Ireland's proposed boycott of Israeli businesses creates dangerous legal trap for American investors
By Anat Alon-Beck, Mark Goldfeder, Erielle Davidson
Published July 16, 2025
Ireland has announced plans to pass a first-of-its-kind European law banning imports from Israeli businesses operating in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Like most Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) efforts, the bill is unlikely to inflict measurable economic harm on Israel. However, it poses a very real — and potentially devastating — threat to American businesses and investors.
Under U.S. law, it is illegal for American companies to participate in or support foreign-government-backed boycotts of Israel. The Export Administration Regulations (enforced by the Department of Commerce's Office of Antiboycott Compliance) and Internal Revenue Code § 999 (administered by the IRS) prohibit exactly the kind of conduct Ireland's legislation seeks to compel. These statutes were enacted in response to the Arab League boycott and are grounded not only in economic self-interest but also in civil rights law: The boycotts of the Jewish State have always been about who Jews are—not what Israel does. More recent legislation, like the 2016 Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, reaffirmed America's bipartisan commitment to combating BDS.
TRUMP ADMIN SLAMS UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS WHO SANCTIONED ISRAELI OFFICIALS
The penalties for violating U.S. anti-boycott laws can be steep, including civil fines, criminal prosecution, possible imprisonment, and the loss of export privileges. Any decision to alter operations in response to Ireland's law — particularly if it involves termination of Israeli partnerships or divestment — may constitute a material event triggering these laws and requiring disclosure to both shareholders and the SEC under existing risk factor or geopolitical reporting guidelines. Public companies should be especially mindful of how such changes are characterized in their filings to avoid accusations of misrepresentation or politically motivated discrimination.
Aside from federal restrictions, the majority of U.S. states have adopted anti-BDS laws that bar companies from receiving state contracts if they boycott Israel. That means firms that comply with Ireland's law also risk contract termination, state debarment and possible enforcement actions from these states' attorneys general. The backlash faced by Unilever in 2021, after its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's sought to boycott parts of Israel, provides a concrete warning: multiple states divested pension funds, the company suffered reputational harm, and they ultimately had to walk back the decision under immense pressure from shareholders and lawsuits.
If Ireland were seeking to chase American capital out of the country, it could not have devised a better way to do so.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION What U.S. Companies Should Do Now
American businesses with operations in Ireland — or even transactions that touch Irish jurisdiction — must now take proactive steps to protect themselves.
First, as a threshold matter, any American company operating in Ireland should conduct a foreign law compliance audit to identify any decisions or actions that might be tied explicitly or implicitly to foreign legal pressure.
Second, companies should educate stakeholders that anti-Israel divestment generates unwanted legal exposure, not safety, and ensure that internal directives do not imply or implement foreign boycott goals.
SIGN UP FOR ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED NEWSLETTER
Third, companies should implement a boycott response policy that would require all foreign law compliance actions to be reviewed by legal counsel. General counsel offices should track and report any foreign government requests to the Department of Commerce, as required.
Fourth, American companies operating in Ireland ought to review their state contract exposure. If a company does business with certain states, particularly those with anti-BDS laws on the books, the company ought to ensure its compliance with anti-BDS contract clauses.
Finally, if legal exposure cannot be mitigated, businesses may have to consider corporate restructuring, including reducing or ending operations in Ireland altogether; if the cost of doing business in Ireland now includes federal investigations, SEC scrutiny, and shareholder lawsuits, among other risks, companies may need to rethink their presence in the country.
The bottom line is that American companies are not at risk because they do business with Israel. They're at risk if they stop doing business because a foreign government pressured them to do so. Anti-boycott law is not just about trade—it's about protecting American sovereignty, American investors, and American civil rights. And when it comes to obeying the law American companies must remember: America first.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/irelands-proposed-boycott-israeli-businesses-creates-dangerous-legal-trap-american-investors
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US, EU agree trade deal, EU will see 15% tariff across the board
TURNBERRY, Scotland (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said the United States and the European Union had reached agreement on a trade deal that includes a 15% tariff on EU goods entering the U.S. and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment. The deal also calls for $600 billion in investments in the U.S. by the European Union, he told reporters. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the agreement would include 15% tariffs across the board, saying it would help rebalance trade between the two large trading partners. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump, European Union Commission prez give ‘50-50′ chance of striking trade deal after Scotland meeting: ‘Rebalancing'
President Trump and European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen both put the odds of reaching a trade deal at 50% ahead of their negotiations Sunday, but remained hopeful an agreement could be finalized. 'I think the President is right, we have a 50 to 50% chance to strike a deal. And indeed it is about rebalancing,' she told reporters in the DJT Ballroom at Trump Turnberry off the west coast of Scotland. Trump has given the EU an Aug. 1 deadline to ink a new trade deal with him or else face 30% tariffs. The EU is a block of 27 trade countries, which, taken together, traded about $1.68 trillion worth of goods with the US last year. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump meets European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. AP 'This is the biggest deal. People don't realize this is bigger than any other deal,' Trump stressed ahead of his talks with the EU president. The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Advertisement Trump teased that he would know after about an hour whether or not a deal with the EU is possible before the Aug. 1 deadline and revealed that there are about 3 to 4 sticking points, but didn't detail specifics of what those issues are. He also aired his general grievances with European trade practices, particularly with automobiles and agriculture, though it wasn't clear if those were among the sticking points. 'We don't sell cars into Europe. We don't sell, essentially, agriculture of any great degree. They want to have their farmers do it, and they want to have their car companies do it,' he said. 'I'm not saying anything that nobody knows. We have a rough situation. If we want to sell cars in Europe, we're not allowed to. And as you know, they sell millions and millions of cars [into the US],' he added. 'What we want to do is make everybody happy.' Advertisement 3 The president also noted that while a deal with the EU will address most outstanding trade-related issues, 'pharmaceuticals won't be part of it, because we have to have them made in the United States.' Davide Bonaldo/SOPA Images/Shutterstock Von der Leyen, who flew to Scotland during Trump's four-day trip to the United Kingdom to meet with the American president, buttered him up 'as a tough negotiator and dealmaker.' 'And fair,' Trump interjected. Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. The president previously moved that deadline twice. Advertisement Rumors have swirled that Trump is eyeing a 15% baseline tariff on the EU, which would effectively cut his 'Liberation Day' proposal in half. Many Europeans have hoped he would drop that to the 10% baseline he has imposed on virtually all US imports — which is also the same rate he gave the United Kingdom during the tariff deal announced in May. 3 Trump emphasized during his gaggle with reporters that he has no intention of delaying the Aug. 1 deadline before his customized 'Liberation Day' tariffs take effect. Getty Images 'Better meaning lower?' Trump replied when a reporter asked him if he could do better than 15%. 'No.' So far, Trump has cut tariff deals with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines. The president teased that his team recently locked down another deal, but didn't specify which country. He also has a variety of tariffs in place now, such as a 25% rate on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He's also recently mused about jacking up tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trump has also reached a tariff truce with China and given Beijing an Aug. 12 deadline to cut a broader deal. Earlier this month, he gave Moscow an ultimatum to cut a peace deal with neighboring Ukraine within 50 days or else face 100% secondary tariffs on Russian energy — meaning levies imposed on countries that import from Russia.
Atlantic
9 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Zelensky Went Soft on Corruption Because the U.S. Did
Volodymyr Zelensky built a mythic reputation as a lonely bulwark against global tyranny. On Tuesday, the president of Ukraine signed that reputation away, enacting a law that gutted the independence of his country's anti-corruption agencies just as they closed in on his closest political allies, reportedly including one of his longtime business partners and a former deputy prime minister. To justify the decision, he cloaked it in an invented conspiracy, insinuating that Russian moles had implanted themselves in the machinery of justice. This is a scoundrel's playbook. Despite the ongoing war, Ukrainians swamped the streets of Kyiv in protest of their president's betrayal of democracy, forcing Zelensky to introduce new legislation reversing the bill he had just signed into law. It was a concession of error—and possibly an empty gesture, because the new bill is hardly a lock to pass the legislature. That Zelensky brazenly weakened Ukraine's anti-corruption guardrails in the first place shouldn't come as a shock. They were erected only under sustained pressure from the Obama administration as part of an explicit bargain: In exchange for military and financial support, Ukraine would rein in its oligarchs and reform its public institutions. Over time, the country drifted, however unevenly, toward a system that was more transparent, less captive to hidden hands. But in the Trump era, the United States has grown proudly tolerant of global corruption. In fact, it actively encourages its proliferation. Beyond the president's own venal example, this is deliberate policy. Brick by brick, Donald Trump has dismantled the apparatus that his predecessors built to constrain global kleptocracy, and leaders around the world have absorbed the fact that the pressure for open, democratic governance is off. Anne Applebaum: Kleptocracy, Inc. Three weeks into his current term, Trump paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act—loudly declaring that the United States wasn't going to police foreign bribery. Weeks later, America skipped a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's anti-bribery working group for the first time since its founding 30 years ago. As the head of the anti-corruption group Transparency International warned, Trump was sending 'a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table.' For decades, the more than prosecute bribery cases; it tried to cultivate civil-society organizations that helped emerging democracies combat corruption themselves. But upon returning to the presidency, Trump destroyed USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, dismantling the constellation of government agencies that had quietly tutored investigative journalists, trained judges, and funded watchdogs. These groups weren't incidental casualties in DOGE's seemingly scattershot demolition of the American state. Trump long loathed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which he described as a 'horrible law,' an animus stoked by the fact that some of his closest associates have been accused of murky dealings abroad. Crushing programs and organizations that fight kleptocracy meshed with the 'America First' instincts of his base; the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon abhor the export of liberal values to the world. From the wreckage of these institutions, a Trump Doctrine has taken shape, one that uses American economic and political power to shield corrupt autocrats from accountability. Benjamin Netanyahu, on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, has been a prime beneficiary. Just as he was preparing to testify under oath, Trump denounced the prosecution as a 'political witch hunt' and threatened to withhold U.S. aid if the trial moved forward. Given Israel's reliance on American support, the threat had bite. Not long after Trump's outburst, the court postponed Netanyahu's testimony, citing national-security concerns. Trump acts as if justice for strongmen is a moral imperative. No retaliatory measure is apparently off limits. To defend his populist ally in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges related to an attempted coup, Trump revoked the visa of Alexandre de Moraes, the Supreme Court justice overseeing the case. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian steel, aluminum, and agricultural exports to punish the country for Bolsonaro's prosecution. This is hard-nosed realism, not just ideological kinship. To protect himself, Trump must defend the rights of populist kleptocrats everywhere. He must discredit the sort of prosecution that he might someday face. That requires recasting malfeasance as perfectly acceptable statesmanship. Listen: The kleptocracy club By stripping anti-corruption from the moral vocabulary of American foreign policy, Trump is reengineering the global order. He's laying the foundation for a new world in which kleptocracy flourishes unfettered, because there's no longer a superpower that, even rhetorically, aspires to purge the world of corruption. Of course, the United States has never pushed as hard as it could, and ill-gotten gains have been smuggled into its bank accounts, cloaked in shell companies. Still, oligarchs were forced to disguise their thievery, because there was at least the threat of legal consequence. In the world that Trump is building, there's no need for disguise—corruption is a credential, not a liability. Zelensky is evidence of the new paradigm. Although his initial campaign for president in 2019 was backed by an oligarch, he could never be confused for Bolsonaro or Netanyahu. He didn't enrich himself by plundering the state. But now that Trump has given the world permission to turn away from the ideals of good governance, even the sainted Zelensky has seized the opportunity to protect the illicit profiteering of his friends and allies. Yet there's a legacy of the old system that Trump hasn't wholly eliminated: the institutions and civil societies that the United States spent a generation helping build. In Ukraine, those organizations and activists have refused to accept a retreat into oligarchy, and they might still preserve their governmental guardians against corruption. For now, they are all that remain between the world and a new golden age of impunity.
