A Letter That Crossed a Line Many Feared to Cross
Hundreds of Jordanian politicians, lawyers, and public figures recently signed an open letter warning that their country's close military partnership with the United States is a liability, not an asset. In a region where criticizing security arrangements with Washington can carry real personal and professional risk, the letter is being described as a rare public break with official policy.
What happened
The signatories argue that hosting U.S. forces exposes Jordan to regional backlash and undermines its sovereignty and neutrality. It's a domestic Jordanian political dispute, but it sits squarely inside a legal question that American courts have confronted repeatedly: what happens when citizens publicly challenge their government's alliance with, or hosting of, a foreign military power?
The Legal Angle
Although this episode unfolded in Jordan, the underlying legal tensions are ones U.S. law has developed doctrine around for over a century: the collision between protected political speech and a government's asserted interest in protecting its foreign relations, alliances, and the security personnel or diplomats tied to them.
Three threads matter here:
- Speech critical of alliances and foreign policy. American case law has long treated criticism of military cooperation with a foreign power as core political speech — but also as speech the government has, at times, tried to suppress when it touches war efforts or national security.
- Protection of foreign officials, ambassadors, and diplomatic relationships. The law of nations imposes special obligations to protect diplomats and foreign relationships from actions that could "nullify the inviolability" owed to them [2].
- Constitutional text on alliances and treason. The Constitution itself flags alliances, treaties, and treason as matters of special concern — states cannot enter alliances without Congress's consent, and treason is defined narrowly around adhering to enemies and giving them aid and comfort [10].
What the Precedents Say
U.S. courts have not been shy about restricting speech seen as undermining military cooperation during wartime. In Schaefer v. United States, a newspaper editor was convicted for republishing content skeptical of American military commitments abroad, on the theory that it obstructed recruiting and enlistment [4]. Decades later, in Dennis v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld convictions tied to organizing seen as serving a "hostile foreign power," reflecting deep judicial anxiety about domestic dissent that aligns — even rhetorically — with a foreign adversary's interests [7].
At the same time, courts have recognized limits on how far a government may go in silencing critics of its foreign entanglements. Frend v. United States emphasizes that protections for ambassadors and diplomatic relationships exist precisely to prevent "annoyance" that could bring "odium" on the nations involved — a doctrine built to shield relationships, not to punish ordinary political disagreement [2].
Courts have also acknowledged that foreign policy and boycotts are matters of executive discretion, shaped by the "degree of friendliness" between nations, as noted in Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. v. Sanwa Business Credit Corp. [3][9]. And where national security claims intersect with individual rights, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno stressed that the government must actually demonstrate a real threat before restricting someone's liberty on security grounds — vague invocations of danger aren't enough [5].
Finally, cases like United States v. Balsys and United States v. Gecas show how international cooperation agreements — the same kind of arrangements underlying troop-hosting relationships — can create complex, cross-border legal obligations that outlast the political moment that created them [6][1].
What It Means for You
For ordinary citizens and legal observers, the Jordanian letter is a reminder that speaking out against a military alliance is rarely just political speech — it sits at the intersection of national security law, diplomatic protection, and constitutional text on treason and alliances [10]. U.S. precedent shows this tension cuts both ways: dissent can be constitutionally protected, but courts have also allowed governments wide latitude when foreign relations and security are invoked [7][4]. Anyone advising clients — journalists, activists, or policymakers — on speech touching foreign military partnerships should expect that legal protections exist, but so do real limits shaped by the sensitivity of foreign relations [3][9].