ACLU, Once a Defender of Free Speech, Goes After a Whistleblower
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.

Among the unfortunate changes of recent years has been the transformation of the American Civil Liberties Union from an advocate for free speech and other individual rights into just another progressive political organization. Historically, despite much pushback, the group defended the right of people from across the political spectrum to advocate and protest. But the organization has become unreliable on the issue; most recently in the very 21st century debate over gender identity, which sees the ACLU of Missouri targeting a whistleblower who is critical of medical transitions for minors.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Targeting an Activist's Communications
"Strange evening," journalist Jesse Singal wrote March 7 on X (formerly Twitter). "The ACLU of Missouri subpoenaed Jamie Reed, demanding (among other stuff) all her communications w/me. I emailed them saying (politely) wtf, you're the ACLU. Got a call from a lawyer there saying it was a mistake – 'It's a big team.' Okay."
The subpoena Singal attached (supposedly since modified, though a redacted version of the original remains publicly available through the Missouri courts website) demanded of Reed "all communications, including any documents exchanged, between you and Jessie Singal concerning Gender-Affirming Care provided at or through the Center." It also sought "all communications, including any documents exchanged, concerning Gender-Affirming Care involving media or between you and any media outlet or any member of the media" (journalist Benjamin Ryan says that would include him). The subpoena also demanded Reed's communications with state officials, legislators, and advocacy organizations.
Jamie Reed, it should be noted, isn't a party to the case behind the subpoena, which is a challenge to Missouri's 2023 ban on "gender transition surgery" and "cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs" for minors. But she was a motivator for that legislation as a former staffer at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children's Hospital who developed significant doubts about what she believed to be a lack of safeguards in place regarding permanent changes to children's bodies and lives. In a widely read piece for The Free Press, she described such interventions as "medically appalling."
Whether you agree with Reed or not, she's a sincere advocate for a position on an issue that commands attention and has serious policy implications. Just this month, New York magazine published a piece arguing that minors have an absolute right to change their bodies, while Britain's National Health Service stopped prescribing puberty blockers for children in gender identity cases because of doubts about their safety or effectiveness. Reed is engaged in public debate of the sort that civil libertarians defend, so it's bizarre to see the ACLU of Missouri putting the screws to her over her advocacy. Or it would be if the ACLU wasn't undergoing a painful and very public transformation.
Liberty Runs Up Against Ideology
"An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important," Michael Powell noted for The New York Times in 2021. The ACLU's "national and state staff members debate, often hotly, whether defense of speech conflicts with advocacy for a growing number of progressive causes, including voting rights, reparations, transgender rights and defunding the police."
This came after leaked internal ACLU case-selection guidelines revealed the organization to be stepping back from viewpoint-neutral advocacy of free speech rights.
"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed," ACLU staffers dithered in a 2018 memo. "As an organization equally committed to free speech and equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of our actions."
In the legal battle over medically assisted gender transitions for minors, the ACLU of Missouri, which did not respond to a request for comment, appears to have decided that the progressive position on transgender identity takes precedence over the free speech rights of a whistleblower and advocate. This is a remarkable change of position for an organization that, at the national level, still warns that "the government has aggressively investigated and prosecuted national security whistleblowers and…private sector employees continue to face arbitrary discipline and privacy intrusions."
It's difficult to square that position with a demand of a whistleblower that she reveal with whom she's been in communication about her former work. But the subpoena makes sense for a partisan organization that's less concerned about liberty than with scoring points for a larger political agenda.
Filling the ACLU's Abandoned Shoes
"There are a lot of progressive political groups out there. I'm glad to have more of them, because that's my politics too," former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser, concerned about the changing direction of his old organization, told Reason in 2020. "But there's only one ACLU…. It's taken 100 years for the ACLU to develop from the 30 or 40 people that started it in 1920 to the powerhouse of civil liberties that it is today. If the ACLU isn't there for speech, who will be?"
Who will be, indeed? As a partial answer to that question, it's worth pointing out that Glasser is now on the advisory council for The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, along with Wendy Kaminer, a former ACLU board member. Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen is now a FIRE senior fellow. Other ACLU alumni include co-founder Harvey Silverglate, who is now on the board of directors, and FIRE Vice President of Communications Matthew Harwood.
"Many of FIRE's founders and backers are former leaders of the ACLU who have grown disillusioned with the group," Politico's Josh Gerstein wrote in 2022.
FIRE's expanded scope, from supporting civil liberties on college campuses to broader advocacy for free speech, is still new. But it's a major step towards adopting the ACLU's old role as the older organization transforms into a very different kind of group with more explicitly ideological priorities.
That's not to say the ACLU no longer ever advocates for civil liberties or is universally hostile to free expression; you'll still find the group's lawyers intervening in cases such as the federal indictment of journalist Tim Burke. But the group has become unpredictable on matters of individual liberty, and it now depends on the issue as to whether the "civil liberties" organization will favor or oppose freedom.
This case emphasizes a sad transformation for the ACLU. It's especially unpleasant for people on the receiving end when the onetime civil liberties organization slips into authoritarian mode.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For as long as I've been politically aware (20-ish years) the ACLU has been a partisan organization. In that time they have shown no universal interest in 1A rights and extreme hostility to others. They have been an opponent to freedom for a ling time. I'm actually more concerned about FIRE at this point. They started out defending the right and branched out into principled defenses of the left. More recently they have been getting closer to being legal left wing activists in the same model of the ACLU. It's really disappointing how quickly they got corrupted
There seems to be a a mythlogical view of what the ACLU was that the Reason staff would really like to believe is still true, rather than the reality of what the ACLU has been for decades and may have always been.
Lol!!!
What rock has Reason been living under that they believe the ACLU has ever believed in any Individual freedom??
The ACLU is about promoting racial hatred.
Nasty bad-ass racial hatred.
Nothing else.
The ACLU doesn't bother defending 2A, 4A or 5A anymore. They used to be an organization worthy of respect. Now, it is no longer the case.
Agree with you on FIRE. I was a donor when they started.
I think a large part of the issue is the federal requirements for charity organizations. The laws force boards to run the institutions instead of allowing the founders any consistency. We see the capture of many of these institutions over time by the left and activists through these requires boards. See Project Veritas as a glaring example.
Yeah, ACLU has been the shits for damned near ever. They "protected" the rights of Nazis because the Nazis produced zero risk to the progressive beliefs they always had.
But FIRE is becoming a real concern and one I can no longer feel any fondness for in terms of donations.
Reason is seen by more and more people as dying.
So the ACLU says zero about the 22 million acre landgrab of Biden but this gets them all upset.Niggling over specks of the Constitution so they can avoid real issues.
To fight fascism, they had to become fascists.
This is why people need to triage their charitable contributions from time to time. There are likely people who started donating to the ACLU when it was a non partisan defender of the little guys rights. Now it's just another woke organization and those same people who don't like all this woke shit don't know the ACLU has joined the other side and they should end their yearly donation.
This^.
I continually monitor my "charities" before making donations.
The NRA is a prime example. Negotiate Rights Away hasn't seen a dime from me in years.
The shooting range I used to go to required an NRA membership. I would get phone calls a couple times a week from stern sounding men with very deep voices asking me to give money to police organizations. No matter how many times I told them to stop calling they never relented. Finally I called them up and canceled the membership (and found a different shooting range), just to make the phone calls stop.
I recall the police calls as well.
Yeah, "the NRA never shared members' information" is another myth.
That is pretty much my experience with the NRA too. I told them more than once to stop calling me or I wouldn't donate again. They kept calling. Fuck em. They're the Elmer Fudd of gun rights groups anyway.
Hey now!
Well, I get calls from police organizations, and I've never given a dime to the NRA--nor to a police organization.
I keep getting calls from some police charity. I block them and they call from a new number. Can't get rid of them, the Nigerian Princes are easier to get rid of than the damn cops.
I may be dating myself, but I remember a time when the ACLU was an honorable organization. Over the years they are become more and more partisan.
I don't.
Seems to me they have always been on the progressive / communist spectrum, and have only ever defended the rights of people they oppose ideologically when it happened to align with their interests or give them a great deal of exposure or cover to suit their purposes.
Yes, and I see HUGE things happening that they say nothing about, like BIden's 22 MILLION acre grab for solar development.
Rarely honorable, last decent thing they did was to outspokenly oppose Kamala Harris AG when she forced donor informtion from groups she didn't like AND THEY GOT PUBLISHED, you know, so people could threaten you and your family and thus further Kamala's view of a good country !!!!
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.
Why is this present tense and not past tense?
When you are ready to infiltrate the ACLU with the goal of taking it over and transforming it back into an equal rights and free speech organization, let us all know. That's how the progressive socialists accomplished it and why it's present tense and not past tense.
They have already captured it. It has already happened. There is no continues. It is.
Are you saying it could not get worse?
The ACLU is one of several organizations I once enthusiastically supported but am now embarrassed by. I worry that I contributed, in my admittedly small way, to the current state of affairs by blindly continuing support for years based on past reputation.
The capture and centralization of government authority and accumulation of power has been paralleled by the gradual infiltration and takeover of advocacy and media organizations. It takes a very subtle narrative to transform equal rights and free speech into special protections and suppression of opposing opinions. Progressive socialists are nothing if not subtle and patient - also relentless.
The Left is big on capturing an institution, gutting it, then wearing it as a skin suit and demanding you give them respect.
Unintentionally, you've also just described the GOP...
"As an organization equally committed to free speech and equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of our actions."
This a succinct and very accurate summary of the origins of the current culture war and social polarization wracking America now. It is impossible to be equally committed to both free speech and equality. It is not impossible to be equally committed to both free speech and equal rights. Neither free speech nor equal rights is absolute and there is plenty of work for advocacy organizations to protect them both against erosion by power-loving elites. When progressivists crossed over the line from equal rights for people of color and women and gays into special privileges, wealth transfers and reparations, the opposition had finally had enough and started fighting back successfully, often using the very tools pioneered and launched by the progressivists. In the background setting of an increasingly centralized government authority which has encroached upon and eroded away our protections under the Bill of Rights, this is a very dangerous moment for American society. It is not going to be pretty any time soon, and I fear that it's going to get much uglier very quickly.
^ This.
...
The transformation is only in perception. Since its founding, the organization as a whole and local organizations and individuals of it have been faced with a choice:
Are they an organization whose public stance on civil liberties (especially speech) is to be just enough to obscure an agenda of the "left"?
Or do they sincerely believe in civil liberties, along with or separately from an agenda of the "left"?
I disagree. The transformation has been well-documented as a gradual hostile takeover in the same way that the agendas of countless professional, advocacy and communications organizations and corporate boards have been subverted. The Sierra Club, Scientific American, the Ceres Principles - and the ACLU - all are examples that come to mind easily.
Read The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union by William Donohue (1985) and you might conclude otherwise.
The ACLU was founded by left-wingers, including communists, who figured quite sensibly that defending only the rights of left-wingers would garner them very little respect, and so might fail to be effective, but that a principled defense of everyone's rights would give them the sort of credibility needed to effectively defend the leftists they actually cared about against censorship controlled by the right.
Plus, by defending the rights of the scummiest segment of the right, they could somewhat further the illusion that these people were somehow representative of the right. Bonus!
What happened is that they realized that things had changed, that the power to censor was now primarily in the hands of their allies, and thus was no longer a real threat to the left. So it was no longer necessary to defend right-wing speech to have the credibility to defend the left-wing speech they actually cared about.
Your revisionist history lessons are second to none, Brett.
of recent years?
Charlottesville (or specifically the internal blowback against their original stance) was the final nail for the ACLU as a genuine all around civil liberties organization. Kind of think that’s when Reason started to objectively lose the plot as a genuine libertarian organization, as well. The moment When the fear of being tarred as racist became the prime directive.
"Reed is engaged in public debate of the sort that civil libertarians defend, so it's bizarre to see the ACLU of Missouri putting the screws to her over her advocacy."
She is not, in fact, engaged in 'advocacy'. She is engaged in 'whistleblowing'.
Remember, we were told, assured, re-told, and re-assured, that the sorts of medical malpractice that she has brought to light were absolutely not happening anywhere whatsoever. Remember that?
"Whether you agree with Reed or not"
Is irrelevant. If I believe her, then these mutilations are absolutely horrific and cannot be performed with informed consent and should be 100% banned, with the people who engage in that sort of behavior losing their medical licenses and going to prison. If I don't believe her, then these things aren't happening and the law is unnecessary, but doesn't harm anyone.
Economists and other social scientists research cause and effect by statistically evaluating how often X occurs when Y is the result. So I'm going to suggest that instead of hypothesizing about principles you instead compare the position the ACLU supports with whoever the leftmost party in the debate is. When you find this yields a 1.0 correlation you can drop the pretense principles are in any way involved in their positions.
"As a partial answer to that question, it's worth pointing out that Glasser is now on the advisory council for The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression"
Definitely a partial answer, since FIRE seems laser focused on just the 1st amendment.
The ACLU, at its best, was at best ambivalent about the 2nd, (Some of their state or local chapters defended it at one time, they've all been brought to heel at this point.) and didn't have much use for economic rights, but it was never limited to just the 1st amendment.
“The former civil liberties group continues morphing”
Continues?
"But the group has become unpredictable on matters of individual liberty, and it now depends on the issue as to whether the "civil liberties" organization will favor or oppose freedom."
i think the big point being missed here is that this isn't the ACLU...... it is absolutely fucking everything. my body my right? depends on if you are talking about vaccines or abortions. free speech? depends of if you are talking about porn or dank memes. freedom to protest? depends on if you are protesting an election result or police violence. (that last one also a factor in how forgiving you think we should be towards acts of violence.)
the hyper-partisanship has turned just about everyone into a raging hypocrite. an organization like the ACLU just leaves a bigger paper trail.
"freedom to protest? depends on if you are protesting an election result or police violence. (that last one also a factor in how forgiving you think we should be towards acts of violence.)"
I do not recall the Right being upset over police protests.
I do recall disdain for riots and for violating the rights of others in pursuit of the protest.
i guess there is also a bit of hypocrisy on whether you call something a riot or a protest. blocking traffic is totally a riot while shutting down congress is just peaceful protesting.
"The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization."
What do you mean "morphing?"
The ACLU was a progressive organization since its inception about 100 years ago, and I'm still waiting for it to defend someone's 2A rights.
They are just doing what good Marxists have always done. What they so famously did to the Socialist party in Yugoslavia. Infiltrate, corrupt, take over while milking the sympathies of the former organization.
Today they do it with fewer (but not zero) murders. Mostly they wait for the original leaders to retire or force them out. In America we have seen the Progressive party, the majority of colleges and universities, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, public schools, and the Democratic Party all go from being at least nominally liberal organizations to full blown Marxism.
BLM and the trans rights movements have never even pretended to be anything else.
I wrote the ACLU off back in the 80s when they tried to force a Russian teenager to return to the USSR just because his worthless loser parents wanted to go back. Fuck the ACLU, they're a pack of commie hypocrites.
-jcr
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.
Still living in 1994, Tuccille?
*ring ring*
Hello?...
Reason, it's for you. It's 2018, they want their hot take on the ACLU back.
Anyway , Reason is hypocritically distancing itself from the 2 most powerful Liberatarians in the world because they denounced ripping the limbs off the 9-month pre-borns.
Argentine President Milei: Abortion is aggravated homicide
FIRE is a right-wing outfit whose partisan, selective approach to freedom of expression seems precisely calculated to flatter the conservative donor class. Appeasing superstitious Republican bigots, for example, seems to be a core element of FIRE's perceived mission.
Disaffected right-wing culture casualties consequently love FIRE.