Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech May 5, 2025 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. The Courts Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Court Holds Anti-DEI Executive Orders Don't Facially Violate First Amendment By Eugene Volokh .....Some short excerpts from Friday's long decision by Judge Timothy Kelly (D.D.C.) in National Urban League v. Trump: Wall Street Journal: Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Law Firm Perkins Coie By Erin Mulvaney and Jan Wolfe .....A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked an executive order from President Trump targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, declaring it unconstitutional, in the most decisive blow yet against Trump’s campaign to rein in some of the legal world’s most prominent firms. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., is likely to serve as a model for judges weighing cases brought by other firms fighting back against similar orders. The sharply worded 102-page opinion rebuked the administration’s order and its motivations, saying the case presented an “unprecedented attack” on foundational principles to ensure lawyers have “crucial independence” from any group that wields power. Trump Administration Wall Street Journal: Trump Officials Explore Ways of Challenging Tax-Exempt Status of Nonprofits By Brian Schwartz, Joel Schectman, and Richard Rubin .....Trump administration officials are exploring ways of challenging the tax-exempt status of nonprofits, according to people familiar with the matter, in a move that some IRS staffers fear could damage the agency’s apolitical approach. In hourslong meetings that continued over a recent weekend, Internal Revenue Service lawyers explored whether they could alter the rules governing how nonprofit groups can be denied tax-exempt status, the people said. The meetings started taking place shortly after the Trump administration appointed a new top interim lawyer at the agency, Andrew De Mello, whom Trump had nominated for a different post in his first term. De Mello privately discussed the nonprofit rules with agency officials, including those at the tax-exempt division, according to people familiar with the matter. Executive Functions: Another Move in Donald Trump’s Politics of Law Enforcement By Bob Bauer .....The order itself does not call for an investigation of ActBlue. It almost seems from its wording that ActBlue has been the victim, “used” by malign actors and foreign nationals to funnel illegal contributions from foreign sources to candidates. The memorandum even appears to credit ActBlue with having “detected” fraudulent activity on its platform. In the memorandum’s reference to “extremely troubling evidence” of “willing” online platform complicity, the memorandum does not specifically name Act Blue, but instead “online fundraising platforms” more generally. Unlike the executive actions targeting law firms who are named specifically in the title, this memorandum mandates investigation of “Unlawful ‘Straw Donor’ and Foreign Contributions in American Elections.” But along with the memorandum, the White House released a “fact sheet,” and it is this document that singles out ActBlue, targeting it for political prosecution. The fact sheet describes ActBlue as “notorious for its lax standards that enable unverified and fraudulent donations,” alleges that a House investigation “revealed that ActBlue trained employees to ‘look for reasons to accept contributions,’ even in the face of suspicious activity,” and cites investigations by “[n]umerous state attorneys general … into ActBlue over suspicious donations.” The full intent and effect of the memorandum can be assessed only by reading it in conjunction with the “fact sheet.” Politico: Trump signs order to cut funding to PBS and NPR By Irie Sentner .....President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that seeks to restrict public funds to NPR and PBS, two independent public news organizations that have faced Republicans’ ire for reporting they claim is biased. The extraordinary order, which the president signed behind closed doors aboard Air Force One and the White House announced around midnight, is the biggest escalation yet in the Trump administration’s assault on the media. The order claims that NPR and PBS produce “biased and partisan news coverage” and calls for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation to which Congress appropriates more than $500 million annually, to “cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and … decline to provide future funding” to the news organizations. “Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter,” the order says. “What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” New York Times: Gates Foundation Is Rattled by Trump’s Threat to Its Mission By Theodore Schleifer and Stephanie Nolen .....At the same time, the Trump administration has been on a campaign of retribution against institutions — universities, big law firms — that it perceives as too liberal. Philanthropies have been on edge, assuming they will be the next target of his ire. They are concerned that the president will use his law enforcement agencies to paralyze charitable institutions through investigations. And they fear a challenge to their tax-exempt status — a threat that Mr. Trump made explicitly against Harvard University when it refused to bend to his demands. At the risk-averse Gates Foundation, officials have asked aides to put next to nothing in emails or other written materials, especially anything that Trump officials could take out of context. Some employees have locked down public social media accounts and shifted much of their work to Telegram or Signal, encrypted messaging apps. Congress Newsweek: MAGA Leaders Defend Americans' Right to Boycott Israel By Jason Lemon .....Prominent figures from within President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" or "MAGA" movement came out against the bipartisan IGO Anti-Boycott Act, House Resolution 867—saying it would criminalize boycotts and free speech against Israel. Critics of the H.R. 867 say the legislation goes against the right to free speech established in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Its supporters say it targets antisemitic actions, including boycotts of Israel. The bill has bipartisan support but also faces bipartisan opposition. According to the lawmakers who introduced the bill, Lawler and Gottheimer, H.R. 867 "amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to include international governmental organizations (IGOs) in existing anti-boycott laws." The congressmen said in a January press release that the change "targets harmful and inherently antisemitic" boycott efforts undertaken at IGOs while also "extending protections already in place for boycotts instigated by foreign countries." However, critics warn the bill threatens the constitutional rights of Americans. The penalties under the legislation include civil penalties, criminal fines of up to $1 million and imprisonment of up to 20 years for supporting calls to boycott Israel. A number of prominent MAGA lawmakers said Sunday they plan to vote against the legislation. After the public backlash, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, who had opposed the bill on X, formerly Twitter, wrote that the vote was canceled. Fox News: Top GOP senator calls out Code Pink, The People’s Forum allegedly pushing CCP propaganda in US By Charles Creitz .....Code Pink, the liberal antiwar group known best for disrupting hearings in their trademark fuchsia garb, may need to register under a 1938 law requiring disclosure of political behavior benefiting foreign entities or governments, according to a top Senate Republican. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote a letter Wednesday to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi openly considering whether Code Pink, as well as the New York-based socialist "incubator" The People’s Forum, must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). "The Department of Justice has a duty to ensure compliance with the [FARA, which] remains a priority tool to combat adversarial foreign governments from influencing public policy and opinion in the United States," Grassley wrote. FEC BakerHostetler: BakerHostetler adds former Federal Election Commissioner Allen Dickerson as Litigation Practice Group Partner in Washington office .....For more than a dozen years, Dickerson was at the center of the national debate over political regulations, both as a litigator and as a member and former chair of the FEC. This in-depth government experience and proficiency will be an asset to clients as he concentrates on FEC enforcement defense, provides counsel on political law issues and related litigation, and represents clients in high-stakes appellate work… “Allen has a stellar reputation from his time as FEC commissioner and his decades of experience with litigation, including in appellate courts. Our clients will benefit from his experiences and his deep knowledge of political law and constitutional law issues,” said Ray Whitman, chair of BakerHostetler’s Litigation Practice Group. Ed. note: Read statements on Dickerson's departure from Commissioner Lindenbaum, Commissioner Trainor, and Commissioner Broussard. The States Vermont Biz: Bill on AI political ads passes into House, awakens First Amendment concerns By Noah Diedrich .....A bill that would require political candidates in Vermont to disclose their use of generative AI in campaign advertisements passed into the House in late March. The proposal is moving along, though not without questions about its effect on free speech and news media. The bill, S.23, looks to regulate the use of “synthetic media” — an image, video or audio recording that creates a realistic yet false representation of a candidate — in political ads during Vermont’s election cycles. Failure to comply would result in a fine based on the severity of the violation. The measure now sits in the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs, which has been hearing testimony from media experts and affected parties over the past few weeks. While most witnesses support the bill, some questioned its potential ramifications for free speech. Falko Schilling, advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, told legislators April 16 that S.23 as it stands would prohibit political speech and potentially violate the First Amendment. “Government-mandated disclosures on political speech are highly suspect under the First Amendment because they compel the speaker to engage in speech that they would otherwise like to avoid,” Schilling said. People United for Privacy: Virginians and the Causes They Support Survive Another Hostile Legislative Session By Alex Baiocco .....For Virginia nonprofits and their supporters, the General Assembly’s 2025 session served up a fairly severe case of déjà vu. There was plenty of recycled legislation aimed at hampering nonprofit advocacy and doxing organizations’ donors that was ultimately defeated. Most notably, however, 2025 saw several novel proposals for regulating nonprofit issue speech in the Old Dominion. While the First Amendment rights of nonprofits and their supporters survived, these new threats in Virginia may join the familiar pests as annual reintroductions. Worse, these disquieting schemes for expanding the reach of campaign finance laws to nonprofit issue speech may spread elsewhere, potentially marking yet another disturbing trend that will need to be monitored. The most significant threat this year came from a Republican’s introduction of nonprofit donor disclosure legislation typically pushed by Virginia Democrats. S.B. 906, introduced by Senator William M. Stanley, Jr. (R) early in the 2025 session, was a slightly modified version of failed legislation introduced by Democrats of late. Like its predecessors, the primary goal of Stanley’s bill was to impose donor disclosure requirements on nonprofits engaging in “electioneering communications” – a misnomer invented by politicians who seek to expand campaign finance laws to regulate discussion of policy issues. Under federal law, and in many states, nonprofits must report spending on so-called “electioneering communications,” essentially issue speech that refers to a candidate in the lead-up to an election, but any donor disclosure triggered by such speech is typically narrowly applied to donations earmarked for such messages. AP News: Iowa immigrant group is alarmed by a state lawmaker’s demand for confidential information By Hannah Fingerhut .....An Iowa immigrant rights organization is refusing a lawmaker’s demands to turn over private details about the nonprofit’s clients, donors and members, calling it intimidation from public officials amid a national crackdown on immigration. The directive dated Feb. 24 was sent to Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice by the chairman of the state House government oversight committee, Rep. Charley Thomson. An attorney for Iowa MMJ rejected the demand in an April 18 response to the full committee, saying it is not a legally valid request and suggesting the letter raises serious concerns about an abuse of process. Austin American-Statesman: Don’t let Texas criminalize free political speech in the name of AI regulation By John Coleman .....In the name of regulating artificial intelligence, lawmakers are proposing bills that could turn political memes, commentary and satire into crimes. Senate Bills 893 and 228, and House Bills 366 and 556 might be attempting to protect election integrity, but these bills actually impose sweeping restrictions that could silence ordinary Texans just trying to express their opinions. Take SB 893 and its companion HB 2795. These would make it a crime to create and share AI-generated images, audio recordings, or videos if done with the intent to “deceive” and “influence the result of an election.” The bill offers a limited safeguard: If you want to share any images covered by the bill, you must edit them to add a government-mandated warning label. Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice