Dinaw Mengestu, a novelist who assumed the presidency of PEN America in December 2025, resigned on July 9, publicly criticizing the organization for what he described as hypocrisy, dishonesty, and bigotry. His departure draws attention to ongoing internal conflicts within PEN America, particularly concerning its stance on Israel and the Palestinians.
PEN America, an organization dedicated to defending free expression in the United States and worldwide, recently faced significant controversy following its publication of an article highlighting claims by Israeli and Jewish writers who say they have been subjected to increasing hostility and exclusion both domestically and internationally. While such concerns might appear to align with PEN America’s mission to protect free speech, the article sparked sharp divisions within the group and its supporters.
Mengestu’s resignation came in part as a response to PEN America’s approach to boycotts targeting Israel, a contentious issue frequently debated in the literary and activist communities. He argued that PEN America’s opposition to boycotts amounted to a contradictory stance for an organization committed to protecting political expression. Although PEN America publicly opposes legislation aimed at curbing boycotts — framing participation in or advocacy for boycotts as protected political speech — Mengestu contended that the group’s opposition lacked substance. He pointed to PEN America’s 2017 position on a proposed federal anti-boycott law, which urged revisions rather than outright rejection, arguing this reflected a tacit acceptance of limitations on boycott activities, a claim PEN America disputes.
The controversy extends to broader disagreements over how PEN America has responded to the Israel-Hamas conflict. In March 2024, more than 1,300 authors signed an open letter condemning PEN America for not calling explicitly for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, opposing boycotts of Israel, and removing a protester from one of its events. PEN America subsequently called for a ceasefire and urged the release of hostages held by Hamas, while later endorsing an arms embargo against Israel. Critics from both sides of the issue accuse the organization of inconsistency and politicization, raising questions about the challenge of balancing free speech advocacy with complex geopolitical realities.
Legal experts note that the question of whether boycotts constitute constitutionally protected speech remains unsettled. While PEN America and Mengestu present boycotts as core forms of political expression, U.S. government authorities have historically treated boycotts primarily as economic actions subject to regulation. Observers from different perspectives have criticized PEN America for entangling itself in debates that go beyond the traditional remit of free speech organizations, suggesting its involvement in foreign policy issues reflects a broader cultural and political struggle within the literary community.
The disputes highlight deeper tensions over the role of literature and free expression in addressing contentious social and political topics. As members of the literary world continue to debate which actions or responses pose actual threats to free speech, the controversy surrounding PEN America illustrates the difficulties in maintaining a unified position on politically sensitive issues without alienating segments of its constituency.