturally going to be lopsided.”

On Thursday, videos showed uniformed policemen entering bookstores in Srinagar and asking their proprietors if they possessed any of the books in the banned list.

At least one book vendor in Srinagar told Al Jazeera he had a single copy of Bhasin’s Dismantled State, which he sold just before the raids. “Except that one, I did not have any of these books,” he shrugged.

More acclaimed works on the blacklist

Historian Sumantra Bose is aghast at the suggestion by Indian authorities that his book Kashmir at the Crossroads has fuelled violence in the region. He has worked on the Kashmir dispute since 1993 and said he has focused on devising pathways for finding a lasting peace for the region. Bose is also amused at a family legacy represented by the ban.

In 1935, the colonial authorities in British India banned The Indian Struggle, 1920-1934, a compendium of political analysis authored by Subhas Chandra Bose, his great-uncle and a leader of India’s freedom struggle.

“Ninety years later, I have been accorded the singular honour of following in the legendary freedom fighter’s footsteps,” he said.

As police step up raids on bookshops in Srinagar and seize valuable, more critical works, the literary community in Kashmir has a feeling of despondency.

“This is an attack on the people’s memory,” Rashid said. “These books served as sentinels. They were supposed to remind us of our history. But now, the erasure of memory in Kashmir is nearly complete.”

New York City-based Columbia University has agreed to pay $221m to settle claims by US President Donald Trump’s administration that it failed to curb anti-Semitism on campus, in exchange for the reinstatement of billions of dollars in federal funding.

The deal, agreed on Wednesday, comes after sweeping university campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza during the spring and summer of 2024 and this year were criticised as veering into anti-Semitism.

In February, the government cut $400m in federal research funding for Columbia in a bid to force its administrators to respond to alleged harassment of Jewish students and faculty.

The unprecedented agreement marks a victory in Trump’s efforts to exert greater control over higher education, including campus activism, and could offer a framework for future deals with other universities.

What’s in the deal Trump has struck with Columbia?

Columbia has agreed to pay $200m to the government over three years, as well as making a separate $21m payment to settle claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In exchange, the “vast majority” of the frozen $400m in federal funding will be reinstated, the university said. Columbia will also regain access to billions of dollars’ worth of current and future grants under the deal.

Columbia is required, within 30 days, to appoint an administrator who will report to the university president and will be responsible for overseeing the deal’s compliance. This includes verifying that the institution ends programmes that promote “unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotas [and] diversity targets”.

Additionally, Columbia must review its Middle East curriculum to make sure it is “comprehensive and balanced” and appoint new faculty staff to its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies. 

Columbia said the agreement establishes Bart Schwartz, of the compliance firm Guidepost Solutions, as an independent monitor who will report to the government on its progress every six months.

The university will be expected to compile a report for the monitor to ensure its programmes “do not promote unlawful DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] goals”.

Why have they come to this agreement?

Columbia said the agreement formalises already-announced reforms to address harassment of Jewish students and staff, including the hiring of additional public safety personnel, changes to disciplinary processes, and efforts to foster “an inclusive and respectful learning environment”.

The dispute between Columbia and the Trump administration began after Jewish students and faculty complained of harassment on campus by pro-Palestine demonstrators, while pro-Palestinian advocates accused critics of often wrongly conflating opposition to Israel with the hatred of Jews.

Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, said the agreement marked “an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty”.

“The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track. Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest,” she added.

Trump hailed the settlement as “historic” in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,” he wrote.

How have students and activists reacted?

Student activist group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) slammed the settlement as “a bribe”. “Imagine selling your students out just so you can pay Trump $221 million dollars and keep funding genocide,” the group wrote on X.

It added that Columbia’s disciplinary action against students, including suspensions and expulsions, this week was a punishment that “hugely” exceeded the precedent for non-Palestine-related demonstrations.

Non-governmental organisation Palestine Legal accused Columbia of “weaponising claims of antisemitism to punish those calling for freedom for Palestinians”.

“It is clear that Columbia’s desire to create a community ‘where all feel welcome’ doesn’t extend to students who call for an end to Israel’s genocide,” the group posted on X.

Hasan Piker, a left-wing activist, political commentator and a critic of Trump, said the US president was “underwater on everything and Columbia is still caving to Trump on everything”, adding “it seems like some of these institutions were looking for the pretext to go right”.

What steps has Columbia already taken to pacify the Trump administration?

In March, Columbia agreed to a list of demands laid down by Trump in return for negotiations to reinstate its $400m federal funding, which he had revoked a month before, citing “a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment”.

Among other concessions, the university agreed to ban face mask coverings during protests, as well as to install 36 campus police officers with special powers to arrest students.

Earlier this month, Columbia adopted a controversial definition of anti-Semitism drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which has been criticised for what some say is conflating criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Critics have warned that the definition could be used to stifle dissent and curb academic freedom. In a letter sent to the United Nations in 2023, 60 human and civil rights organisations said the definition should not be used.

“The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” they wrote.

On Tuesday, Columbia also announced it would suspend, expel or revoke degrees for nearly 80 students who participated in a Butler Library demonstration on its campus on May 7, 2025 and a “Revolt for Rafah” encampment on May 31, 2024 during the university’s annual alumni weekend.

During protests, students demanded that the university’s $14.8bn endowment stop investing in weapons makers and other companies that support Israel.

Protest organiser and former student Mahmoud Khalil, 29, was the first person to be detained during the Trump administration’s push to deport pro-Palestinian activists who are not US citizens.

The school also said it would no longer engage with pro-Palestinian group CUAD.

Which other universities has Trump set his sights on, and why?

The Trump administration is focusing attention on 10 universities that it deems noteworthy in its campaign to root out anti-Semitism. These are Columbia; George Washington University; Harvard; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California.

Columbia University was the first college to see its funding slashed, but several Ivy League schools have been subjected to or threatened with funding cuts since Trump took office in January 2024.

More than $2bn in total was frozen for Cornell, Northwestern, Brown and Princeton universities.

In April, the administration also threatened to freeze $510m in grants to Brown University over alleged violations “relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination”.

Harvard University was the first – and has so far been the only – major higher education institution to defy Trump’s demands and fight back in federal court.

This week, it argued in federal court that the Trump administration had illegally cut $2.6bn in funding in what were politically motivated attempts to reshape the institution.

Are deals with other universities expected as well?

Some universities are also believed to be in talks with the Trump administration, so more deals could be forthcoming.

In particular, US news outlets have reported that officials from the Trump administration and Harvard are continuing negotiations, despite the court case brought by Harvard.

In June, Trump posted on social media that “if a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country”.

The rights group Cristosal says it has evacuated staff from El Salvador amid pressure from President Nayib Bukele.

The El Salvador human rights and anti-corruption watchdog Cristosal says it has relocated its operations outside the country, as the government of President Nayib Bukele intensifies its crackdown on dissenting voices.

Cristosal said on Thursday that it has suspended work in El Salvador and relocated its staff out of the country, where the group plans to continue its work in exile.

“When it became clear that the government was prepared to persecute us criminally and that there is no possibility of defence or impartial trial, that makes it unviable to take those risks anymore,” Noah Bullock, executive director of Cristosal, told the news agency Reuters, speaking from Guatemala.

The Bukele government has stepped up its targeting of organisations and figures that scrutinise the government’s record on issues such as corruption and security, threatening rights groups and independent media with what critics say are fabricated legal challenges.

Ruth Lopez, a prominent anti-corruption and justice advocate with Cristosal, was arrested on corruption charges in May and remains in detention. Her arrest has been denounced by organisations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations.

Bukele also announced a new law in May requiring non-governmental organisations that receive support from outside the country to register with the government and pay additional taxes.

Cristosal has operated in El Salvador for 25 years and has become a target of ire for Bukele with investigations into government corruption and reports on the human toll of El Salvador’s campaign of mass arrests and suspension of key civil liberties in the name of combating gang activity.

“Under a permanent state of exception and near-total control of all institutions, El Salvador has ceased to be a state of rights,” the group said in a statement on Thursday. “Expressing an opinion or demanding basic rights today can land you in jail.”

The Bukele government declared a “state of exception” in March 2022, granting the government and security forces exceptional powers and suspending key civil liberties. The government’s push has substantially reduced the influence of powerful gangs that had previously smothered life in Salvadoran cities with exploitation and violence.

Those successes have won Bukele widespread popularity, but come at a steep cost: scores of people swept into prisons without charge, held in abysmal conditions and with no means of contesting their detention. Bukele himself has also faced accusations of coordinating behind the scenes with powerful gang leaders.

While the government has boasted that violent crime has fallen to record lows and the gangs have been smashed, it has continuously renewed the exceptional powers under the state of emergency, which dissidents say are being used to target and harass human rights advocates and critics of the government.

In April 2023, the investigative news outlet El Faro also stated that it would relocate its administrative and legal operations outside the country over fears of legal harassment and surveillance, while its reporters would continue to work in El Salvador.

Social media platform says the Indian government ordered it last week to block 2,355 accounts, including two Reuters handles.

X says it is “deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India” after New Delhi ordered the social media platform to block more than 2,300 accounts, including two Reuters news agency handles.

X restored the Reuters News account in India on Sunday, a day after it said it was asked by the Indian government to suspend it, citing a legal demand.

Many other blocked accounts were also restored, with New Delhi denying its role in the takedown.

In a post on Tuesday, X, promoted by billionaire Elon Musk, said the Indian government on July 3 ordered it to block 2,355 accounts in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

“Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action – within one hour – without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice,” X said.

“After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.”

On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) July 8, 2025

According to a post on X post by the ANI news agency, Reuters’ partner in India, a spokesperson for India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said the government did not issue “any fresh blocking order” on July 3 and had “no intention to block any prominent international news channels”, including Reuters and Reuters World.

“The moment Reuters and Reuters World were blocked on X platform in India, immediately the government wrote to X to unblock them,” the post said. “The government continuously engaged and vigorously pursued with X from the late night of July 5, 2025.”

The spokesperson said X had “unnecessarily exploited technicalities involved around the process and didn’t unblock” the accounts.

India’s IT law, passed in 2000, allows designated government officials to demand the takedown of content from social media platforms they deem to violate local laws, including on the grounds of national security or if a post threatens public order.

X, formerly known as Twitter, has long been at odds with India’s government over content-removal requests. In March, the company sued the federal government over a new government website the company says expands takedown powers to “countless” government officials. The case is continuing.

India, the world’s biggest democracy, regularly ranks among the top five countries for the number of requests made by a government to remove social media content.

Rights groups say freedom of expression and free press is under threat in India since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014.

New Delhi has regularly imposed blanket internet shutdowns during periods of unrest.

In April, the government launched a sweeping crackdown on social media, banning more than a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels for allegedly spreading “provocative” content following an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. Many of those have been restored.

New Delhi has also imposed intermittent internet outages in the northeastern state of Manipur since 2023 in the wake of ethnic violence.

The government has justified internet and social media bans as ways to curb disinformation in a country where hundreds of millions have access to some of the cheapest mobile internet rates in the world.

In its post on Tuesday, X said it was exploring all legal options available over censorship, but added that it was “restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges”.

“We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts,” it said.