Current Climate

In recent years, months, and weeks, many psychologists and psychology trainees have experienced heightened fear of speaking about sociopolitical topics. Although this may not be a new fear, given the historical training psychologists receive in remaining neutral and largely apolitical, in an increasingly hostile climate, this has become more complex. Public comment or personal views about ongoing wars, racial injustice, or policy-based discrimination that harms marginalized groups have increasingly carried the risk of employer sanctions, loss of research funding, community backlash, and job loss.

Two recent cases illustrate these stakes: in Dallas, Texas, two Jewish therapists sued their clinic after alleging they were fired for raising concerns about antisemitism in clinical practice and staff speech (Jewish Insider, 2025; Lawfare Project, 2025). In the UK, two National Health Service mental health professionals were removed from duty for a time after they expressed interest in helping to organize a peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstration (The Guardian, 2025). Together with the earlier example, this shows that speaking out on either side of the Israel–Hamas war can carry serious professional risks. Beyond psychologists, there have been numerous consequences for individuals posting on social media following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, from a professor in South Dakota who was put on administrative leave, to the late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel (Bogel-Burroughs & Mokam, 2025; Branigin et al., 2025). Though both the professor and Jimmy Kimmel were reinstated, the controversy over free speech has increased, and alarm bells are ringing.

For psychologists, the ethical and moral dilemma of trying to remain ‘objective’ for those you serve and also speaking out against harm raises urgent questions: What does ethical speech look like when professional identity, public social media commentary, and organizational policy collide? How should we weigh the risks of speaking out, and what are the ethical costs of remaining silent?

A Liberation and Decolonization Lens

Psychological practice does not exist in a vacuum. When psychologists feel they cannot speak candidly about war, racism, or injustice, the silence itself can affect the care we provide. Clients bring these realities into the therapy room, and avoiding them can unintentionally add to their sense of being invalidated. These experiences exist on a spectrum, ranging from small interactions with clients to international student deportations for being involved with pro-Palestinian activity, to psychologists losing their jobs, to significant funding cuts that affect the work of countless psychologists (Drenon, 2025).

Liberation psychology, founded by Ignacio Martín-Baró, provides a framework which emphasizes psychologists' responsibility to de-ideologize reality, helping to identify and challenge the forces that cause suffering (Burton & Guzzo, 2020). Further, liberation psychologists seek to understand the interplay between psychological, geopolitical, sociocultural, historical, and minority identity and their impact on one’s health. When professional culture discourages open dialogue and engagement with sociopolitical issues that affect clients, psychologists risk overlooking or reinforcing the structures that harm the communities they seek to serve. While ethical engagement does not require adopting a particular political stance, it does call for acknowledging how power, policy, and identity shape client experiences of safety, trust, and well-being in mental health care. For example, a client presents to a community mental health clinic. He is deeply fearful for his undocumented relatives, given recent Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids in the area. If the clinician is not willing to discuss the sociopolitical aspects of the presenting anxiety, the clinician may reinforce the client’s beliefs that healthcare providers are not safe individuals to whom to speak, and therefore, ultimately receive inadequate care.

Fanon (1963) wrote about the lasting psychological damage caused by colonialism and cautioned that choosing silence in the face of injustice can render one complicit. For clinicians, avoiding sociopolitical issues can unintentionally repeat the erasure many clients, specifically those who have been denied a seat at the table, already experience. Smith (2012) likewise pointed out that those in power often decide what counts as valid knowledge.

Practical Guidance for Psychologists

Psychologists have an ethical duty to strive to avoid or minimize harm, according to Principle A of the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereby referred to as the Ethics Code; APA, 2017). From the therapy room, to supervision, to social media, when deciding what, when, or how to speak about a topic, psychologists can use the following questions as an assessment of ethical duty:

• Who might be harmed by what I say?
• Who might be harmed if I say nothing?

Foreseeable harm must be weighed on both sides, as avoiding foreseeable harm is an ethical duty of psychologists according to the Ethics Code, Principle A and Standard 3.04 (APA, 2017). Staying within one's area of competence (Standard 2.01) is critical when speaking publicly about contentious social or political issues. Psychologists carry professional authority, and when comments drift beyond one's training or expertise, they can be perceived as overreach and reduce credibility of the person and profession. Being clear about where our knowledge applies, and where it does not, and where professional opinion ends and personal opinion begins, helps maintain integrity and can lessen the chance of institutional pushback.

The obligation to avoid false or misleading statements (Standard 5.01) is equally relevant in the current media climate. A social media post, op-ed, or office remark that lacks context or proper sourcing can quickly be mischaracterized as misinformation or unprofessional conduct. Even minor errors can escalate when the subject matter is politically charged, contributing to the worry and fear that may lead to self-silencing. To add to the considerations, in a time filled with misinformation and in a digital space filled with misleading statements, what are psychologists’ obligations to not just avoid misleading statements, but to correct them? It appears that the APA believes this to be an obligation of psychologists. In September of this year, the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s announced that the Food and Drug Administration should add a warning label to acetaminophen (most commonly sold under the brand name Tylenol) due to a possible association between use during pregnancy and autism spectrum disorder in children, a claim quickly bolstered by President Donald Trump (Pearson & Ledford, 2025). Dr. Mitch Prinstein, APA Chief of Psychology, issued a response to these claims (APA, 2025):

Public health policy must be guided by rigorous research and scientific consensus. We are deeply troubled by the reckless promotion of unsupported research that unjustifiably blames mothers and fuels stigma against individuals with autism. Research shows that autism has complex, multifactorial origins—genetic, biological, and environmental—and represents a spectrum of neurodevelopmental differences, not a single condition with a single cause. We welcome new funding for autism research but for this initiative to succeed, it must amplify valid scientific findings and support evidence-based, neurodiversity-affirming practices that help autistic people thrive across their lifespan.

Grounding our public statements in reliable sources and choosing precise language not only fulfills this ethical standard but also provides some protection if those statements are later questioned by employers, colleagues, or licensing boards. Yet, it must also be acknowledged that in a landscape of questionable reliability of sources, heightened emotions, high stakes for public well-being, and a world of blurred lines between the personal and the professional (especially with the rise in social media presence), the difficulty of crafting a public statement has perhaps never been more challenging.

Summary

Free speech in our field is rarely straightforward. What we say, and what we choose not to say, hold risks to our role and power as psychologists. The recent aforementioned cases remind us that speaking on either side of a divisive issue can bring professional consequences, but staying silent can also send a message. Liberation and decolonial thinkers offer valuable insight: silence often perpetuates existing power structures, and the Ethics Code reminds us that avoiding harm entails recognizing when silence contributes to it. Our task is not to shy away from difficult topics, but to approach them carefully – grounded in evidence, transparent about our limits, and mindful of the people our work is meant to serve.

References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

American Psychological Association [@apa_org]. (2025, September 23). The American Psychological Association is deeply concerned about the Administration’s recent announcement on autism. Promoting unsupported scientific theories risks fueling [Photograph]. Instagram.

Bogel-Burroughs, N., & Mokam, B. (2025, September 26). A broad wave of firings followed Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/us/kirk-critics-fired-free-speech.html

Branigin, A., Yuan, J., Nover, S., Timsit, A., & Chery, S. (2025, September 18). Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension raises fears of a new censorship era. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/2025/09/18/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-celebrities-react/

Burton, M., & Guzzo, R. (2020). Liberation psychology: Origins and development. In L. Comas-Díaz & E. Torres Rivera (Eds.), Liberation psychology: Theory, method, practice, and social justice (pp. 17–40). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000198-002

Drenon, B. (2025, April 9). Why has Trump revoked hundreds of international student visas? The BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg411rrnkkko

Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). Grove Press.

Jewish Insider. (2025, July 2). When Jewish pain becomes "political": Therapists fired after raising antisemitism concerns sue Dallas clinic. https://jewishinsider.com/2025/07/jewish-therapists-dallas-lawsuit-antisemitism-israel-gaza/

Lawfare Project. (2025, June 18). The Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn LLP announce lawsuit against Dallas-based mental health clinic. https://www.thelawfareproject.org/releases/2025-06-18/the-lawfare-project-and-winston-strawn-llp-announce-lawsuit-against-dallas-based-mental-health-clinic

Pearson, H., & Ledford, H. (2025, September 22). Trump links autism and Tylenol: Is there any truth to it? Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02876-1

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.).
Zed Books.

The Guardian. (2025, February 9). NHS staff barred from workplace for considering Palestine demonstration. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/09/nhs-staff-barred-from-workplace-for-considering-palestine-demonstration