Ben & Jerry’s Hypocrisy on Free Speech: The Ice Cream Brand That Wants Censorship on Its Own Terms

Ben & Jerry’s Hypocrisy on Free Speech: The Ice Cream Brand That Wants Censorship on Its Own Terms

Edited by: Fern Sidman

Ben & Jerry’s, the left-wing, activist ice cream brand known for pushing a radical progressive agenda, is once again making headlines—not for its ice cream, but for its hypocrisy. As Reuters reported on Friday, Ben & Jerry’s is now accusing its parent company, Unilever, of attempting to muzzle its political speech regarding former President Donald Trump. Yet, this is the same company that had no qualms about boycotting Israel, cutting off jobs for Jewish and Arab workers alike in Judea and Samaria, all in the name of its skewed, one-sided activism.

According to the information provided in the Reuters report, Ben & Jerry’s has taken legal action against Unilever, claiming that the company’s ice cream chief, Peter ter Kulve, has prohibited it from making public statements criticizing President Trump. This alleged gag order, Ben & Jerry’s insists, is part of a broader effort by Unilever to curb the brand’s longstanding social activism. But let’s be clear—this is the same Ben & Jerry’s that had no problem inserting itself into controversial political debates when it suited its radical agenda.

Ben & Jerry’s built its brand on progressive grandstanding, from defunding the police rhetoric to climate activism to, most notably, its anti-Israel stance. In 2021, the company chose to cease operations in the so-called “Israeli-occupied West Bank,” a move that led Unilever to sell its business interests in the region. Yet now, when faced with a corporate directive to stay neutral on Trump, Ben & Jerry’s suddenly champions free speech? Ben & Jerry’s is outraged that Unilever won’t let it criticize a sitting U.S. president, yet it had no issue shutting down an entire operation in Israel because of its own political biases.

The report at Reuters reminds us that Ben & Jerry’s has long aligned itself with left-wing causes, often at the expense of truth and fairness. Nowhere was this clearer than in its decision to pull out of Judea and Samaria—a move that was nothing short of an economic attack on Israel. What Ben & Jerry’s conveniently ignored was that its boycott did not just harm Israeli Jews—it also cost jobs for Palestinian Arab workers who relied on the manufacturing plant for their livelihood. The move was met with backlash, even from within Israel’s Arab community, yet Ben & Jerry’s dismissed these concerns in favor of a political stunt.

Ben & Jerry’s has positioned itself as the moral authority on global issues, yet its selective outrage betrays a deep-seated bias. It has become abundantly clear that the company cherry-picks which human rights issues to care about. While it eagerly condemns Israel, it remains silent on China’s egregious human rights abuses, including the forced labor camps in Xinjiang. This blatant double standard reveals what many have long suspected—Ben & Jerry’s activism isn’t about ethics; it’s about pushing a particular left-wing, anti-capitalist, and anti-Western agenda.

As the report at Reuters indicated, Unilever is in the process of restructuring its vast product portfolio, preparing to spin off Ben & Jerry’s and other ice cream brands as an independent company. This strategic move could not come at a better time—distancing itself from Ben & Jerry’s endless political entanglements might finally allow Unilever to focus on business rather than damage control.

Unilever, like many corporations, has had to navigate the increasingly treacherous waters of corporate social responsibility. The Reuters report highlighted that many companies are re-evaluating their approach to politics, particularly in light of Trump’s second White House term. While some businesses have backed away from divisive rhetoric, Ben & Jerry’s remains determined to cling to its activist roots—even if it means clashing with its own parent company.

The Ben & Jerry’s legal battle isn’t really about free speech—it’s about control. The brand wants the freedom to attack Trump, push radical leftist policies, and inject itself into global conflicts, all while expecting Unilever to provide financial backing and corporate legitimacy. Unilever’s decision to rein in Ben & Jerry’s activism is not an attack on free expression—it’s an attempt to protect its bottom line from a brand that has become more interested in politics than selling ice cream.

Reuters coverage of this lawsuit serves as a reminder that Ben & Jerry’s has always been selective in its outrage. When it came to condemning Trump, it saw no issue with using its corporate platform to spread divisive rhetoric. When it came to boycotting Israel, it happily sacrificed jobs and economic growth under the guise of “social responsibility.” Yet when Unilever applies the same logic to Ben & Jerry’s—restricting political statements that could harm its business—the company suddenly cries foul.

Ben & Jerry’s activism is not about justice but about advancing a far-left, socialist agenda. Its founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, have openly supported radical policies that undermine the very capitalist system that allowed their brand to flourish. Their obsession with wealth redistribution, climate alarmism, and defunding law enforcement has transformed the brand from an ice cream company into a political propaganda machine.

The Reuters report noted that Unilever’s planned spinoff of Ben & Jerry’s—along with Breyers and Magnum—is part of a broader effort to simplify its product portfolio. With ice cream revenue totaling $8.72 billion in 2024, it’s clear that Unilever sees potential in separating these brands from its other household staples such as Dove, Hellmann’s, and Vaseline.

The bigger question is whether consumers will continue to tolerate Ben & Jerry’s endless virtue signaling. Reuters has reported on the growing backlash against companies that prioritize politics over product quality, and Ben & Jerry’s is a prime example of this phenomenon. If the brand continues to alienate customers with its far-left rhetoric, the free market will deliver the ultimate verdict.

In the end, Ben & Jerry’s is learning a hard lesson—when you politicize your brand, you don’t get to pick and choose when corporate speech restrictions apply. This case reveals a company that is desperate to have it both ways: wanting corporate protection while pushing radical politics. With Unilever tightening the leash, perhaps the ice cream giant will finally be forced to focus on what it was originally meant to do—make ice cream, not political manifestos.