The US Congress has withdrawn an anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) bill, which was scheduled to be voted on Monday, following angry reactions from several "America First" Republican lawmakers and podcasters on social media.

The bill, called the "Intergovernmental Organizations Anti-Boycott (IGO) Bill," aims to effectively criminalize boycotts of Israel.

It's worth noting that boycotting foreign countries is an American tradition older than the United States itself. The Boston Tea Party movement, which preceded the American Revolution, followed a boycott campaign against British goods. However, since the 1970s, the US government has attempted to prevent Americans from participating in unauthorized boycotts of foreign countries.

The House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on the International Governmental Organization's Anti-Boycott Act, which could be the most stringent measure of its kind to date: it imposes a maximum prison sentence of 20 years or a fine of $1 million on anyone who complies with international human rights sanctions against a US ally, including "providing information."

The bill's bipartisan sponsors are Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ). After facing unexpected Republican opposition—including from lawmakers who strongly oppose boycotts of Israel, such as Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Ana Paulina Luna (R-FL)—the vote was quietly postponed, liberal-leaning Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) revealed on X on Sunday night.

Although the bill is currently frozen, the anti-boycott laws on which it is based remain in effect.

In response to the Arab League's embargo on Israel, the Carter administration adopted export regulations in 1977 prohibiting U.S. companies from complying with "an agreement with, a requirement, or a request from" a foreign government to boycott a "friendly" third party. Congress tightened the restrictions in 2018, imposing a maximum prison sentence of 20 years or a $1 million fine for violators. Compliance with the boycott includes "providing information" to the boycotting countries, or even failing to notify the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security of a foreign boycott request. Last year, a U.S. company was fined $151,875 for failing to inform the U.S. government that its distributor in the United Arab Emirates wanted to stop selling its products to Israel.

The Intergovernmental Organizations Anti-Boycott Act would expand the scope of unauthorized boycotts to include campaigns against international institutions such as the United Nations or the European Union. A previous version of the bill, sponsored by Democrats and defeated in 2018, specifically accused the UN Human Rights Council of sponsoring a “business boycott” of Israel by publishing a list of companies deemed complicit in Israeli rule in the Palestinian territories. “International organizations cannot get away with targeting our key democratic ally, Israel,” Gottheimer said in a January press release shared by Lawler’s office. “That is why we are introducing the Intergovernmental Organizations Anti-Boycott Act, a bipartisan bill that addresses the blatant anti-Israel bias at international organizations like the UN.”

Civil liberties advocates warn that designating the UN list as a foreign boycott would allow the US government to sue Americans for their political statements. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued in a February 2024 letter to lawmakers that the International Governmental Organizations Anti-Boycott Act "clearly extends to voluntary, politically motivated speech that seeks to support prohibited boycotts."

Although the 2016 UN resolution that created the list does not explicitly call for a boycott, it does urge states to hold listed companies, such as Israeli security and surveillance firms, accountable for violating Palestinian rights. When the list was published in 2020, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz described it as a "discriminatory, anti-Israel policy" and a "shameful surrender to pressure from countries and organizations seeking to harm Israel." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to "confront this with all our strength."

An Israeli government strategy memo, written in February 2019 and revealed by the Distributed Denial of Secrets group in July 2024, recommends attempting to include the UN list within “existing US anti-boycott regulations imposed by the Commerce and Treasury Departments,” which “could be exploited to limit the ability of any person subject to US regulations… to conduct any activity related to the UN database.”

The memo continued: "The challenge is that the Commerce and Treasury departments have, historically, taken the position that their regulations apply only to government-imposed boycotts. Therefore, they have not applied these regulations to actions taken by individual companies to comply with non-governmental boycotts." It added that "new legislation in Congress" would be "the most difficult approach, but would provide the greatest flexibility to implement the new authorities."

Lawler and Gottheimer's bill would achieve exactly that. Although it passed the House of Representatives last year, the effort fizzled in the Senate. Lawler and Gottheimer predicted that a second attempt would be more successful now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, according to their January 2025 statement, which included supportive quotes from Christians United for Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Republican Jewish Committee, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

What they didn't take into account was the extent of the Republican opposition they would face within the House itself. Luna wrote on X: "Americans have the right to boycott, and punishing it threatens freedom of expression. I strongly reject and condemn anti-Semitism, but I cannot violate the First Amendment." Massie called it "a ludicrous bill that our leadership should never have scheduled for a vote."

It is unclear whether or when the bill will be reintroduced. Meanwhile, several anti-boycott laws are already in effect. In addition to federal anti-boycott laws, at least 38 states have passed laws, executive orders, or resolutions targeting boycotts of Israel. In 2019, the Arkansas Times sued the state for requiring an anti-boycott certification to continue doing business with the state university system. The Eighth Circuit Court upheld the law, holding that "purely commercial, non-expressive behavior" is not considered protected free speech. Jay Diaz, senior staff attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argued that this decision was erroneous, pointing to a "rich American history" of political boycotts, from the Boston Tea Party to the civil rights movement.

Deep skepticism toward Israel among Trump's allies has been evident in podcasts. Last month, conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson hosted media personality Matt Walsh in a debate in which they briefly discussed whether Israel's "survival" as a state is necessary.

The shift in negative sentiment toward Israel was most noticeable among younger Republicans under 50, who are more likely to listen to podcasts like Carlson's and are influenced by concerns about free speech and foreign aid distribution.