Last year, our organization took on Karen Attiah’s case after The Washington Post fired her over social media posts responding to the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
In her posts, she wrote she refused to “perform” mourning for a controversial political figure whose career was built, in significant part, on hateful rhetoric. She expressed an opinion. She did not celebrate his death.
The distinction should not have been difficult to understand. Yet in that moment, recognizing that distinction was apparently less expedient than firing Ms. Attiah. The Post claimed her posts violated its social media policies and could endanger the safety of its employees. It was a flimsy excuse, as an independent arbitrator confirmed last week by ordering the Post to reinstate Ms. Attiah, with back pay. This was a victory for her, for the integrity of journalism, and for freedom of expression.
Ms. Attiah’s unjust termination came amid a political climate in which the price of dissent could be professional ruin. Online mobs, emboldened by support from political leaders, sought to dictate the terms of the public’s response to Kirk’s killing. Only grief and praise were acceptable reactions, and those who noted or objected to Kirk’s inflammatory and often racist statements were expected to remain silent. A Reuters investigation later found that 600 Americans were punished in a “pro-Trump crackdown” in the wake of Kirk’s murder. The Trump administration and its allies used the killing to falsely portray the left as uniquely violent, while labeling anyone who criticized his politics as morally suspect and unpatriotic. They cast a wide net a few weeks later with an executive order targeting nonprofit organizations, including those focused on immigration, race, and economic justice.
That campaign did not exist in a vacuum. After Republicans won the White House and both houses of Congress in November 2024, conservative activists aggressively promoted a narrative about why Democrats had lost. They claimed that progressive leaders had become too “woke,” too focused on identity politics, and too attentive to marginalized communities instead of the rising cost of eggs.
Rather than challenge that premise, many left-of-center thought leaders fell in line, writing one election post-mortem after another, bemoaning the fact that the Democratic Party had lost sight of what and who is important. Political scientist Mark Lilla provocatively called for the “end of identity liberalism,” which essentially boils down to ‘power first, and then, maybe we can “help these people.”’ These so-called thought leaders tacitly admitted their willingness to sideline some of the very voices and communities that have led (and continue to lead) movements that make our society more just.
Their capitulation had consequences. It signaled that attacks on social justice groups and dissenting voices did not merit fierce resistance. More dominoes fell. Some of the country’s most powerful law firms struck cowardly deals with the Trump administration, rather than use their legal expertise to challenge dubious executive orders. Major corporations scaled back diversity initiatives after the administration issued executive orders targeting DEI programs. News organizations settled baseless multimillion-dollar lawsuits brought by Trump. Some universities and businesses increasingly treated political pressure as simply another condition to manage. By acquiescing, they chose the path of least resistance and helped normalize an antidemocratic culture of silencing dissent.
For the first months of the Trump administration, the story was one of institutions retreating in the face of intimidation and political pressure. Ms. Attiah’s case offers a different lesson. Her vindication came last week. The arbitrator determined that the Post had violated its labor agreement and failed to establish that she engaged in “gross misconduct.” The ruling, of course, is a major win for Ms. Attiah, who waited nearly a year for justice. But its significance extends far beyond her case. The decision rebukes a broad effort to push dissenting voices out of public life, prosecute them, or falsely label their actions criminal, unprofessional, or dangerous. It tells those who dare to speak truth to power that their rights are not optional.
Democracy requires room for dissent — as well as political, policy, and moral disagreements. Everyday Americans can fight, and they can win, even when up against a billionaire-owned media outlet.
Our organization took on Ms. Attiah’s case for the same reason we challenged the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID, fought its mass termination of federal employees, served as co-counsel in the birthright citizenship case, challenged Trump’s renaming of the Kennedy Center and taking over public golf courses in D.C., and fought attempts to browbeat an Olympian through a bogus prosecution for “vandalizing” the reflecting pool. We will continue to unapologetically and tirelessly use the rule of law to defend our democracy.
Jenice R. Robinson is the communications director at Democracy Defenders Action.
Susan Corke is the executive director of Democracy Defenders Action.
