At the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Center in New York City, an exhibit had reminded visitors of climate change, women’s rights, and liberty ideals, along with the US history “we hope never to repeat—like slavery, massacres of Indians, or holding Japanese Americans in wartime camps.” The exhibit was taken down—ripped off a wall—this year. Remnants of torn paper betray the haste with which that was done.
The administration is chasing historical and scientific facts in America’s largest classroom: the country’s national parks. President Trump’s executive order on “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” has led to the review of thousands of signs, information stands, and brochures across 433 national park sites. Scores of materials have been removed. Those most targeted included information on Native American history, slavery, climate change, and the civil rights movement.
In National Parks Conservation Association v. US Department of Interior, featured this week, a US district court issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the restoration of historical information and interpretive materials that had been unlawfully removed. “Under the guise of promoting American dignity,” Judge Angel Kelley stressed, “this Administration seeks to share a limited history by ordering the removal of all signs, displays, and interpretative exhibits at National parks that do not align with its preferred narrative, thereby telling half-truths.”
The decision follows an earlier order in City of Philadelphia v. Doug Burgum that directed the authorities to restore slavery-related historical exhibits at the President’s House site in Philadelphia. In both cases, appellate courts suspended the district courts’ restoration orders, granting a win for the Trump administration, which is no longer required to reinstate what it has removed. In both cases, the litigation continues.
In this project to rewrite US history—far beyond national parks—what remains amid the reductions? To journalist M. Gessen, “Trump wants Americans to unlearn what they have come to know” if that knowledge does not instill pride. “What his executive orders really promise to restore,” Gessen wrote in a recent op-ed, “is a sense of comfort contained in the most reductive and sanitized stories about the United States—the bliss of ignorance.”
Image credit: ForHum
Following an invitation by Meta’s Oversight Board, Alberto Godioli and Luisa Fernanda Isaza-Ibarra of ForHum submitted two public comments on cases concerning political deepfakes. In one, the authors ask: How can one mitigate the risks of misinformation while protecting the freedom to create and consume satire? They argue against the solution of labeling jokes by comparing humor to a frog: “you can dissect it to understand it but it dies in the process”—and weakens public debate.
Photo credit: Riccardo Urli #IJF26
This past spring, Alberto Godioli of ForHum and Tjeerd Royaards of Cartoon Movement conducted a workshop on humor and freedom of expression at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Italy. You can watch the recording on YouTube. The workshop’s next stop: the Dutch Journalism Festival on September 19, 2026. Learn more here.
United States
National Parks Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of Interior
Decision Date: June 2026
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a stay under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the National Park Service’s implementation of Executive Order 14253 and Secretary’s Order 3431 was likely arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to federal law. The case arose after the Department of the Interior directed the review and removal of interpretive signs, exhibits, and educational materials at National Parks that were considered inconsistent with the Administration’s preferred historical narrative. The Court held that the challenged actions threatened the National Park Service’s statutory mission by removing or altering educational materials concerning slavery, civil rights, Indigenous history, climate change, women’s suffrage, immigration, and other topics central to the National Park System’s educational and interpretive purpose. It found that the Department failed to provide a reasoned explanation for abandoning decades of National Park Service policy, ignored substantial reliance interests, and failed to establish a rational connection between the evidence and its decision to remove interpretive materials. Emphasizing the importance of preserving accurate historical interpretation, the Court observed that the Government’s actions amounted to “censorship and sanitization” and stated that “the beauty of history is the unvarnished storytelling of a time gone by and the delivery of undeniable truths.”
Brazil
Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) v. Isabel de Fátima Alvim Braga and “Facebook Brasil”
Decision Date: April 22, 2026
A Brazilian Federal Court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the blocking of two personal social media accounts operated by an employee of one of Brazil’s leading public health and biomedical research institutions. The employee had used her position at the institution to lend credibility to her posts about controversial health topics and had criticized the institution and its staff. The Court found that the accounts had been used to disseminate false and misleading information about the institution and its activities and prohibited further publications of a similar nature. It held that freedom of expression does not protect disinformation capable of harming public health and public confidence in scientific institutions.
United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
The Case of Koet Saray
Decision Date: November 12, 2025
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) found that Cambodia’s detention of Koet Saray, a human rights defender and environmental activist, was arbitrary and violated international human rights law. Saray was arrested in April 2024 after meeting with villagers facing eviction from their land and posting about the meeting on social media. Cambodian authorities charged him under Articles 494 and 495 of the Criminal Code for alleged incitement to cause serious chaos to national security. The Working Group found that Saray’s detention lacked a legal basis because the criminal provisions used against him were vague and overly broad, and because he had not received prompt and meaningful judicial review of his pretrial detention. It further held that his arrest, detention, and conviction resulted from the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression, assembly, association, thought, and participation in public affairs. The Working Group also found serious fair trial violations and concluded that Saray had been detained on discriminatory grounds because of his political opinions and his status as a human rights defender. It requested Cambodia to release him immediately, provide compensation and other reparations, and investigate the circumstances of his arbitrary detention.
New from CGFoE: Two Updated Special Collection Papers. What does the European Court of Human Rights say about freedom of expression in the digital age? Explore 72 Grand Chamber judgments in the second edition of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights by Anderson Javiel Dirocie De León, Senior Legal and Policy Consultant. The second edition of Inter-American System of Human Rights by Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher and Editor, maps and systematizes 60 decisions. In one, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights characterized the murder of a journalist as the most extreme form of censorship. Find the newly published papers here.
OCT 2: Backlash; Attacks on Disinformation Researchers Now and in the Past. Organized by the Technology Policy Innovation Concentration at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and co-sponsored by CGFoE, the event will compare the backlash against propaganda researchers in the 1930s with the repression of academic freedom under the Trump administration today. Speakers span The New School, Auburn University, Rutgers University, Duke University, University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia University. In person. October 2, 2026, 3 PM ET. International Affairs Building, 420 West 118th St, New York, NY. Room 1512. Register here. 
● US: New Government Filing Cites Former FBI Director’s Novel in Case Against Him. In the latest filing in the case against former FBI Director James Comey, federal prosecutors cite his novel to further their argument that Comey threatened to harm President Trump by posting a photo of seashells arranged to spell “86-47.” “A political message, expressed through a photo of seashells, is no true threat,” said Mara Gassmann of PEN America, “now, the government’s use of Comey’s work of fiction to support this prosecution compounds the First Amendment concerns.”
● Brazil: Intermediary Liability—The Intricate Path Ahead, by Veridiana Alimonti. In this take on Brazil’s new internet intermediary liability regime, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) unpacks the strengths and weaknesses of recent decrees applying the new rules set by the Supreme Court. The changes include notice and takedown mechanisms, as well as duty of care obligations. The EFF urges caution: “these measures can create problematic incentives for enforcement overreach and over censorship of protected speech.”
● Cambodia: IBAHRI Condemns Decision to Uphold 14-Year Sentences for Journalists, Calls for Reform. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) has denounced the Cambodian Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the 14-year prison sentences handed to journalists Phorn Sopheap and Pheap Pheara, despite the court’s acceptance of an amicus curiae brief submitted by the IBAHRI outlining the state’s international human rights law obligations. The decision comes at a time of severe media freedom erosion, censorship, and access to information restrictions in Cambodia.
On August 18, in Jakarta, Indonesia, police blocked the march of hundreds of students who protested the government and “decaying freedom”; at least 21 were arrested. On August 20, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, amid heavy police presence, thousands protested President Javier Milei’s economic policies as household debt hit a 20-year high. That day, hundreds rallied in Tunis, Tunisia, demanding President Kais Saied’s departure amid water and power cuts. Also on August 20, in Tbilisi, Georgia, marking the 631st day of protests, around 100 demanded that all political prisoners be freed, repressive laws repealed, and free elections held. On August 21, several pro-Palestine protesters were detained for blocking traffic outside the Israeli Consulate in Manhattan, New York, the United States. On August 26, in Magdeburg, Germany, over 120 shopkeepers joined a strike against the Alternative for Germany party’s mass deportation plans as state elections approach.
Find our web tool documenting protests since January 2026 here.
In a rare protest, hundreds of young Russians expressed support for the country’s only antiwar party. Over 80 people were detained in Moscow.
Background: Ahead of Russia’s parliamentary elections scheduled for mid-September, the liberal party Yabloko ran under the slogans “For peace and freedom!” and “For a Russia free from fear and political repression!” Yabloko suddenly grew very popular, and the Kremlin quickly realized it miscalculated by allowing the party to register for the elections. On August 10, the Supreme Court barred Yabloko from running after a nationalist party filed a complaint with accusations of foreign funding, copyright violations, and “extremism.” Hundreds—most under the age of 30—protested outside the court that day and on August 17, when the Court upheld the ruling.
Significance: With all antiwar expression banned, a protest in support of the only antiwar party, despite the risks of persecution, signifies a growing public discontent with the government and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
State Response: On August 10, the police initially allowed the action to proceed; later, the officers threatened arrests, and the crowd dispersed. Leading up to the appeals hearing, however, the authorities preemptively warned Yabloko supporters against protesting; some of those targeted had allegedly been identified through surveillance. On August 17, more than 80 people, including minors, were detained outside the Court. In related news, Russia is demanding that all countries ban protests outside its embassies during the September parliamentary elections.
FoE Violations: This latest suppression of the right to freedom of expression adds to the mass scale of censorship in Russia, described by the European Court of Human Rights as “a systemic and widespread pattern of unjustified restrictions on expression related to the war in Ukraine.” In a separate hearing on August 17 in Pskov, a court sentenced Lev Shlosberg, a politician, journalist, and deputy chair of Yabloko, to 11 years and one month in prison for his antiwar statements.
● France’s Constitutional Council Ruling Tests the Limits of Social Media Bans, by Christian Cirhigiri and Sabine Witting. France’s top court recently struck down the social media ban for those under the age of 15. A Tech Policy Press article analyzes the decision and what it signals: “protecting minors and children online cannot be achieved by infringing on their rights to freedom of expression, access to information, privacy, and data protection.”
● Open Position: Lawyer (Remote). Systemic Justice, an NGO leading community-driven litigation for racial, social, and economic justice, is hiring a lawyer. The candidate must be based in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, or Denmark. Apply by September 20. Join an information call on September 15. Learn more here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.