Standing up for free speech, even at the border

A Substack writer’s experience at the U.S. border should alarm anyone who values press freedom

Earlier this month,

Alistair Kitchen

—a writer based in Melbourne—was detained, interrogated, and sent back to Australia by U.S. border agents, evidently in response to articles he had published on Substack.

Kitchen, a former Columbia University student, had written firsthand accounts of the student protests that took place last year.

“Look, we both know why you are here,” a border agent at Los Angeles International Airport told Kitchen, according to his account of the incident for The New Yorker. “It’s because of what you wrote online about the protests at Columbia University.”

Border agents questioned him about his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, combed through his phone, and pressed him about the details of his intended visit. He was held in a windowless holding room for hours, alongside other detainees, before eventually being put on a flight back to Melbourne.

The Department of Homeland Security later stated he was denied entry for providing false information about prior drug use. According to Kitchen, a border agent elicited his admission of drug use only after detaining him, searching his phone, and questioning him about his writing and political beliefs.

This isn’t about Kitchen’s views. It’s about a core democratic value: the right to express dissenting opinions without fear of state retaliation. In an era of growing censorship around the world, it’s more important than ever that the U.S. stand up for free speech—not just in practice, but in the example it sets for the world.

Earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance took this perspective on the global stage. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, he talked about the rise in government censorship worldwide and promised that the United States would champion free speech: “Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square.” It’s a principled stance, and one that should apply regardless of who is in power or what the writer believes. Denying someone entry over their Substack posts sends the opposite message.

Dissent, debate, and free discourse are fundamental to progress and a free society. At Substack, we’re taking steps to protect writers and using our resources to advocate for free speech. We recently expanded the Substack Defender program, which offers legal support to writers and creators in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., and we have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to offer legal assistance to writers who are lawfully in the U.S. and have been targeted by the government for the content of their writing. But ultimately, we’re a private company, and, like everyone, we must rely on the protections of U.S. law and democratic custom. This principle must not fall.

Whether or not you agree with Kitchen’s posts, it’s stories like his that remind us free speech still comes at a price. We’re sharing his story not because of politics but because of principle: no one should have to accept censorship as the cost of entry.