President Trump showed European allies the ‘art of the deal’ this week as his own luxury resort in Scotland played host to negotiations for one of the largest trade deals in history.
Accompanied by bagpipes, the President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-laughed-at-trump-now-theyre-going-to-cut-a-big-energy-check">shook hands</a> with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and heralded a major new US-EU trade pact — encompassing a 15% tariff rate on European imports.
But while Scotland was hosting talks on open markets, its own government continues to close off a core tenet of liberal democracy: the freedom to speak — even, in some cases, to silently pray.
In April 2024, Scotland enacted the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which criminalizes words that amount to subjectively “stirring up hatred” based on a wide range of characteristics, such as someone’s “gender identity.” One may be found guilty of using the wrong words even if offence was only taken, but not intended. The consequences include up to seven years in prison.
Legal scholars, writers, and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns. The law invites the state to police not just conduct but private expression — even within a family home. What was once a proud tradition of robust, even unpopular debate, is being eroded in favor of subjective standards of offense.
Meanwhile, new legislation in Scotland has imposed “buffer zones” around hospitals, vaguely criminalizing “influence” on the matter of abortion within 200 meters of the building. That radius can encompass private homes. <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/26/praying-at-home-a-crime-depending-on-who-is-passing-window/">According</a> to the law’s own architect, Gillian Mackay MSP, a person praying silently near a window in their home could be guilty of a crime, “depending on who’s passing the window.”
One recent case under a similar “buffer zones” law across the English border drew international attention: Livia Tossici-Bolt, aged 62-years-old, was arrested simply for standing with a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want.” She was not disruptive. She was not loud. She simply offered consensual conversation to other adults.
The U.S. State Department <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/03/31/free-speech-row-threatens-starmers-us-trade-deal/">took notice</a>. A senior official confirmed “concern” about the state of free speech in the UK, adding, “It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”
Vice President JD Vance raised similar concerns in his landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, even highlighting Scotland’ notorious prayer problem, noting, “free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” Who can blame him? In the UK, police are <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways">arresting</a> over 30 people per day for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-people-around-the-world-on-trial-for-a-tweet?author=Lois+McLatchie+Miller&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Meet+The+People+Around+The+World+On+Trial+For+A+Tweet%C2%A0">online posts</a> deemed offensive.
Such statements reflect a growing discomfort with what appears to be a widening values gap between the U.K. and its allies. Free societies are built not just on GDP and diplomatic summits, but on the intangible infrastructure of liberty — the right to live and speak freely, according to one’s own conscience. Trade flows best when rooted in mutual trust, shared principles, and the confidence that citizens on both sides of the Atlantic are protected by the same basic freedoms.
The U.K. cannot credibly advocate for open markets while tolerating closed discourse. A nation cannot speak loudly on the world stage while silencing its citizens at home. If Britain wishes to remain a trusted partner in the transatlantic alliance — not just economically but morally — it must reaffirm its commitment to the freedoms that define liberal democracy.
No ally is perfect. But the U.K. must meet the standards it helped to set. Free trade among free nations requires more than signed agreements. It requires trust in mutual political courage to protect liberty where it is most easily lost: quietly, at home.
 * * * 
Lois McLatchie Miller is a Scottish commentator on free speech, and a senior legal communications officer for ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Visits US President Donald Trump in Scotland

The U.K. Can’t Champion Free Trade While Abandoning Free Speech

Abortion

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

European Union

Free Speech

Prayer

President Trump

Pro-Life Movement

Scotland

United Kingdom

Freedom of speech has won a decisive victory in Australia. On Tuesday, a Melbourne tribunal <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/free-speech-victory-in-australia-for-billboard-chris-as-x-post-censorship-overturned">overturned</a> the Australian government’s censorship order against Canadian street advocate Chris “<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=support+billboard+chris+adf+international&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8">Billboard Chris</a>” Elston for an X post critical of gender ideology.
Back in 2024, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner had ordered X to remove Chris’ post, claiming it constituted “adult cyber abuse” under the country’s Online Safety Act. The post linked to a Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html">article</a> about a WHO appointee and referred to the individual using biologically accurate pronouns. No threats. No private information. Just public facts and an opinion the government didn’t like. X initially resisted, but eventually geo-blocked the post in the country while filing its own appeal.
Billboard Chris, who travels the world engaging in conversations exposing the truth about gender ideology prompted by his wearable signs, refused to bow down to the order. With legal support from ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, he challenged the eSafety Commissioner, and won in a decisive victory not just for himself, but for everyone who values the right to speak freely.
The Administrative Review Tribunal found what should have been obvious from the beginning — the post wasn’t intended to cause harm, wasn’t likely to be seen by the complainant, and was consistent with Chris’s well-known public message — namely, that children are never born in the wrong body. It ruled clearly that this did not constitute a form of abuse and revoked the takedown order.
The Tribunal recognized what the eSafety Commissioner refused to acknowledge, which is that this isn’t about harassment of any kind. The protection of Chris’ expression is about upholding the basic right to participate in a public conversation, one that touches on some of the most urgent questions of our time. To silence that conversation under the guise of “cyber abuse” is both intellectually dishonest and dangerous.
The absurdity of the government’s case was exposed in the hearing itself. Chris had merely reposted a widely read article that included publicly available information about the transgender activist appointed to a WHO panel of “experts” — information the activist had willingly shared on social media. Instead of defending public transparency, the government claimed those details were irrelevant and demanded censorship.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a></h3>
The Tribunal’s written decision was clear: “The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent. For example, his statement placed on billboards that he is prepared to wear in public ‘children are never born in the wrong body’ expresses the same idea about the immutability of biology that he expresses, albeit much more provocatively, in the post”. Further, it held that, “an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook”.
This case is about more than just one post or even one country’s speech laws. Not only will this decision likely shape future enforcement decisions, but also Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has just been <a href="https://x.com/k_mahlburg/status/1939872951895302531">named</a> in a U.S. congressional investigation for colluding with foreign governments and corporate cartels to suppress speech worldwide — including in the United States. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-06/Exporting%20Censorship%20Final.pdf">released</a> a 100-page report detailing how Grant worked with GARM — a World Economic Forum-linked advertising consortium — to push platforms like X into silencing disfavored views. She demanded global takedowns of lawful content. She participated in pressure campaigns against X after Musk’s takeover. And she allowed so-called “brand safety” coalitions to influence her regulatory decisions.
This is coordinated censorship. The report lays out how GARM and other WEF-affiliated coalitions, working with officials like Grant, sought to blacklist voices they disagreed with under the pretense of maintaining a “safe” internet. In reality, they were constructing a global censorship machine — one that’s ideologically aligned, politically unaccountable, and willing to cross borders to silence dissent. Billboard Chris&#8217; case is living proof of what this looks like.
If the Tribunal had sided with the Commissioner, it would have emboldened this aggressive censorship campaign and reinforced the idea that a government can suppress the speech of any person on any platform, even beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries. And make no mistake — that’s exactly what the eSafety Commissioner and its allies are trying to do.
Fortunately, Billboard Chris’ free speech victory is a warning to the censors. He stood up to a system designed to silence him, and he won. But the same people trying to censor speech in Australia are working to do the same everywhere else. 
On the same day of Chris’ victory, the European Union took a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, beefing up its censorial Digital Services Act by enforcing the accompanying &#8220;Code of Conduct on Disinformation&#8221;. The DSA enables Brussels bureaucrats to control online speech at scale — both in Europe and globally — under the guise of “safety” and “protecting democracy”. Platforms that fail to remove content ambiguously deemed “illegal” face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Coupled with the framework’s approach to “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech,” the DSA could lead to the sweeping removal of online content.
Threats to free speech online are evidently immense and growing, but Billboard Chris’ successful challenge shows that this tide can be turned. Courageous individuals, armed with principle and the law, can stand up to the censorship industrial complex — and win. And their victories protect not just their own speech, but those too who would come after them. Others must be emboldened by the lead of this Canadian father and vigilantly defend against censorship if we are to see free speech prevail.
* * *
Robert Clarke is a barrister and director of advocacy for ADF International, which coordinated the legal defense of Billboard Chris in Australia. Follow him on X at <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Rob_ADFIntl</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-07-Apr-2025-01-02-PM-8595

A Blow To Global Censorship: ‘Billboard Chris’ Wins In Australia

A Blow To Global Censorship: 'Billboard Chris' Wins In Australia

Australia

Censorship

Gender

gender ideology

Puberty blockers

Social Media Censorship

transgender surgery

Gender ideology’s war on America’s children has turned its guns on a particularly vulnerable group: children in foster care. Despite a court ruling <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/09/25/paxton-biden-lgbtq-foster-youth/">blocking</a> a Biden-era rule that imposed gender ideology as a condition of serving children who identify as LGBTQ, several states now <a href="https://lambdalegal.org/child-welfare-map/">demand</a> that prospective foster parents affirm the &#8220;gender identity&#8221; of hypothetical children they might foster one day. Vermont has taken this egregious stance even further, telling one Christian family that they presented too much of a risk, that they would raise children sharing their beliefs.
Decenda and Frank Cram were “blindsided” when Vermont state officials denied their application to become foster parents because of their “belief system.” State officials added that “if children in their home are raised with the same beliefs it could perpetuate further discrimination of the LGBTQ community.”
Two other Christian families – the Wuotis and the Gannts – also failed Vermont’s ideological litmus test and so were denied the chance to foster. Represented by <a href="https://adflegal.org/">Alliance Defending Freedom</a>, they are <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/vermont-imposes-gender-ideology-litmus-test-foster-parents/">pushing back</a>. Their case is currently under review by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit court of appeals. The Crams <a href="https://conscience-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CP-Amicus-Brief-06.06-.pdf">shared their experience</a> as friends of the court in support of the families.
Decenda Cram, like many foster parents, was a foster child herself, entering care when she was only six years old. Her first foster parents were devout Christians and eventually adopted her. “I think ever since then,” she says, “I just thought someday I wanted to give back &#8230; I definitely wanted to return the favor in some way.”
Frank credits Christian neighbors for helping him turn around his own life. “If it wasn&#8217;t for a Christian family back when I was out in Arizona, I probably would&#8217;ve been getting in more and more trouble,” he explains.
The Crams, both devout Christians, hoped, in Frank’s words, to offer needy children “a home, unconditional love, understanding – the whole nine yards.” In October 2020 the couple applied to be foster parents. Decenda recalls that “we made it clear that we were Christians, and we asked if that was going to pose a problem with foster parenting. And we were reassured by a higher up in the state’s Department of Children and Family Services (DCF): ‘We don&#8217;t discriminate against anyone for any reason.’”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Although they had not completed the licensing process, Decenda and Frank were called to take in a pair of sibling girls, ages nine and fourteen, in December 2020. The girls stayed with the Crams for a month and a half before one of the girls’ relatives assumed custody. We “worked out very well as a team in taking care of them,” says Frank. Decenda agrees, adding that “Frank and I worked beautifully as a parenting team.” Their initial DCF worker and the relative that the girls moved in with when they left us “all commended us for doing such a good job with the girls.”
<div id="attachment_931921" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-931921" class="size-large wp-image-931921" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-1024x576.jpg" alt="Nicholas Klein. Getty Images." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-300x168.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-768x431.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-1536x863.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/06/GettyImages-1488646082-2048x1150.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Nicholas Klein. Getty Images.</div>
Given their success caring for the two sisters, the Crams thought they would be licensed as foster parents. They were surprised when the licensing process turned hostile.
Decenda recalls a different official telling her during a phone interview that “Vermont has recently taken a stance.” This “stance” is that no foster families can be considered unless they are willing to fully embrace the LGBTQ community. Despite the clear desire and ability to provide a safe, loving home for children in need, the Crams were denied a license to foster.
According to the denial letter sent to the Crams in June 2021, the Cram’s “fundamental belief&#8221; about &#8220;God&#8217;s plan for all of us,” would “not meet the emotional or developmental needs of children.”
“It felt like I&#8217;d lost a child,” laments Decenda. Frank says that “It really broke my heart. It&#8217;s like, here we are. We&#8217;re willing to give our home and our time and effort to help these children.”
Vermont’s behavior is inexcusable: its exclusion of prospective foster and adoptive parents based on their sincerely held religious beliefs is blatant religious discrimination and adds to the injury already suffered by children in need.
The Crams are hopeful that the Second Circuit will order Vermont to stop its discriminatory policy so they can open up their home to children in need. As Frank says, “all things can work out by God&#8217;s grace.”
* * *
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of <a href="https://conscience-project.org/">The Conscience Project</a> 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Paper foster care family

Christians Need Not Apply To Foster In This State

Children

Christians

Foster Care

LGBTQ

Opinion

Vermont

The Babylon Bee on Wednesday filed a legal challenge against a new Hawaii law that criminalizes political satire, accusing the state of violating citizens&#8217; First Amendment rights.
The satirical outlet filed its challenge along with Dawn O’Brien, a Honolulu voter who runs Instagram and Facebook accounts with thousands of followers where she posts political memes criticizing Democrats. The plaintiffs are accusing Hawaii of using &#8220;vague and overbroad terms&#8221; that allow state officials &#8220;unbridled enforcement&#8221; discretion to crack down on things like political memes online.
Last summer, Hawaii passed a <a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB2687/id/3005181" target="_blank" rel="noopener">law</a> that threatens jail time, fines, lawsuits, damages, and a 10-year disqualification from holding public office for posting certain political satire images online deemed &#8220;materially deceptive.&#8221;
The Babylon Bee and O&#8217;Brien are demanding that the courts block enforcement of the law and declare it unconstitutional.
&#8220;We&#8217;re used to getting pulled over by the joke police, but comedy isn&#8217;t a crime,&#8221; Seth Dillon, owner and CEO of The Babylon Bee, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;The First Amendment protects our right to tell jokes, whether it&#8217;s election season or not. We&#8217;ll never stop fighting to defend that freedom.&#8221;
The law bans &#8220;materially deceptive media in reckless disregard of the risk of harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate in an election or changing the voting behavior of voters in an election,&#8221; a vague description, according to the legal challenge.
&#8220;Materially deceptive media&#8221; is defined as anything that &#8220;would cause a reasonable viewer or listener to believe that the depicted individual engaged in the speech or conduct depicted,&#8221; another vague description, the plaintiffs argue.
The law requires satirical content to include a &#8220;disclaimer&#8221; informing people that the content has been &#8220;manipulated&#8221; and depicts things that &#8220;did not occur.&#8221;
The legal challenge argues that adding a disclaimer forces The Babylon Bee and O&#8217;Brien, the Honolulu voter, to &#8220;incorporate Hawaii&#8217;s desired messages&#8221; into their content and robs their content of its &#8220;rhetorical force.&#8221;
&#8220;Because of their effectiveness and appeal, satire and parody have been used throughout American history to express matters of current interest — especially matters of politics and politicians,&#8221; the legal filing reads.
&#8220;That&#8217;s censorship plain and simple,&#8221; Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann, who is representing the plaintiffs, told The Daily Wire.
&#8220;The bottom line is that we as the people exist in a self-governing society and we shouldn&#8217;t trust the government to set the terms for appropriate political debates,&#8221; Hoffmann said.
The law mentions &#8220;deepfakes&#8221; made by artificial intelligence, but Hoffmann cautioned that the law would apply &#8220;much more broadly.&#8221;
&#8220;What the law says is, digital content that basically depicts something that didn&#8217;t happen and that just risks harming someone&#8217;s reputation or electoral prospects, whatever that means,&#8221; he said. &#8220;So it wouldn&#8217;t just be deepfakes as colloquially understood. It&#8217;s really any digital content, any sort of images that may have been altered or Photoshopped, like what the Babylon Bee posts routinely online would be considered under this law to be materially deceptive.&#8221;
Hoffmann noted that political cartoons have long been protected in the United States, and that today&#8217;s memes are the &#8220;modern day&#8221; version of those cartoons. In addition, he said that the law will likely have a chilling effect on Hawaiians who may avoid posting &#8220;even questionable&#8221; satirical content out of fear it will be prosecuted.
&#8220;This law is of immense concern to all people in Hawaii or even entities like the Babylon Bee who post articles and images and funny memes that are viewable in Hawaii because they can be subject to criminal penalties simply for exercising their First Amendment rights,&#8221; Hoffmann said.

eff4a178-9989-481f-88f1-843cb78f6796

EXCLUSIVE: Babylon Bee Challenges Hawaii Law Targeting Political Satire

Babylon Bee Files Legal Challenge Against Hawaii Law Targeting Political Satire

Babylon Bee

Hawaii

A deadlocked Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a decision blocking an Oklahoma Catholic school from participating in the state&#8217;s charter school program.
The 4-4 decision upholds the Oklahoma Supreme Court&#8217;s decision to ban the Oklahoma City-based St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School from being eligible. It was unclear how the justices voted, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case.
The case pitted the Catholic school against Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who sued the school after the state&#8217;s charter school board voted to approve St. Isidore&#8217;s participation. Drummond argued that allowing religious schools to take part in the program would force taxpayers to fund schools with religious beliefs they did not support.
&#8220;The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of my position that we should not allow taxpayer funding of radical Islamic schools here in Oklahoma. I am proud to have fought against this potential cancer in our state, and I will continue upholding the law, protecting our Christian values and defending religious liberty,&#8221; Drummond <a href="https://x.com/Okla_OAG/status/1925559733697540373">posted</a> on X after the decision from the court was released.
Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the school and charter board argued that Oklahoma discriminated based on religion.
“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,&#8221; ADF chief legal counsel Jim Campbell <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/divided-us-supreme-court-leaves-oklahoma-families-with-fewer-educational-choices/?sourcecode=11036715_r200">said</a>. &#8220;While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future. The U.S. Supreme Court has been clear that when the government creates programs and invites groups to participate, it can’t single out religious groups for exclusion, and we will continue our work to protect this vital freedom for parents and students.&#8221;
A win for St. Isidore would have struck down a provision of the Oklahoma Charter School Act that expressly forbids religious charter schools and could open the door for more religious charter schools across the country.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
In previous decisions, such as Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court sided with religious organizations that had been locked out of state programs based on their religious nature. In Carson, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in Maine on vouchers from going toward religious schools.
During oral arguments, several justices on the court&#8217;s conservative wing appeared to side with St. Isidore while the liberal wing signaled strong opposition.
&#8220;You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-conservatives-signal-support-for-public-religious-charter-schools" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, adding that excluding religious schools “seems like rank discrimination.”

Supreme Court Takes On Religious Charter School Case

Split Supreme Court Blocks Christian School From Participating In Charter Program

Courts

Oklahoma

Politics

Religious Freedom

Religious Schools

A Christian organization on Wednesday filed a lawsuit alleging OpenAI discriminated against it on religious grounds.
The suit, filed by the group Holy Sexuality, accuses the California-based tech company of denying its application for a nonprofit discount because of its Christian beliefs. Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, Holy Sexuality says that OpenAI’s policies violate California law, which prevents businesses from treating customers differently based on their religion. 
“This is a lawsuit that is purely focused on corporate discrimination against a nonprofit because of its religious character,&#8221; Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Vice President of Strategic Initiatives Ryan Bangert told The Daily Wire. &#8220;The idea that corporations would discriminate against their customers solely because of their customers’ religious faith is really troubling, and in this case, it violates a California state law.”
Holy Sexuality is a Christian organization that promotes biblical views on marriage and sexuality. Its founder, Dr. Christopher Yuan, says that he applied for the 20% ChatGPT discount offered by OpenAI to nonprofits, but was told his organization didn&#8217;t qualify because it was religious.
“Our nation was founded on the principle of the free exercise of religion—a cornerstone of our democracy,” Yuan said. “Yet some corporations, emboldened by intersectional ideology and anti-Christian sentiment, choose to unlawfully discriminate based solely on religion. This must stop.&#8221;
Goodstack — a software company that works with OpenAI to verify groups&#8217; nonprofit status — is named alongside OpenAI. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, says that the two tech companies violated California&#8217;s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which says that businesses treat all customers equally regardless of their religious beliefs. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
On its website, OpenAI notes that religious organizations do not qualify for its nonprofit discount, though it doesn&#8217;t explain why.
&#8220;Nonprofit discounts are available to eligible nonprofits based anywhere in the world. At this time, academic, medical, religious, or governmental institutions are not eligible for OpenAI for Nonprofits,&#8221; OpenAI <a href="https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9359041-openai-for-nonprofits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a>.
Bangert says that this policy is a &#8220;brazen&#8221; example of religious discrimination.
“This categorical denial, OpenAI’s published policy, and Goodstack’s enforcement of that policy are invidious religious discrimination,” the suit says. “People of faith aren’t second-class citizens in California, and tech companies cannot provide lesser services to customers simply because they are religious.”
The suit asks a judge to declare that the tech companies violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that OpenAI&#8217;s denial of a religious organization&#8217;s nonprofit status violates California law, and to issue an injunction blocking OpenAI from enforcing its policy toward religious organizations.
Holy Sexuality won a similar victory last month after it challenged software company Asana over a policy it had in place denying discounts to religious organizations. Asana agreed to offer Holy Sexuality the same 50% discount it gives to other nonprofits after a lawsuit from the Alliance Defending Freedom was filed.

TOPSHOT-US-TECHNOLOGY-AI-MICROSOFT-COMPUTERS

EXCLUSIVE: Christian Group Accuses OpenAI Of ‘Brazen’ Religious Discrimination

Big Tech

California

Christianity

Discrimination

Religious Liberty

<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in a case to decide whether an Oklahoma Catholic school can participate in the state&#8217;s charter school program, pitting the school against the state&#8217;s Republican attorney general.
The controversy arose after the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved a charter application from the Oklahoma City-based St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. After taking office, Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued to block the school from being eligible for the program, saying that Oklahoma law mandated charter schools be &#8220;nonsectarian.&#8221;
The Oklahoma Supreme Court <a href="https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-06/Drummond-v-OK-SVCSB-2024-06-25-Majority-Decision.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed</a> with Drummond and blocked St. Isidore from receiving more public funds for its school. Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the charter board argues that St. Isidore&#8217;s First Amendment rights are being discriminated against.
“Instead of embracing schools like St. Isidore who are stepping up to provide solutions are discriminating against them just because of their faith,&#8221; charter board chair Brian Shellum said in a press call attended by The Daily Wire. &#8220;That’s not just unfair, it&#8217;s unconstitutional. Parents understand what’s at stake in this case. They are seeking results not roadblocks.&#8221;
Oklahoma charter schools, which are free and open to all students, are privately run but publicly supported.
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and will look at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00394qp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">two questions.</a> The first is &#8220;whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.&#8221; The second is whether Oklahoma is violating the Free Exercise Clause by excluding St. Isidore.
A win for St. Isidore would strike down a provision of the Oklahoma Charter School Act that expressly forbids religious charter schools and could open the door for more religious charter schools across the country.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="page" title="Page 34">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;A ruling for Petitioners will promote parental choice, individual liberty, educational diversity, and student achievement. It will also improve the lives of economically disadvantaged families and children by creating high-quality educational opportunities that are currently out of their reach,&#8221; lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/356083/20250421111247727_24-394%20Reply%20Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brief</a>. &#8220;Excluding religious groups from Oklahoma’s charter-school program denies these opportunities and causes real harm. The Court should uphold the First Amendment and end this discrimination.&#8221;
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Jim Campbell pointed The Daily Wire to three recent Supreme Court cases — Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Carson v. Makin — as examples of the high court siding with religious organizations that had been locked out of state programs. In Carson, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in Maine on vouchers from going toward religious schools.
Drummond also says that religious liberty is at stake, saying that it would be wrong to make the public fund religious schools that they are opposed to.
&#8220;As a committed Christian, the last thing I want is for my tax dollars to be used to fund the radical teachings of Sharia or the demonic worship of Satan. Thankfully, the Court agreed with my position and our religious liberty is protected — for now,&#8221; he said in July. &#8220;Let me be clear: Religious liberty means every citizen is free to worship as he or she believes. Religious liberty does not mean that the government should fund religious indoctrination with our tax dollars.&#8221;
He reiterated that argument in an <a href="https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2025/04/27/ag-st-isidore-schools-ok-would-threaten-religious-liberty-opinion/83193358007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">op-ed</a> published on Monday in The Oklahoman, where he said that he supported religious private schools, but did not want the government to fund them in any form.
&#8220;I swore an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and I believe our Founding Fathers knew best how to protect religious liberty: by preventing the government from funding any religion at all. I do not want Oklahoma schoolchildren indoctrinated in public schools — I want them educated,&#8221; he wrote.
A spokesman for Drummond told The Daily Wire that the op-ed summarized the heart of his arguments and pointed to <a href="https://oklahoma.gov/oag/news/generally-speaking/2024/july-a-triumph-for-religious-liberty.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comments</a> he made after he won at the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Other top Oklahoma GOP officials, including Governor Kevin Stitt and Oklahoma State School Superintendent Ryan Walters, disagree with Drummond.
&#8220;Oklahomans know the Bible and Christian values shaped our nation — and they’re tired of seeing faith driven out of our schools,&#8221; Walters said. &#8220;AG Drummond is out of step with Oklahoma conservatives who know what made America great.&#8221;
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Block Order To Return Mistakenly Deported Man

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Landmark Case On School Choice And Religious Liberty

Catholic Church

Charter Schools

Education

Supreme Court

A <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian father</a> recently sat before an Australian tribunal in Melbourne for five days because he shared an article from <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Mail</a> in an X post last year.
Let that sink in.
Chris Elston, better known as &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/BillboardChris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Billboard Chris</a>,&#8221; flew halfway around the world to defend not only his own free speech rights, but also those of all people. He is <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/billboard-chris-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushing back</a> against an order from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. The order demanded X censor Chris’ February 2024 post criticizing the appointment of a transgender activist to a World Health Organization panel of experts, citing the Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> titled &#8220;Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED&#8221;
Linking to an article from one of the most-read news websites in the world, the post was <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1906643539754205575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deemed</a> by eSafety to be “cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult.” X initially resisted pressure to censor the content in any way but later geo-blocked the post in Australia when hit with a formal takedown notice. Billboard Chris, with legal support from ADF International, is challenging that order, and X joined in a separate suit.
This isn’t about one post. It’s about whether governments should be able to censor lawful expression because they don’t like the content — in this case, the rejection of gender ideology. 
The hearing at the Melbourne Administrative Review Tribunal spanned five days and took in over 2,000 pages of documents. Meanwhile, the complainant, Teddy Cook, never even appeared before the tribunal.
<a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1906643539754205575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Day one</a> revealed how thin the complaint truly was. eSafety’s lawyers claimed that part of the problem was that Chris had revealed Cook’s place of work and posted private images. Chris, however, simply reposted the Daily Mail’s piece, which named Cook’s workplace (a detail already publicly available online) and, as anyone who uses social media knows, the featured images were pulled from Daily Mail article, not supplied by Chris. It becomes more ridiculous still. The Daily Mail had obtained the photos from Cook’s own social media. The argument didn’t just collapse under scrutiny — it exposed the flimsy foundation apparently sufficient for this bureaucracy to suppress dissent.
By <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1907084293513318811" target="_blank" rel="noopener">day two</a>, it was clear how detached from reality the process had become. There was no evidence of actual harm. Cook, just nine days after the post, had tweeted: “living my best life.” But here we were, with psychiatrists and professors flown in to dissect whether a single X post could legally be considered “likely … intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”.
Chris testified to the Tribunal about the issue at the core of his advocacy: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body &#8230; children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” Asked whether he was trying to provoke outrage, he responded: “No. I want to provoke discussion.”
That matters. Under Australia’s Online Safety Act, takedown orders can only be issued if content is not only offensive, but also “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm.&#8221; However, eSafety seemed to argue that intent is largely irrelevant. If someone feels offended, even by public information, that alone might justify censorship.
On <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1907754476250792285" target="_blank" rel="noopener">days three and four</a>, several more expert witnesses took the stand. eSafety’s own expert — a digital communications professor — asserted that biologically accurate terms are “harmful,” and that children should be able to choose their gender around age 12. Note Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for this expertise — reportedly more than $10,000 for just this one.
The final day brought closing submissions and a stark contrast in worldviews. eSafety argued the Tribunal should view the post in isolation, ignoring the broader debate, and insisted that Teddy Cook — a WHO-appointed expert and activist — shouldn’t be considered a public figure. Chris’ legal team, along with X, pushed back: any fair assessment must consider the wider social and political context. This wasn’t targeted abuse — it was participation in a critical public conversation.
This case is a warning to all who value free expression. If a Canadian citizen can be silenced in Australia for sharing a news article on U.S.-based platform X, then clearly, censorship is no longer bound by borders. What’s to stop any other government — from Canada to the EU to China — from deciding your speech “harms” someone abroad and demanding it be taken down too?
This is exactly how global censorship metastasizes: bureaucracies leveraging international tech companies to enforce vague, ideological speech codes on people who never voted for them, under laws they never consented to. And the more they get away with it, the bolder they become.
Fortunately, X put up a robust legal defense, and Chris, with the legal backing of ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, was unequivocal in his message: he will not be censored as he fights to put an end to the evils of gender ideology.
Most evidently, gender ideology needs censorship to survive, and that is why Chris has been targeted. He hasn’t gone before this tribunal to protect himself — he’s doing it to protect the right of every person to tell the truth.
This is a test case with global consequences. Billboard Chris’ censorship challenge shows us exactly where we’re headed if we don’t defend free speech: toward a world where bureaucrats silence opinions they don’t like, even from the other side of the globe. It’s a world where truth must be approved, and feelings outweigh facts. That’s not just anti-democratic — it’s dangerous. Because once a government crosses the line of international censorship, there’s no saying where it will stop.
* * *
Robert Clarke is a barrister and director of advocacy for ADF International, which is supporting the case of Billboard Chris in Australia. Follow him on X at <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rob_ADFIntl.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

He Shared A Link On X. Now He’s In An Australian Court.

Canada

Twitter

After being a major part of a global network of companies that cracked down on conservative speech in the name of so-called misinformation, credit card giant Mastercard is committing that it will not make marketing or branding decisions based on third-parties, according to emails obtained by The Daily Wire. 
 The announcement comes after a group of investors represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom were prepping a resolution targeting the credit card company over its involvement with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media or GARM. Mastercard will release a new company policy in the coming months making clear that third-party views will not influence branding or marketing decisions, the company told the Alliance Defending Freedom this week.
GARM, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leftist-censorship-cartel-garm-disbands-following-musk-lawsuit-ben-shapiro-testimony" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disbanded</a> in August 2024, a month after its leaders were<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-here-ben-shapiro-testifies-to-congress-on-censorship-updated-live"> called in to testify to Congress</a>, was an organization founded by the World Federation of Advertisers to ensure that companies only advertised with media outlets deemed “responsible.” In the name of this goal, GARM targeted podcasters like Joe Rogan, platforms like Elon Musk’s X, and conservative outlets like The Daily Wire, according to a congressional <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-07-10%20GARMs%20Harm%20-%20How%20the%20Worlds%20Biggest%20Brands%20Seek%20to%20Control%20Online%20Speech.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation</a>. The Daily Wire&#8217;s Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro testified that the aim of the advertising coalition was to &#8220;throttle viewpoints&#8221; that Democrat legislators and the Biden administration did not like.
After meetings with Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers, Mastercard, which was on the board of the World Federation of Advertisers that oversaw GARM, now says that it alone will determine its marketing and branding strategy. 
“We advance our marketing priorities with a close eye on the value delivered to our brand, the interest and relevance to the intended audience, and whether the media channel/platform supports our ability to deliver new and unique experiences to the end consumer,” a copy of the policy viewed by The Daily Wire says. “Mastercard alone makes decisions on our brand and our marketing activities, independent of any third-party views.”
That came after Inspire Investing, a Christian investment company represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, met with Mastercard to discuss a proposed shareholder resolution to call for an investigation over Mastercard’s involvement with GARM. 
A draft of the resolution viewed by The Daily Wire called for Mastercard to evaluate “how it oversees risks related to discrimination against ad buyers and sellers based on their political or religious status or views.”
After Mastercard agreed to distance itself from third-party organizations, Inspire Investing and Alliance Defending Freedom agreed to withdraw the resolution. 
“This is a meaningful step forward for Mastercard,” Inspire Investing Director of Corporate Engagement Tim Schwarzenberger told The Daily Wire. “We appreciate Mastercard’s willingness to engage with shareholders and make this important commitment to making decisions independent of third-party influences. It’s a positive step for free speech, religious freedom, and ultimately for all Mastercard stakeholders.”
After publication of this story, a Mastercard spokesman told The Daily Wire that the policy &#8220;reinforced our long-standing practices related to decision making on our marketing activities&#8221; in &#8220;conversations related to this proposal.&#8221;
The spokesman also attempted to distance the credit card company from GARM, saying, &#8220;While two members of our marketing team had participated in separate working groups, they were not aware of specific GARM plans or coordinated activities.&#8221;
Mastercard&#8217;s Chief Marketing and Communications Officer, Raja Rajamannar, who served as president of the World Federation of Advertisers while GARM was in operation, and regularly touted the work of GARM as a positive step for the advertising industry. In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPJ8OmWwhN8&amp;t=90s">video posted to a Mastercard YouTube channel</a>, Rajamannar urged &#8220;every CMO&#8221; to join GARM.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Call for Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oPJ8OmWwhN8?start=90&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Jeremy Tedesco, the senior vice President of corporate engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom, said the new policy from Mastercard represented a major win for conservative customers.
“MasterCard, their business purpose is to make sure that people can transact funds. And that&#8217;s it. And that’s what they should be doing,” he told The Daily Wire. “They shouldn’t be taking their ad buying power and trying to shut down people they disagree with in the marketplace of ideas.”
He also said that it was a necessary step to hold companies accountable that supported the censorship of conservatives. 
“They used their ad buying power in collaboration with other major corporations to suppress conservative and religious content online,” he told The Daily Wire. “It’s really critical that these companies are held accountable for collaborating in that way, in collaborating with people who want to stop so-called misinformation and hate speech from appearing on the internet.”
He said that Alliance Defending Freedom has filed over 70 shareholder resolutions, had over 50 meetings with corporate leaders, and obtained 13 policy behavior changes this corporate season.
This piece has been updated to include comment from Mastercard and additional context.

Mastercard Credit Card

Mastercard, Facing Pressure Over Role In Global Censorship Effort, Agrees To Major Change

credit card

GARM

Mastercard

Planned Parenthood shouldn’t receive one cent of Americans’ taxpayer dollars. That’s the central truth at the heart of a landmark case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on April 2, <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic</a>. The incredibly flawed and corrupt abortion industry is a sham of women’s true health care.
I know. I used to work in an abortion facility.
Before my eyes were opened to the truth of life in the womb and the unspeakable harms abortion inflicts on both child and mother, I was a medical assistant at an abortion facility in Illinois. The doctors would perform between 40-60 abortions a day, six days a week. We had between five to eight minutes to get a woman on the table for her procedure and then move her quickly to the next room so doctors could perform the next abortion.
It was a fast-moving train of patient to patient to patient. If you didn’t have the girl ready when the doctor came in, you were slowing him down. He’d write you up, and that would go into your employment file. It was very important to move quickly so the doctors could perform as many abortions as possible, up to 10 additional each day.
One former Planned Parenthood nurse recently remarked on the fast pace of abortion facilities. She shared her own experience in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/us/planned-parenthood-clinics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Times article</a>: “Employees sometimes administered expired pain medication or the wrong medications as they scrambled to move people in and out.” She added, “It was not uncommon for patients to be taken to the wrong room and prepped for the wrong procedure.”
All of that is deeply disturbing, but unfortunately, it doesn’t surprise me. The focus of the industry that loudly touts “women’s health care” is on one thing: Money. And abortion is big money. In fact, it is the most significant driving factor in the abortion industry.
Between 2018 and 2023, Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the U.S.) <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/ce/f6/cef6efdb-919a-4211-bb5c-ce0d61fda7f5/2024-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">received</a> $3.2 billion in direct public funding. Each year, it receives hundreds of millions more from private donors. Since 2022, it has experienced a fundraising boom, amassing over $2.5 billion in net assets.
But its supporters are being deceived into believing big abortion equals comprehensive care for women. Planned Parenthood takes donors’ money and spends it on political activism, not people, and certainly not women’s health care.
The aforementioned New York Times article reported that, over the last five years, “the national office has distributed more than $899 million to affiliates to help them deliver care, but none of it went directly to medical services.” Much of the money went instead to pro-abortion politicking, legal costs, and marketing.
Between 2022 and 2023, women’s preventative-care visits <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-abortions-more-taxpayer-dollars-and-fewer-health-services/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fell by 31%</a>, and the number of patients seen annually <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/us/planned-parenthood-clinics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has fallen 60% since the 1990s</a>. <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2022-23-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cancer screening and prevention services</a> have dropped by 71% since 2010, including declines of 72% for breast exams and 74% for pap tests.
Americans should never be forced to fund any activist organization, much less one with such an abysmal and deceptive track record, especially when the <a href="https://www.kofc.org/en/news-room/polls/americans-support-legal-limits-on-abortion.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">majority of Americans</a> reject taxpayer funding for abortion.
The state of South Carolina agreed. It rightly determined that Planned Parenthood doesn’t qualify as a health care provider that should receive Medicaid dollars. In response, Planned Parenthood sued the state, and now the nation’s highest court is weighing this <a href="https://adflegal.org/campaign/medina/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">critical case</a>.
States should be free to direct their funding to providers offering genuine, comprehensive health care by excluding organizations like Planned Parenthood—whose primary business is abortion—from public funding. There are roughly 200 publicly funded health care clinics in South Carolina that provide a broad range of high-quality services, including family-planning services. Consider also the numerous pregnancy centers offering valuable, free services to women in need.
It’s been my great honor to have seen firsthand these service-oriented organizations at work in their communities.
For nearly four decades, I’ve worked at Mosaic Health, a pregnancy center with two locations in Illinois. We’ve served more than 25,000 clients by offering no-cost pregnancy testing and ultrasounds, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, post-abortion counseling, adoption referrals, parenting classes, and a wide array of practical resources for new parents, from diapers to clothes to bottles.
Yet the state of Illinois works diligently to force us to close our doors. Current state law specifically targets pregnancy centers like Mosaic because of our fundamentally held belief that abortion offers no benefits, especially to the unborn baby. Because the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/us-supreme-court-govt-cant-force-americans-express-messages-they-disagree/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">held</a> that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional, we’ve partnered with Alliance Defending Freedom and other Illinois pregnancy centers to <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/national-institute-family-and-life-advocates-v-treto/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">challenge</a> this unconstitutional law. I, along with many others across our state, pray the district court will see the law’s injustice and uphold our freedom as a pregnancy center to operate according to our deeply held beliefs.
But I’m also looking to the U.S. Supreme Court as they weigh the Medina case, hoping they will agree with the ADF attorneys representing South Carolina and find that states should be free to spend their funds on true, comprehensive, life-affirming health care for women and children.
* * *
Kathy Lesnoff is the president and CEO of Mosaic Health in Illinois.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Conservatives Gather For Annual CPAC Conference In Washington DC

Money, Not Women’s Health, Drives The Abortion Industry

Federal Government

Funding

Money

Planned Parenthood

Working in corporate engagement, I often hear questions about why the ‘long game’ matters in changing woke company policies. If executive orders can instantly push companies away from DEI or ESG initiatives, why take other pathways? The answer is clear: lasting change takes time. JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, just proved this with a major policy shift — one that speaks louder than any theory ever could.
In 2022, JPMorgan Chase <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/opinion/i-was-debanked-by-jpmorgan-chase-but-fought-back-and-won/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debanked</a> former U.S. Senator and Ambassador Sam Brownback, after Brownback opened an account for the newly-formed National Committee for Religious Freedom. The son of a Kansas farmer, Brownback refused to back down. When Brownback asked the bank for its rationale in shuttering his account, he was met with conflicting (and incorrect) explanations as to why.
Brownback’s debanking experience was the start of a major wave of scrutiny over exactly what conditions a bank will close a customer’s account. Victims range from nonprofit organizations like Indigenous Advance, an organization serving Ugandan widows &amp; orphans debanked by Bank of America in 2023, to Melania &amp; Barron Trump, who Melania <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-24-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> as having been debanked in her memoir, prompting further inquiry from the House Committee on Oversight.
Yet JPMorgan consistently ranked as one of the major bad actors in the debanking saga, closing not only Brownback’s account (and actually <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> for his org’s donor list for restoring service) but several other conservative nonprofits. The biggest bank in America was quickly racking up hits on its record of political neutrality and customer equality.
This trend might have gone unaddressed had the Right simply let the issue lie. Luckily, some of the most influential names in both the conservative legal, financial, and government worlds stepped up to the plate. Pressure for increased transparency and commitments to ditch any policies that could lead to a client being debanked for political reasons has come from all directions, from legal giants like <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/19-states-chase-stop-misleading-customers-commit-equality-treatment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> to <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/news/statement-on-debanking-and-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notable financial professionals</a> to <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state financial officers and attorneys general</a>. As that public pressure mounted, shareholder pressure has been growing from the inside for the past three years, spurred on by organizations like the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, with Chase investors like financial advisor David Bahnsen spending literal years <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bahnsen-takes-the-fight-today-to-jpmorgan-chase/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urging</a> the company to clarify its approach to debanking — and fix its spotty track record on political neutrality.
And Chase listened.
In 2023, JPMorgan made the decision to axe its “social risk” policy from its payment processing arm, no longer allowing vague terms like “intolerance” and “hate” to determine whether a customer was fit to continue doing business at Chase. But the biggest win so far came several days ago, when Chase agreed to a policy change explicitly protecting customers and employees from discrimination based on religious or political views.
This is huge. Many stories about companies ditching woke policies consist of the company putting out a public statement (and often the controversy that follows). Statements are great, but they’re not the ideal. Companies can hide behind statements — and do. Several companies that have publicly made statements supporting political neutrality clearly have work to do when it comes to actually putting their policies where their mouths are.
But companies can’t hide behind policy changes. That’s why they’re a sign of both real progress and good faith. Shareholders like Bahnsen, and groups like ADF &amp; Bowyer Research, have been engaging with Chase for years to get this change. Make no mistake: Chase’s willingness to protect against future political/religious debanking is the result of real shareholders using real influence to create real change. It’s a victory for Chase’s customers and shareholders, but also for the company itself. It’s a win for a company to clear up concerns about corporate bias, a win that’s been a long time coming, and a win that hopefully many other banks will find instructive.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Major US Bank Bosses To Discuss Debanking With Senate Committee

Major Win: JPMorgan Chase Ends Political Debanking

Banking

Banks

Bias

Conservatives

Corporations

debanking

Jamie Dimon

JP Morgan

Woke Culture

The Alliance Defending Freedom is demanding answers from the federal government about the Biden administration&#8217;s weaponization of government against conservatives as part of its push to combat alleged domestic extremism. 
On Monday, ADF filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Treasury Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security about their work to combat so-called extremism under President Joe Biden. ADF believes that the information gleaned from the requests will shed greater light on how the Biden administration ordered banks to spy on the financial records of conservative Americans. 
“We sent these requests based on the belief that big banks and Big Tech are just as threatening to freedom as big brother,” Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Mercer Martin told The Daily Wire. “We have been going through the mounting evidence that the government, through these organizations, was enlisting big business and banks in its censorship schemes.” 
The FOIA request focuses largely on two aspects of the government’s actions under Biden.
First, ADF wants to know more about how the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) flagged conservative-coded transactions for potential investigation. Second, ADF wants to know the nature of the government’s work with private organizations, to identify domestic extremism and target so-called misinformation. 
Overall, Martin said the is was to identify how the Biden administration worked to “outsource censorship to private organizations and businesses.&#8221;
The FOIAs filed with the Treasury Department seek information on FinCEN’s “relationship with private organizations purportedly to combat domestic violent extremism” and “the government’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private financial information.”
It was previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-flagged-terms-like-trump-maga-for-banks-to-comb-through-customer-data-jordan-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revealed</a> that top officials at FinCEN ordered banks to comb through customer data if terms like “TRUMP” or “MAGA” were used in transactions. Banks were also provided to provide information if customers had purchased religious texts or subscriptions to “extremist” media outlets. 
ADF’s requests would require the Treasury Department to provide documents and communications with key words like “Christian,” “Catholic,” “radical traditional,” “Southern Poverty Law Center,” “capitol riot,” and January 6. 
The FOIAs also asked for communications between the Treasury Department and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an organization that labeled ADF a “hate group” in a report that was linked to by FinCEN. 
ADF’s FOIAs of the FBI seek information on the any documents related to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-Left organization the bureau <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-12-04-the-fbis-breach-of-religious-freedom-the-weaponization-of-law-enforcement-against-catholic-americans.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cited</a> in a memo warning about the radical about “radical-traditional Catholic” ideology
“The reason we’re interested in their work with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is that [the government was] using those organizations’ lists of so-called hate groups or targeted groups, they were using those lists to then encourage banks and financial organizations to target their customers based on those lists,” Martin told The Daily Wire. 
The FOIAs also request information on the FBI’s work with the Domestic Security Alliance Council to “collect Americans’ personal financial information from private financial institutions and encourage private financial institutions to monitor Americans’ financial activity.”
The Domestic Security Alliance is a public-private partnership that purportedly <a href="https://www.dsac.gov/about">exists</a> to promote “the timely and effective exchange of security and intelligence information between the federal government and the private sector.”
In a third FOIA to the FBI, ADF requested that the bureau provide any communications with key words like “disinformation,” “election integrity,” “election interference,” “hate speech,” or “lab leak” and Big Tech companies like Google, Instagram, Facebook, and others. 
Along similar lines, the request to the DHS ask for documents on its work to combat alleged domestic extremism with private organizations and the flagging of Americans’ banking transactions. 
Martin said that the goal of the requests was to bring accountability to the government and determine whether individuals’ constitutional rights had been violated. 
“If we find that the Biden administration was violating individuals constitutional rights, we are interested in taking action to vindicate those rights as well,” he said.

Menu