A highly contentious bill, the IGO Anti-Boycott Act (H.R. 867), sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer and New York Republican Mike Lawler, has triggered widespread alarm across the United States due to its vague language, which critics warn could deter Americans from boycotting or criticizing Israel out of fear of facing 20 years in prison or $1 million in fines. Although the bill was pulled from a House vote on May 5, 2025, following bipartisan opposition, its introduction has raised serious concerns about threats to free speech and the potential to chill dissent regarding U.S. policy toward Israel.
Supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the IGO Anti-Boycott Act sought to amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 by prohibiting U.S. citizens and entities from participating in boycotts of Israel or its settlements promoted by international governmental organizations (IGOs), such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The bill outlined severe penalties for violations: fines up to $1 million or imprisonment for up to 20 years. While its sponsors argued it targeted specific economic actions, the bill’s ambiguous wording has sparked fears that it could be interpreted to punish criticism of Israel, prompting accusations that it undermines First Amendment protections.
“This bill’s vague language creates a dangerous uncertainty,” said Kate Ruane, director of the Free Speech Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a statement on similar anti-boycott legislation. “When penalties include 20 years in prison or massive fines, people may self-censor rather than risk legal consequences.”
A Law Too Vague to Trust
The IGO Anti-Boycott Act prohibits “knowingly” engaging in activities that support IGO-backed boycotts of Israel, but it fails to clearly define what actions qualify. For example, the bill does not specify whether public statements, social media posts, or participation in protests could be construed as supporting a boycott. This lack of clarity, combined with the threat of 20 years in prison or a $1 million fine, has led critics to warn of a chilling effect on free speech.
The ACLU has long argued that political boycotts are protected under the First Amendment, citing the 1982 Supreme Court case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, which upheld the right to boycott as a form of political expression. However, the IGO Anti-Boycott Act’s broad scope could potentially target actions like refusing to purchase goods from companies operating in Israeli settlements, even if motivated by personal or political beliefs. Such ambiguity has fueled fears that Americans might avoid criticizing Israel’s policies—such as its military operations in Gaza, which have resulted in over 52,500 Palestinian deaths since October 2023, according to Gaza health officials—to steer clear of legal trouble.
Why the Fear of Boycotting or Criticizing Israel?
The bill, introduced by Gottheimer and Lawler, emerged in a politically charged context. The UNHRC’s 2016 resolution calling for a database of companies operating in Israeli settlements has been criticized by the U.S. and Israel as a step toward boycotts like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel over its occupation of Palestinian territories. The IGO Anti-Boycott Act aimed to counter such initiatives, aligning with bipartisan support for Israel as a key U.S. ally receiving over $3.8 billion in annual military aid.
However, the bill’s severe penalties and vague terms raised red flags. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned it in a May 2025 statement, arguing that it “risks punishing constitutionally protected speech and activism, particularly for those advocating for Palestinian human rights.” Critics point out that state-level anti-BDS laws, such as those in Texas and Florida, have already faced legal challenges for penalizing activists—contractors have lost jobs, and individuals have been required to sign anti-boycott pledges. The IGO Anti-Boycott Act’s federal scope and harsher penalties amplify these concerns.
Bipartisan Backlash Halts the Bill
The decision to pull the bill from a House vote on May 5, 2025, followed opposition from an unlikely coalition of progressive Democrats and “America First” Republicans. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) criticized the bill on X, stating, “No law should put Americans in prison for 20 years over a boycott of a foreign country.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) also opposed it, calling it a threat to American freedoms. Conservative commentators, including Charlie Kirk, echoed these sentiments, framing the bill as prioritizing Israel over U.S. constitutional rights.
The backlash reflects broader public unease. A 2019 University of Maryland poll found that 72% of Americans oppose laws restricting boycotts of Israel, suggesting significant resistance to measures like the IGO Anti-Boycott Act. Federal courts have also struck down state anti-BDS laws in cases like Arkansas Times v. Waldrip (2021), reinforcing that such restrictions may violate free speech.
A Pattern of Concern
The IGO Anti-Boycott Act is not an isolated case. The Antisemitism Awareness Act, passed in 2024, defined certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic for federal enforcement purposes, prompting fears that it could discourage open debate. Together, these measures have fueled perceptions that the U.S. is attempting to shield Israel from scrutiny, even as human rights organizations like Amnesty International criticize its policies in Gaza as potentially genocidal.
On X, posts have highlighted public frustration, with some users inaccurately claiming that criticizing Israel is broadly illegal. While no federal law bans such criticism, the IGO Anti-Boycott Act’s vague language and extreme penalties—championed by Gottheimer and Lawler—have lent credence to fears that activism or speech could be targeted.
What’s Next?
Although the IGO Anti-Boycott Act was shelved, similar legislation could resurface, given the bipartisan support for Israel in Congress. The ACLU and CAIR have vowed to challenge any laws that infringe on free speech, and activists are urging Americans to contact their representatives to oppose such measures. The bill’s withdrawal demonstrates the power of public pressure, but its introduction has left a lingering fear that vague laws could deter Americans from boycotting or criticizing Israel.
For now, Americans remain free to criticize Israel, support Palestinian rights, or engage in political boycotts, protected by the First Amendment. However, the specter of 20-year prison terms and $1 million fines, as proposed by Gottheimer and Lawler, underscores the ongoing battle to safeguard free expression in the face of geopolitical priorities.
Contact your representatives to oppose the IGO Anti-Boycott Act and visit www.aclu.org or www.cair.com for updates.
Disappointed by this candidate. Seems he is more Republican than Democrat. Free Speech is what America is known for. This is not a boxing ring .We citizens can take your punches and our votes will show you .FREE SPEECH!!!