Historic Right to Economic Protest Under Threat

Boycotts were one of the most popular and effective tools used by American colonists to organize a successful movement for independence. Coordinated economic protests also played a key role in ending apartheid rule in South Africa. Over the last decade, however, the ability to oppose Israeli occupation of Palestine and enact popular change through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions has been sharply curtailed in much of the United States.

More than 250 anti-boycott bills have been introduced in US state legislatures since 2015, with 38 states — including Arkansas, Texas, and North Carolina — passing some type of restrictive measure. A number of state laws now require businesses and individuals to sign pledges not to boycott Israel and Israeli companies in order to work with state and/or local governments or even receive disaster relief.

The target of these un-democratic laws is the BDS and Palestinian solidarity movement, but the impact is felt by millions of ordinary Americans.

No-Boycott Pledge a Requirement in Arkansas

One of those people is Steven Feldman, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, NC, and curator of the Promised Land Museum. After speaking as a guest lecturer at the University of Arkansas in February 2023, Feldman was told he would not be paid because he refused to sign a no-boycott pledge.

Act 710, enacted in Arkansas in 2017, prohibits public agencies in the state from contracting with companies or vendors that boycott Israel. In following this policy, the school required Feldman to sign a form promising to not boycott Israel in order to be added to its vendor list.

Feldman did not check the necessary anti-boycott pledge option on the school’s online portal. When the school sent a note stating that he filled out the form incorrectly, Feldman responded that he actively supports a boycott of Israel “until Palestinian families are allowed to return to their homes, the homes from which we expelled them in the creation of the State of Israel.”

The Arkansas Times challenged Act 710 in 2018, claiming the statute violates free speech protections guaranteed by the US Constitution. A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of the newspaper in 2019, stating:

“The Act prohibits the contractor from engaging in boycott activity outside the scope of the contractual relationship ‘on its own time and dime. Such a restriction violates the First Amendment.”

However, the decision was reversed by the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court decided against weighing in on the case, leaving Act 710 and similar legislation around the country in effect.

Disaster Relief In Texas Town Tied to Israel

The town of Dickinson, TX, was in the news for all the wrong reasons as its residents were trying to navigate recovery efforts after the destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey in August 2017. Mondoweiss documented on October 20, 2017 some of the difficulties residents were having accessing relief:

In the aftermath of one of the most devastating hurricanes to hit the Texas coast in years, one city is requiring all applicants for relief money to provide in writing a guarantee they do not and will not support the boycott of Israel.

Located thirty miles southeast of Houston, the city of Dickinson is just seven miles from the Galveston Bay which connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The city and surrounding area have been some of the hardest hit by Hurricane Harvey.

“Dickinson’s requirement is an egregious violation of the First Amendment” said Andre Segura, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas. Segura called the stipulation “reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths requiring Americans to disavow membership in the Communist party and other forms of ‘subversive’ activity.”

After public outcry, the town decided to waive the requirement for homeowners seeking disaster relief. However, the no-boycott pledge remained in place for the city’s businesses.

Federal Anti-Boycott Legislation and Executive Action Follow States

Recently, US Congress and the Trump Administration have attempted to extend the state-level anti-boycott strategy to the federal level, including briefly tying relief funds to views on Israel. As Alexandra Martinez reported on April 30, 2025 for Prism, these actions are a result of a well-orchestrated campaign:

“Since 2015, a coordinated effort led by conservative think tanks such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and supported by pro-Israel lobbying groups has resulted in legislation across dozens of states requiring individuals, businesses, or organizations seeking state contracts to pledge not to boycott Israel.

The issue has also grown beyond Israel. In many states, it is also prohibited to boycott the fossil fuel industry, the firearm industry, or companies that refuse to provide reproductive health benefits or gender-affirming care. At the federal level, Reps. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., and Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., reintroduced anti-BDS legislation on April 16, modeled after state laws.

In August, Reps. Mike Lawler (R–N.Y.) and Josh Gottheimer (D–N.J.) also introduced the International Governmental Organization (IGO) Anti-Boycott Act and the Trump Administration briefly attempted to tie federal disaster relief funds to a pledge to not boycott Israel.

To learn more about Dr. Steven Feldman and The Arkansas Times’ efforts to curb anti-boycott legislation, check out this blog post in our News & Views section.