H.R. 867, the IGO Anti-Boycott Act, was pulled from the House floor. It added “or international governmental organization” after “foreign country” to the Anti-Boycott Act. Some had a problem with what they believe is the possibility that if Americans boycotted, they could end up in prison for 20 years. Under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to boycott.
The bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Lawler was aimed at BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), the anti-Israel boycott. BDS is a Hamas-tied movement to destroy Israel’s economy, and should be roundly condemned.
However, Americans can’t give up their rights if that is what this bill does.
I don’t think Charlie Kirk is trying to promote BDS, but rather is concerned about impinging on a 1st Amendment right to boycott. He is getting pilloried as an anti-Semite for writing this:
Tomorrow the House will vote on HR 867, a bill that will criminalize private boycotts of Israel. Fines up to $1,000,000 and prison time up to 20 years.
Bills like this only create more antisemitism, and play into growing narratives that Israel is running the US government.
In…
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 4, 2025
The Anti-Boycott Act
The Anti-Boycott Act, primarily enforced by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), prohibits U.S. persons from participating in boycotts that the U.S. government does not support. Specifically, it aims to prevent U.S. companies from complying with boycotts imposed by other countries, especially those targeting countries friendly to the U.S.
The new bill intends to ensure that foreign governments can’t force US entities to participate in the boycotts it already covers. It is aimed at the BDS boycott, but could also apply to Arabs. The bill is intended to prevent shell corporations from circumventing the law.
Its intent and how it might be misused could be different. Perhaps the language could be changed to safeguard Americans’ right to boycott.
The Threat?
According to several Republicans and some Democrats, H.R. 867 aims to curb antisemitism but threatens First Amendment rights.
Anna Paulina Luna rejected the bill on X. “Americans have the right to boycott, and penalizing this risks free speech. I reject and vehemently condemn antisemitism, but I cannot violate the First Amendment.”
Thomas Massie wrote, “Apparently HR 867 has been pulled from the schedule for this week. Thank you for your vocal opposition on this platform. It was a ridiculous bill that our leadership should have never scheduled for a vote.”
According to a Heritage Senior Fellow, the bill only adds international organizations like the UN and the EU. Eugene Kontorovich believes Charlie Kirk got this one wrong.
I am a First Amendment absolutist, and recognize that antisemitism legislation could potentially violate it – but HR 867 is not that.
Since 1977, U.S. law has criminally punished American companies that comply with boycotts implemented by foreign sovereigns. This was a response… https://t.co/NdmunQPncT
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) May 5, 2025
Anyway, it’s gone for now.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Some will say there are always unintended consequences for any rule or law. Some may even say these side effects are intentional. The Patriot Act comes to mind. The mandatory auto and health insurance laws are others. I think any law that sacrifices liberty in the process is a bad law. Perhaps there is a test that can be applied to the law to help foresee its unintended consequences. Maybe this is a good job for AI.
I wish Congress would bend over backwards to accommodate the vast majority of American citizens with at least with the same zeal as they cater to Israel and AIPAC.