Key Takeaways
- The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement has been met with both support and opposition, the latter of which has resulted in U.S. state laws that work against the movement.
- There are economic, social, cultural, and academic aspects to the movement that relate to these laws.
- The U.S. constitution supports freedom of speech, but there are other factors that pose tangible consequences when supporting the BDS movement, which have found their way into U.S. politics and legislation.
Background: What is BDS?
The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led global campaign that seeks to put economic, political, and cultural pressure on Israel to change its policies towards Palestine. Launched in July 2005, BDS calls for boycotts of entities believed to be “directly complicit” in violating Palestinian rights by providing Israel with military, intelligence, financial, and infrastructural support. The movement provides two conditions that must be met by entities to be “non-complicit.” The first is a lack of implication in Israel’s military occupation, apartheid, or settler colonialism, and the second is public recognition of Palestinian rights under international law.
Led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the movement aims to continue this pressure on Israeli products, companies, and academic and cultural institutions until Israel “meets its obligations under international law.” Thus far, its efforts have developed to include unions, academic associations, churches, and grassroots movements across the world. BDS has successfully pushed companies like G4S, Veolia, Orange, Puma, and Pillsbury, among others, to decrease association with the Israeli government. In the U.S. specifically, several major religious institutions, foundations, pension funds, writers, artists, professional athletes, and student governments have endorsed and participated in BDS initiatives. Notable examples include the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church, the Soros Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Natalie Portman, and Cornell West.
How Did Anti-BDS Policies Emerge?
The launch of the BDS movement catalyzed strong pushback from many defenders of Israel who accused the movement of being antisemitic. Beginning in 2014, state legislatures responded to such pushback with resolutions condemning and rejecting the BDS movement. This set the stage for the 2015 enactment of formal anti-BDS laws, which legally prohibit recipients of public contracts and state investments from participating in boycotts against Israel and often require such entities to obtain certification that they comply with anti-BDS requirements. These laws also include penalties for non-compliance, including fines, legal challenges, and being barred from public contracts.
As of 2025, at least 30 states have enacted such laws, with many of them also taking it a step further by divesting from companies to have divested from Israel. Notably, in December 2023, North Carolina and New Jersey each pulled around $40 million in state pension investments in Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, because it determined that the ice cream company had divested from Israel.
However, such penalization of individuals, companies, and institutions who participate in boycotts against Israel while doing business with states has caused significant controversy. While some believe they are a necessary measure to protect Israel from discrimination, others argue that because boycotting is a form of political expression, anti-BDS laws violate citizens’ First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. Most anti-BDS laws have been challenged both in court and public as unconstitutional attempts to suppress free speech and protest.
What Do Anti-BDS Policies Actually Do?
Anti-boycott contracting laws have become a notable feature of state procurement policy — laws that determine how governments purchase goods and services from the private sector — across the United States. These laws require public contractors to certify that they are not engaged in boycotts of Israel as a condition of receiving state contracts. The reach of such laws is broad. Arkansas is one of 26 U.S. states with laws preventing state contractors from boycotting Israel. Many states are taking the same approach, reflecting a coordinated trend in how governments address boycotts linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
In states such as Texas, Kansas, and Arizona, district courts previously blocked anti-BDS laws on the grounds that political boycotts are protected expressive conduct. These early decisions framed anti-boycott certification requirements as potential infringements on First Amendment rights, creating an initial line of cases skeptical of these statutes.The majority opinion in Arkansas Times v. Waldrip is a departure from how other federal courts have treated anti-BDS laws. This shift marks the first time a federal appellate court upheld one of these laws in full. The Eighth Circuit’s view is particularly important because it offers the clearest appellate-level statement on the issue so far. The court ruled that boycotts are not expressive enough to constitute First Amendment protection. By framing the boycott as a form of commercial conduct rather than protected political speech, the court upheld Arkansas’s certification requirement and allowed the state’s anti-BDS law to remain in effect.
These developments show how legislation and case law interact in this part of policymaking. States have rolled out these contracting rules on a wide scale, and federal courts are now weighing in on how those rules line up with constitutional protections. While judicial interpretations differ across jurisdictions, the Eighth Circuit gives one clear example of how a federal court might approach them. Together, these factors outline the legal landscape that currently defines anti-boycott contracting laws in the United States.
Why Do People Support Anti-BDS Policies?
Protection Against Discrimination
The most common argument in favor of anti-BDS laws is that they protect the state of Israel from market discrimination. Facing First Amendment challenges, many states have justified their anti-BDS legislation as antidiscrimination laws to protect Jews and Israelis. In line with many constituents, some states have condemned the BDS movement as antisemetic because “targeting a particular group for the intentional infliction of economic harm is discrimination by definition.”
Proponents also believe that BDS rhetoric promotes antisemitism by unjustly and inaccurately demonizing Israel. Many accuse the movement of using “inflammatory” and “baseless” statements — such as comparing Israeli soldiers to Nazis, labeling Israel as an apartheid state, and accusing it of genocide and white supremacy — to undermine its existence. They argue that the rhetoric used of the oppressor versus the oppressed falsely portrays Israel as discriminatory towards Arabs, when in reality it is a multi-ethnic and multi-faith democracy that, despite being founded as a homeland for the Jewish people, accepts all.
Economic Growth and Trade
Supporters further point out that anti-BDS laws also protect American economies. They highlight that because states rely on trade, technological partnerships, and security cooperation with Israel, BDS efforts that jeopardize these relationships are especially harmful. Israel’s growing importance to the U.S. as a trading partner is evidenced by the annual exchange between the two nations of $50 billion for goods and services. When it comes to individual states, Israel is just as valuable; In 2022, Missouri exported over $131 million in goods and services to Israel. Similarly, Kansas sent $36.5 million in this time frame. Supporters thus argue that local governments have the right to refuse contracts with entities whose economic activities conflict with their foreign policy or economic interests, framing anti-BDS laws as a regulation of commercial conduct rather than of speech and expression.
Protection of U.S. Diplomatic Interests
Defenders of anti-BDS legislation also highlight that, in addition to benefiting the economy, anti-BDS laws protect U.S. diplomatic interests. Israel is largely considered a strategic ally of the U.S., making anti-BDS laws — which signal support and encourage diplomacy — especially important in developing a relationship. Many legislators use this narrative to set forth anti-BDS laws. For example, in 2016, New Jersey enacted a law in response to the BDS movement that prohibits the state pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel or Israeli businesses. Chris Christie, a former governor who signed the law, stated that “Israel is our one, true and best friend in the Middle East” and that the measure expressed New Jersey’s solidarity with Israel.
Similarly, many proponents argue that such anti-Israeli boycotts may impede ceasefire negotiations and worsen the Israel-Palestine conflict by jeopardizing the U.S. position as a trusted third-party mediator. Despite the October 10 adoption of a ceasefire between the two nations, significant conflict and tensions remain. As many point out, there is a long way to go before the conflict is fully resolved, making it particularly important for the U.S. to maintain good standing with Israel as a trusted mediator. As the American Jewish Committee argues, it is necessary to counter the BDS movement because its “goals, rhetoric, and actions inherently hinder collaboration and peacemaking efforts.”
Why Do People Oppose Anti-BDS Policies?
Unconstitutional Targeting of Political Action
One of the most frequently cited objections to anti-BDS laws is their relationship to the First Amendment. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to free speech, and political boycotts have long been recognized as a form of protected expression. As attorney Brian Hauss has argued, “The right to boycott is alive and well in the United States, and any attempt to suppress it puts you squarely on the wrong side of the Constitution.” Anti-BDS legislation directly undermines this principle by penalizing individuals and organizations for engaging in political boycotts against Israel.
Opponents also highlight the principle that government contracts should not be conditioned on the surrender of political beliefs, arguing that requiring individuals or companies to certify they will not engage in boycotts of Israel in order to qualify for public contracts constitutes compelled speech and undermines government neutrality. From this perspective, such requirements blur the line between economic participation and political loyalty, which raises concerns about what else could be at risk for people who support the boycott. Critics suggest that this dynamic risks discouraging participation in public contracting, particularly among smaller businesses or individuals who wish to preserve their freedom of expression.
Suppression of Dissent
Another area of concern is the potential negative effects on activism. Human Rights Watch has noted that doing business with certain Israeli companies can involve complicity in human rights violations. By penalizing companies that cut ties with such entities, anti-BDS laws may discourage businesses from taking steps to avoid involvement in these practices. In fact, some observers suggest that these laws contribute to a climate in which citizens and companies feel their rights are being gradually eroded. Anti-BDS measures are seen by some as part of a larger trend towards restricting dissent, raising questions about the future of political activism in the United States.
Inconsistencies in Application
Critics also note inconsistencies in how these laws are applied. While they are often justified as measures to combat antisemitism, in practice, they single out boycotts of Israel while ignoring other forms of economic protest. The Mitchell Hamline Law Review has argued that this selective targeting undermines the principle of neutrality in government contracting.
Beyond the differing definitions of what anti-BDS laws cover, their enforcement also varies widely across jurisdictions. There are nearly 100 anti-BDS laws nationwide, but only a handful of states enforce them consistently. Some states extend their bans to boycotts involving energy or firearms, while others limit enforcement strictly to Israel. This uneven application raises questions about the underlying motivations of the law and about whether such laws can be implemented fairly and consistently.
What Are the Future Implications?
The legal and political landscape surrounding anti-boycott laws continues to evolve, and several recent developments demonstrate the increasing activity in this area. One major update came when the U.S.Supreme Court declined to take up the Arkansas Times appeal. The Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving in place an Arkansas law that penalises state contractors who boycott Israel. This choice did not fully settle whether anti-BDS certification requirements improperly burden, restrict, or compel political expression in violation of the First Amendment. It allowed the Eighth Circuit’s ruling to stand while leaving the national debate open. For now, the laws remain enforceable in the states covered by that circuit, which includes: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
However, the lack of a Supreme Court ruling means the issue could return if other courts reach different conclusions. Anti-boycott requirements have also begun to show up in areas outside traditional contracting, signaling a broader shift in how federal agencies are approaching these policies. The U.S. linked $1.9 billion in state disaster funds to Israel’s boycott stance, which means states applying for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-supported assistance must now meet conditions that previously only applied to procurement. This expansion targets funding streams used for emergency response, rebuilding efforts, and statewide preparedness, showing that anti-boycott compliance directly impacts how states access federal disaster-relief money.
Similar trends appear in other Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-administered programs. Beyond disaster funding, DHS Nonprofit Security Grants and similar preparedness grants now require applicants to follow updated federal rules designed to standardize compliance across multiple programs. The new DHS requirements prohibit grantees from engaging in a “discriminatory prohibited boycott,” which the DHS defined as cutting or limiting business ties specifically with Israeli companies. Because these grants support nonprofits, religious institutions, and community groups, the requirement now reaches organizations that would never interact with state contracting systems.This shift puts the anti-boycott requirement on organizations receiving federal grants, not just on contractors, and builds it directly into the terms for accessing federal funding instead of limiting it to government contracting rules. It signals a shift in federal effort to align eligibility for important assistance programs with the agency’s policy priorities, extending the reach of anti-boycott compliance well beyond the government contracting process.
Conclusion
Anti-BDS laws remain a contested feature of American policy, reflecting an ongoing tension between foreign policy priorities and constitutional protections. Supporters frame these laws as necessary to safeguard Israel, strengthen economic and diplomatic ties, and counter antisemitism, while critics argue they undermine free speech, compel political conformity, and erode activism. Recent judicial and federal developments show that the scope of these laws is expanding beyond contracting into border funding streams, signaling that the debate is far from settled. As courts continue to weigh constitutional challenges and agencies extend compliance requirements, the future of anti-BDS laws, as well as any other anti-boycott legislation, will depend on how the United States reconciles its commitment to strategic alliances with its obligation to protect free speech and political expression.
FAQ
Q: What is the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC)?
A: The BNC is a group of Palestinian organisations that are leading and supporting the BDS movement.
Q: What is compelled speech?
A: The compelled speech doctrine essentially states that “the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression,” which is relevant to this discussion, especially in relation to the opposition to anti-BDS laws.
Q: What is expressive conduct?
A: Expressive conduct is symbolic or non-speech actions, potentially addressed in the First Amendment, examples of which include picketing and door-to-door solicitation.