OFAC Sanctions Samidoun

Here's the backstory behind the Department of Treasury's decision to place sanctions on Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network.

On October 15, 2024, the US Department of Treasury announced that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was placing sanctions on Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network. The Treasury Department has accused Samidoun of operating as a “sham charity” raising money for the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). PFLP, a Marxist-Leninist Palestinian group, has already been sanctioned by OFAC as a “Specially Designated Terrorist” (SDT) organization. The State Department has also designated the PFLP a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO). The US’s move against Samidoun was coordinated with the Canadian government who designated Samidoun a “terrorist entity.” A Canadian national, Khaled Barakat, was also sanctioned by OFAC. 

Samidoun has denied having “any material or organizational ties to entities listed on the terrorist lists of the United States, Canada or the European Union.” They have stated they are being targeted as part of a broader attack on the Palestinian diaspora and Palestinian organizing. In a statement posted on their website, they wrote that attacks on them are designed to “introduce a norm in which organizations may be designated as “terrorist” for organizing demonstrations, lectures, publishing posters and engaging in entirely public and political work that challenges imperialist states’ complicity in Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

Such sanctions by OFAC have a history of being used against Palestinian-Americans, supporters of Palestinian rights, and those seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given the long history of attacks on Samidoun, increasing McCarthyite atmosphere faced by opponents of Israel’s war, and history of counter terrorism sanctions, the designation of Samidoun is cause for grave concern.  

Past Attacks Against Samidoun

The US and Canada’s actions follow a longer campaign against Samidoun. The group was founded in 2011 to raise awareness of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails and has chapters all over the world. In 2021, Israel – which has a history of falsely labeling NGOs as terrorists – banned Samidoun as a terrorist organization. Israel’s rationale mirrored the current claims of the US Treasury Department. 

In the summer of 2023, Samidoun’s fiscal sponsor in the US, Alliance for Global Justice, came under attack for sponsoring Samidoun. The rightwing Washington Examiner ran a piece alleging Alliance for Global Justice, which provides fiscal sponsorship to over 150 grassroots organizations, had ties to Palestinian terrorism. The only basis for this allegation was their fiscal sponsorship of Samidoun. Zachor Legal Institute, described by Mondoweiss as a “pro-Israel lawfare group,” filed an IRS complaint against the Alliance for Global Justice based on its fiscal sponsorship of Samidoun. 

The Zachor Legal Institute also began targeting Salsa Labs, which provides fundraising infrastructure support for nonprofits. Salsa Labs contracts out the actual processing of credit card payments to a private payment processor, CardConnect. In response, CardConnect refused to process all transactions for Alliance for Global Justice. This led the Alliance for Global Justice--and the 150 groups it sponsors--virtually unable to collect donations online. 

Both Alliance for Global Justice and Samidoun repeatedly denied any connections to terrorism.

Following the launch of Israel's war on Gaza, Germany banned Samidoun. Germany has stringent restrictions on political speech, which have been used to criminalize and suppress support for Palestine.

In April 2024, students at Columbia tried to hold an event called “Resistance 101,” which featured a speaker from Samidoun. When Columbia University administrators canceled the in-person event, students held it as a webinar. The students who held the event were suspended. Then-Columbia President Minouche Shafik testified to Congress under oath that when she learned the event was taking place as a webinar, she reported it to the FBI. Defending Rights & Dissent filed a FOIA request to learn more about what Columbia told the FBI and how they responded, but the FBI denied holding any records subject to FOIA that were responsive to our request. 

Throughout 2024, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, took multiple steps to censor Samidoun and accounts affiliated with it. In June 2024, YouTube removed the channel of Samidoun and deleted all of its content. It did the same for Charlotte Kates, Samidoun’s international coordinator.

In addition to attacks from Pro-Israel groups and social media platforms, Samidoun has, since the beginning of Israel’s War on Gaza, been a frequent subject of attacks by members of Congress. Samidoun and its US fiscal sponsor have been cited as necessitating new legislative proposals allowing the IRS to crack down on charities. And in September, Rep. Jason Smith, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, wrote to the IRS asking them to revoke Alliance for Global Justice’s tax exempt status over their sponsorship of Samidoun.   

Following the announcement that Samindoun had been sanctioned, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) sent an email to supporters praising the move, claiming it had “shared intelligence about Samidoun’s activities with Congress and the Administration and has been highly engaged in pushing for government action.” In 1993, it was exposed that the ADL was running a private spy network in California and illegally received confidential police files on political groups from a San Francisco police officer. It is unclear what “intelligence” the ADL provided, but its public dossiers on Samidoun consist almost exclusively of political speech. While some of this speech, such as describing the October 7 attack as a form of “resistance,” may be offensive to some, all of it is protected by the First Amendment and thus cannot constitute the basis for government sanctions against Samidoun. 

The sanctions against Samidoun appear to be the end result of a longrunning, international campaign against the organization. 

The Legal Framework

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad powers to implement sanctions to deal with “unusual and extraordinary threats” to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. This is the law US presidents frequently rely on to apply sanctions on foreign countries. In 1995, President Bill Clinton cited this act to issue Executive Order 12947 to sanction terrorists who threaten to disrupt the Middle East Process.  One of the organizations explicitly sanctioned by Clinton’s order was the PFLP.

Following September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush cited the International Emergency Powers Act in Executive Order 13224 to sanction persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.

In addition to OFAC sanctions, in 1996 Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which made it a crime to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations was vested with the State Department. The PFLP was one of the original groups designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997. Citing Executive Order 13224, all State Department-designated foreign terrorist organizations are also sanctioned as Specially Designated Terrorists by OFAC.

The Treasury Department cited the Bush-era executive order as the legal authority for their sanctions on Samidoun. Once sanctioned by OFAC, individuals and financial institutions are forbidden from engaging in any financial transactions with the sanctioned party unless they receive a license from the government to do so. Supporters cannot donate money; banks must freeze their assets. If an individual sanctioned by OFAC wishes to challenge the designation with a lawyer, the lawyer must receive a license from OFAC in order to be paid. This is true whether the sanctioned individual pays them or their friends, family, or supporters pay them.

OFAC terrorism designations are not limited to financial transactions. They also prohibit individuals from engaging in coordinated advocacy with a designated party.

OFAC sanctions are not technically a criminal penalty, and as a result the government has a much lower burden of proof. Individuals can challenge their sanctions, but there are significantly less due process rights as the government is not required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. 

While OFAC sanctions are not a criminal penalty, violating them is a crime. If an individual or bank conducts business with a sanctioned party, they can be prosecuted. The Clinton executive order gives the FBI primary jurisdiction over investigating violations of the order. 

OFAC counterterrorism sanctions can sometimes be a precursor to a criminal prosecution. Much of the conduct alleged to justify sanctions oftentimes mirrors the elements of other crimes.

Sanctions and the First Amendment

Prior to the 1995 Clinton execution order and 1996 anti-terrorism bill, it was generally believed that, while the government could criminalize support for acts of violence, a US citizen’s support for an organization's political or humanitarian activities was protected by the First Amendment. In the late 1980s, the Reagan administration sought to deport eight alleged supporters of the PFLP (the Los Angeles 8). The FBI Director conceded that had they been US citizens there would be no legal basis for their arrest. In the early 1990s, Israel consistently accused the US of harboring a Hamas-fundraising network. The Clinton Administration, backed by the FBI and CIA, responded that there was no evidence for support of illegal acts of terror and those actions undertaken on US soil were political and humanitarian actions protected by the First Amendment. In spite of the absence of illegal activity, the FBI was actively surveilling many groups and individuals under its foreign counterintelligence authorities. 

Decades of understanding of the First Amendment rights of Americans were wiped out. The material support provision was challenged under the First Amendment. After a lengthy litigation process over three presidential administrations, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, ruled the government could not prohibit independent advocacy on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization.

The first US citizen sanctioned by OFAC as a Specially Designated Terrorist was Palestinian-American Muhammad Salah. A Bridgeview, Illinois grocer – he was arrested, tortured, and tried by Israel in a military court while bringing humanitarian aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. OFAC removed these sanctions after 17-years after a lawsuit was brought. As the Center for Constitutional Rights described, under the sanctions Salah was “not permitted to get a job, pay rent, obtain medical care, or even buy a loaf of bread -- without first obtaining approval from the Treasury Department.”

Following the September 11th attacks, the US government was looking for scapegoats. Post-9/11 laws like the Patriot Act make it permissible to enter information gathered with foreign counterintelligence tools into evidence in criminal trials. OFAC sanctioned and froze the accounts of the Holy Land Foundation and they were later criminally prosecuted. The US government alleged the Holy Land Foundation gave humanitarian aid to charitable entities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories controlled by Hamas. Their first trial ended in a hung jury; a second trial resulted in a conviction. The US government also indicted longtime Palestinian and civil rights activist Sami Al-Arian on a range of charges. Al-Arian was acquitted of the most serious charges, including allegations of supporting violence, but dead-locked on others. Although a majority of jurors had wanted to acquit Al-Arian, the length of the government’s persecution and prospect of retrial led Al-Arian to plead guilty to single count of violating OFAC sanctions. As part of his plea agreement, the government stipulated Al-Arian had not been involved with or had knowledge of acts of violence. Salah was also charged with racketeering, lying during a civil proceeding, and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. The terrorism charge was dropped mid-trial and the jury acquitted Salah of racketeering. 

Chilling Impact

OFAC’s sanctions on Samidoun have the potential to have a disturbing chilling impact. Samidoun’s reports on Israel’s treatment of prisoners have been cited by UN bodies and even the State Department itself. Samidoun has participated in First Amendment protected political activity in the US, including the webinar at Columbia and protests at the Democratic National Convention. Already, using McCarthyite guilt-by-association logic, pro-Israel groups are using Samindoun’s designation to attack those who worked beside them in lawful, political activity.

We also know that the FBI has broad intelligence and national security powers and frequently employs guilt-by-association tactics in intelligence investigations. In the 1980s, the FBI wrongfully investigated the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) as potential supporters of the FMLN. As part of this investigation, the FBI launched spin-off investigations into other groups and made a list of groups with “CISPES ideology.” Since the 1980s, the FBI’s restrictions on opening investigations have only loosened. 

Defending Rights & Dissent remains deeply troubled by OFAC’s decision to sanction Samidoun. We condemn the use of sanctions and terrorism designations against otherwise lawful political or humanitarian activities absent any nexus to violence. Those accused of terrorism must have meaningful due process and the burden of proof must be on the government. We reject guilt-by-association tactics.