Pro-Palestinian Activists are the Government’s Next Surveillance Target
“The FBI was not monitoring individuals. The FBI was monitoring the entire community.” – Sheikh Yassir Fazaga
In recent years, the tension between national security and civil liberties has grown increasingly apparent, especially when it comes to the government’s surveillance of American citizens. The use of intelligence and law enforcement powers, designed to combat terrorism and criminal activity, often collides with fundamental constitutional rights. While the need for security is undeniable, the practices of widespread surveillance and political profiling have created a chilling atmosphere, particularly for Muslim Americans and pro-Palestinian activists, who are frequently targeted by both governmental and societal forces.
On July 13, 2024, Thomas Crooks crawled onto the roof at a Trump rally, set up his rifle, aimed, and shot at former President Trump, injuring him and killing another rallygoer. Given the almost limitless powers and resources the FBI and the federal government have to protect “national security,” how was this possible?
After the assassination attempt, law enforcement discovered Crooks spent several holidays at the gun range, practicing firing rifles, and visited the gun range 43 times in just one year. Law enforcement investigators also later discovered that Thomas Crooks had repeatedly searched for the names of other mass shooters, which was consistent with law enforcement’s profile of mass shooters. But even their vast network of informants, online covert employees, undercover agents, warrantless surveillance, and incidental warrantless surveillance ultimately proved inadequate to put him on their radar. In this case, the fail-safe failed.
The federal government commits billions of dollars in counterterrorism resources to surveilling innocent, non-violent Muslim Americans, among others, and increasingly focuses on non-violent political activists and particularly pro-Palestinian activists. This creates two impacts: (1) political and religious speech become disproportionately targeted and criminalized, and (2) more tangible, serious threats, like that presented by Thomas Crooks, remain unchecked.
Past FBI Surveillance of Political Activists and Minorities Considered Justified Under National Security
Federal law enforcement continues its long-held practice of weaponizing surveillance against those who voice unpopular opinions, most often minorities.
In the 1950s, the government deployed surveillance operations against civil rights activists while claiming they intrinsically related to America’s biggest perceived threat at the time: communism. This covert surveillance coincided with and propelled anti-communist hyperbole and hysteria.
In the late 1960s and at the height of America’s civil rights movement, the FBI launched a covert surveillance operation, coined COINTELPRO, a program that surveilled, infiltrated, and discredited civil rights leaders, anti-war activists, and organizations deemed threats to the political establishment. In particular, figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Elijah Muhammad, Thurgood Marshall, Marcus Garvey, and Malcolm X, and organizations like the Black Panther Party, endured extensive surveillance and harassment — all in the name of national security. Now declassified files reveal that government actors routinely referred to civil rights activists as “Black Extremists” or “Black Nationalist Hate Groups.” In one instance, FBI officials ordered all offices to regularly report on “counterintelligence measures” meant to “[cripple]” the Black Panthers Party. Former FBI J. Edgar Hoover justified this surveillance operation with the argument that communists infiltrated the civil rights movement, even publicly referring to the Black Panthers as “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.”
The War on Terror
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, ushered in a new era of surveillance, some aspects of which certainly had merit. But under the guise of counterterrorism, the government went much further than truly guarding the nation’s security across the board and entered into targeted surveillance of specific groups. The passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the expanded powers of the FBI and the NSA created a new framework that allowed targeting individuals and organizations suspected of links to terrorism. This shift led to the continued surveillance of American citizens—often with little oversight and at the cost of their civil liberties.
In 2021, a mere four percent of all domestic terror incidents in the United States were committed by Islamic “jihadists.” Yet, the $13 million awarded to the FBI’s Counterterrorism section each year is funneled directly into the surveillance and investigation of Muslim Americans in the name of combatting “Islamic terrorism.”
Public fear and backlash against Muslims in the post-9/11 world functioned in a way bearing many similarities to the anti-communist hysteria of the 20th century. Notably, post-9/11 hysteria became more dangerous when Muslim prejudices and targeting found validation in the law through a combination of FISA, the Patriot Act, the Wiretap Act, and numerous other legal expansions that allow the federal government to target Muslim Americans in ways that would be considered grossly unconstitutional if applied to other non-minority communities.
This deleterious scrutiny succeeded when the government labeled international and “Islamic” terrorism as its greatest threat for over two decades. In the name of national security and the “War on Terror,” the FBI and the federal government chase the idea of “international terrorism” throughout Muslim American communities all across the country. From conspiracy theories that the Islamic Fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated communities to mass surveillance of mosques with informants searching for signs of terrorist-sympathizing, the expansion of FISA to allow warrantless surveillance of Americans (largely utilized against Muslims) served as a useful tool.
This targeting does not end with FISA and other related surveillance abuses. Entrapment and a series of criminal codes and sentencing enhancements disproportionately deployed against Muslims result in lengthy prison sentences that officials then rely on to justify these high counterterrorism budgets.
Surveillance Extends to Black Lives Matter Activists as “Domestic Terror” Threats
In 2020, after George Floyd’s brutal and well-documented murder, mass protests erupted across the country as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. A year later, leaked documents from the FBI’s counterterrorism section revealed the FBI covertly surveilled BLM protestors for the year past.
Of particular concern, reports refer to protestors as “Black Identity Extremists,” echoing the labels assigned to civil rights advocates in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s. Other leaked documents revealed that the FBI operation labeled “IRON FIST” enabled the FBI to use “enhanced intelligence collection efforts,” or the use of undercover agents and surveillance, to address the “domestic terrorism” threat BLM advocates allegedly presented. It was also revealed that the FBI misused FISA’s Section 702 to surveil BLM protestors. In plain words, the FBI believed the BLM movement presented a threat of terrorism, so it deployed, with full force, its arsenal of surveillance and undercovers.
The key question at the heart of this issue turns on whether these surveillance programs pass legal scrutiny—and if they do, whether they are just. While the government describes these programs as essential to protecting national security, the legal basis for such expansive surveillance is shaky at best. The Constitution provides protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, including political activism. Yet, the surveillance practices employed by agencies like the FBI and NSA routinely violate these protections.
This raises the question: Who does the U.S. government really believe is a “terrorist”? Does the label provide cover for surveillance and invasion of the lives of those whose political opinions challenge popular public opinion?
Pro-Palestinian Protestors: A National Security Threat or Protected Political Opposition?
Activist and civil rights organizations accuse the federal government of targeting pro-Palestinian groups under the pretext of combating terrorism. Activists advocating for Palestinian rights, often labeled as “anti-Israel” or “extremist,” face increased scrutiny and surveillance, with their political speech and activities monitored by intelligence agencies. This creates an environment that not only discourages dissent against government policies but also criminalizes it. Pro-Palestinian activists, along with others who challenge U.S. foreign policy, frequently endure surveillance based on little more than their political beliefs, a practice that threatens the very foundation of free speech and political expression.
Since October 7, 2023, MLFA’s Criminal Defense Department has seen an unprecedented increase in clients reaching out for representation in FBI interviews based on their public pro-Palestinian speech. Additionally, reporters who filed FOIA requests revealed that since October 7th, the Federal Protective Service surveilled pro-Palestinian protestors’ emails, phone calls, and photographs.
Historically, the FBI and local police forces like the NYPD infiltrated on-campus organizations like Muslim Student Associations and Students for Justice in Palestine chapters. In infiltrating these student groups, law enforcement sought to find terrorism leads from Muslim Americans themselves—a practice not unfamiliar to the Muslim community. Post-9/11 a mass influx of confidential FBI informants were similarly deployed into mosques, schools, student organizations, and other community spaces. These informants reportedly attempted to befriend Muslim community members hoping to catch them in the act of nonexistent crimes.
Uniquely vulnerable, however, are young activists who may not be well-versed in prior dealings with government actions. Many Muslim Americans have a heightened sense of awareness associated with the law enforcement scrutiny of Muslims and political activity. But anyone new to activism may not be familiar with how far the government can legally enter people’s lives and homes, and how low the law places the bar for deeming political speech to be potentially criminal. In fact, MLFA’s Criminal Defense Department encounters many cases of FBI entrapment and confidential informant-use involving young people unfamiliar with law enforcement powers and abuse faced by Muslim Americans and other targeted minority groups. And our organization’s parallel work in the civil litigation context encompasses representation of over thirty students across multiple college campuses nationwide, where targeting vulnerable groups by government (including public school) officials occurs visibly.
Why It Matters
It is troubling that, in America, voicing one’s support for human rights in Palestine requires constant vigilance over one’s public and private statements. Publicly voicing disagreement with U.S. government actions leads to becoming a victim of its surveillance. To support the Palestinian cause should not equate to inadvertently giving up trust in community members and having the right to privacy wrenched away while other political or religious speech is protected absolutely by the First Amendment.
FISA, initially created to target foreign intelligence agents, now draws criticism for its use in surveilling domestic political activists and individuals without proper legal recourse. FISA’s broad surveillance powers, along with the Patriot Act’s loosening of restrictions on intelligence gathering, have created a system where individuals can be monitored, infiltrated, and even arrested based on mere suspicion of political or religious beliefs, without ever being formally charged with a crime. FISA has also ensured that the “wrong kind” of activist’s (e.g., pro-Palestinian) privacy is valued less than another American’s privacy due to the belief that the exercise of his or her constitutional right to privacy would be a “national security risk.” It has essentially demolished the right to free speech for Muslim Americans and activists. The “wrong” political or religious speech has landed many in federal prison. The price of speaking out for the oppressed has become further oppression itself.
This sweeping unraveling of the constitutional rights of political activists and Muslim Americans has not made America safer. Would-be assassins like Thomas Crooks, and other mass shooters, slip through the cracks. No one looks for them. Instead, Muslim American communities bear the brunt of invasive and often baseless scrutiny, made palatable to the rest of the country under the guise of constitutional freedoms and equal protection. As these abusive tactics expand and continue to fail at preventing real domestic terror attacks, we must ask ourselves: Was it worth it?
This is the third article in an ongoing series on FISA by MLFA’s Criminal Defense Department. Read the first article and the second article here.
