Ben & Jerry’s is accusing parent company Unilever of ousting its CEO in retaliation for its social media activism, the latest escalation in a long-running battle over the ice cream maker’s independence.

The Vermont-based company and five directors of its independent board originally sued Unilever and its U.S. subsidiary, Conopco, in federal court in November 2024, alleging the companies had silenced its attempts to show public support for Palestinian refugees, among other causes.

Ben & Jerry’s said those actions violate its 2000 merger agreement, which created the independent board and gave it “primary responsibility for Social Mission Priorities and the Essential Integrity of the Brand.” The company has a well-documented history of outspoken advocacy, supporting causes from racial and climate justice to campaign finance reform through what it calls its “progressive, nonpartisan social mission.”

In an amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of continuing to censor its social media posts — including about Black History Month and free speech — and waging a “campaign of professional reprisals” culminating in the abrupt removal of its CEO.

“Contrary to their obligations under Section 6.14, Unilever has repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry’s personnel, including CEO David Stever, should they fail to comply with Unilever’s efforts to silence the Social Mission,” it reads. “This month … Unilever followed through with their threats.”

Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever executives announced Stever’s removal on March 3, for reasons unrelated to his job performance and without following the steps outlined in the merger agreement.

A spokesperson for Unilever told NPR in a statement that “decisions on the appointment, compensation and removal of the Ben & Jerry’s CEO will be made by Unilever after good faith consultation and discussion with the B&J’s Independent Board,” in line with the merger agreement.

“Regrettably, despite repeated attempts to engage the Board and follow the correct process, we are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public,” the company added. “We hope that the B&J Independent Board will engage as per the original, agreed process.”

Ben & Jerry’s says Unilever ignored the merger agreement’s stipulation that it consult with an advisory committee from the board before making any decisions about the removal of a CEO.

“Unilever announced their decision before the committee had even been appointed and attempted to force the Independent Board into rubberstamping the decision by unilaterally dictating artificial and hasty deadlines,” it wrote, accusing Unilever of giving the board only four days to respond and refusing its request for access to materials.

Stever was named CEO in May 2023, more than three decades after joining the company as a tour guide. Ben and Jerry’s says that under his tenure, it “outperformed Unilever’s ice cream portfolio” and was ranked #2 on the Brand 500 Authenticity Index two years in a row.

Even so, the lawsuit alleges that Unilever executives chastised Stever in his January 2025 performance review for “repeatedly acquiesce[ing] to the demands of the Independent Social Mission Board” by permitting certain social media posts.

“On information and belief, Unilever’s motive for removing Mr. Stever is his commitment to Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity and his willingness to collaborate in good faith with the Independent Board, rather than any genuine concerns regarding his performance history,” the complaint reads.

In response, Unilever has filed a motion to dismiss Ben and Jerry’s complaint, saying its claims are without merit because independent board members do not have the right to bring lawsuits on behalf of the company and also did not specify the damages that resulted from Unilever’s alleged actions.

It says the current dispute is the “direct result” of the board’s decision to opine on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “without any regard to the negative impact” on both companies.

“Unilever continues to support B&J’s and its social advocacy work,” it wrote in its response. “Over time, the social mission of B&J’s shifted, but in recent years it has come to a head as B&J’s seeks to advocate for one-sided, highly controversial, and polarizing topics that put Unilever, B&J’s, and their employees at risk.”

When did the feud begin? 

The last few years have been a rocky road for Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever.

In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop selling its ice cream in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, calling that practice “inconsistent with our values.”

That decision prompted multiple lawsuits in the U.S. and Israel, accusations of antisemitism and the divestment of “hundreds of millions of dollars” in Unilever’s stock, Unilever said in its Wednesday court filing.

Unilever said in this week’s legal filing that it continues to suffer the consequences of Ben & Jerry’s decision “to this day,” saying it remains on anti-boycott lists in at least nine states and is under a fatwah in Indonesia.

In 2022, Unilever sold its intellectual property rights to its Israeli distributor, which then put the products (with Hebrew and Arabic labeling only) back on shelves in the West Bank.

Ben & Jerry’s then sued Unilever, accusing it of bypassing its board with business decisions. The 2022 lawsuit ended with a settlement, about which details have been scarce — until Ben & Jerry’s filed its November 2024 lawsuit.

That lawsuit says the 2022 settlement agreement requires Unilever to “[r]espect and acknowledge the Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board’s primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity” and “work in good faith with the Independent Board to ensure that both are protected and furthered.”

And it accuses Unilever of failing to do so in the years since, citing “various threats, reprisals, and censorship.”

What are the social media posts at issue? 

Ben & Jerry’s alleges that Unilever has silenced its social media activism in direct violation of the settlement on multiple occasions.

It says Unilever blocked four posts “in support of peace and human rights” about the Israel-Hamas war and ensuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza in the span of six months.

The first example was a post calling for peace and a permanent ceasefire in December 2023.

“Unilever threatened to dismantle the Independent Board and sue the board members individually if Ben & Jerry’s — with its decades-long motto of ‘peace, love, & ice cream’ —issued the statement supporting ‘peace’ and a ‘ceasefire,'” the lawsuit says.

It says Unilever also stopped Ben & Jerry’s social media managers from posting in support of Palestinian refugees in May 2024. The lawsuit says Unilever executives took issue with the statement because it “coincided with the Iranian missile attack on Israel.”

“When the matter was escalated to me, I expressed concerns about the continued perception of antisemitism that is a persistent issue,” Peter ter Kelve, Unilever’s president of ice cream, wrote to the board, according to its lawsuit. “It was my judgment that in light of the timing and nature of the post, it was not an appropriate message at this time.”

Another example, Ben & Jerry’s says, was a blocked post supporting campus protesters’ First Amendment rights in June 2024. Unilever said in its legal filing that it had “raised reasonable concerns about the need to condemn the violence associated with the protests and support rights of Jewish students as well.”

Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit accuses Unilever of censoring posts on other topics, including one for Inauguration Day that “identified several social issues Ben & Jerry’s believed would be challenged” under President Trump, including minimum wage, universal healthcare, abortion and climate change. The company alleges that Unilever blocked it, after weeks of work, because it mentioned Trump by name.

It says in recent weeks, Unilever prevented it from issuing a post commemorating Black History Month, and another supporting free speech and linking to a petition for the release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate detained by U.S. immigration authorities over his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.

Unilever has denied “muzzling” the board, writing in its motion that members “have hardly been silent.”

It listed instances in which board members released statements — such as calling for a ceasefire and supporting campus protesters — to media outlets, including Reuters and the Financial Times, and on their personal social media accounts.

What happens next? 

Ben & Jerry’s also accuses Unilever of blocking its donations to two organizations, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Unilever says it “exercised its right to withhold consent to donate” after researching the organizations and finding that they had “made inflammatory comments” about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Ben & Jerry’s is asking the court to order Unilever to release funds to those organizations, in addition to unspecified damages.

It also asks the court to order Unilever to “prospectively respect and acknowledge” the independent board’s authority and comply with the merger agreement’s rules around appointing and removing a CEO.

It also hopes the court will ensure that “any restructuring of Ben & Jerry’s or its parents does not eliminate or diminish the authority” of the board. That restructuring is not hypothetical.

Unilever announced last May that it would separate its ice cream unit — including Ben & Jerry’s — into a separate business as part of a restructuring expected to be completed by the end of 2025.

Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit says Unilever told the board on March 5 that the restructuring was “imminent.”

An attorney appointed by former President Joe Biden to serve on the Federal Trade Commission warns that his firing is a win for President Trump’s wealthiest supporters.

The Trump administration this week fired Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, both Democratic commissioners on the FTC, before their seven-year terms were up. Both plan to sue, alleging their firings are illegal. Slaughter was appointed in 2018, during Trump’s first term; Bedoya was appointed in 2022.

In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president cannot fire appointed leaders of federal agencies without cause. The FTC is an independent government agency responsible for policing corporate America and enforcing consumer protection laws.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s actions, saying “the time was right to let these people go and the president absolutely has the authority to do it.” When asked if the Trump administration’s goal was to overturn the 1935 decision, Leavitt said “the goal was to let these individuals go. If we have to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, we certainly will.”

Bedoya told Morning Edition‘s Leila Fadel that the administration provided no justification for his termination. He also called the president’s action “a naked power grab.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Leila Fadel: On Wednesday we heard the White House press secretary say the president has the authority to fire FTC commissioners. What do you say to that?

Alvaro Bedoya: What’s really interesting about that is the press secretary gives no reason whatsoever for why we’re fired. No cause. And yet the Supreme Court has said, in a case that remains good law today, we can only be removed for neglect, malfeasance or inefficiency. This is a naked power grab on behalf of the president, and it’s going to open the door for corruption and corporate giveaways, I think, for his top donors.

Federal Trade Commission Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter (left) chats with Alvaro Bedoya before former FTC Chair Lina Khan testifies during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 13, 2023.

Shuran Huang/The Washington Post via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Shuran Huang/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Fadel: How were you told you were fired?

Bedoya: It was just after work. I arrived at my daughter’s gymnastics class and I got a call from my colleague, Commissioner Slaughter, telling me to check my email, that she’d just been fired or allegedly fired. And sure enough, there was an email from the president’s staff claiming to fire me. No reason given whatsoever.

Fadel: The FTC historically has five members, no more than three from the same political party. Mark Meador, who is Trump’s pick to fill a third Republican spot, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. Can the commission function with just two members, both from the same party as the president?

Bedoya: It absolutely can. And I think that’s what folks are missing here. Right now we’re suing the largest provider of multifamily rental units in the country for packing their rent bills with hidden junk fees. We are trying to ban subscription traps that keep people from being able to unsubscribe from something unless they call, like, every other Tuesday between 10 a.m. and noon. We’re suing John Deere for screwing over ranchers and farmers, preventing them from fixing their tractors, making them take it to the dealership. Any one of those cases, any one of those rules, can be withdrawn by the current commissioners, who the president says are on the commission, although I would say I’m still there myself.

Note: Real estate company Greystar called the FTC’s suit “headline-grabbing litigation in the waning days of the [Biden] administration.” John Deere said in a statement that the FTC’s January 2025 lawsuit was based on a “flagrant misrepresentation of the facts and fatally flawed legal theories,” adding that it “punishes innovation and procompetitive product design.”

Fadel: You’ve said billionaires and Trump associates will benefit. Specifically who could benefit, how and why, with just two people from the same party on this commission?

Bedoya: Think about the billionaires who are over President Trump’s shoulder at the inauguration. Elon Musk. Mark Zuckerberg. Jeff Bezos. I am currently suing or enforcing court orders against each of their companies. Amazon we’re suing for ripping off small business sellers on their site such that the company pockets up to $0.50 of every dollar they make on that site and makes it nearly impossible for them to offer consumers lower prices off the site. I’m also sitting as a judge in a matter where staff is alleging that pharmacy middlemen are jacking up the price of insulin illegally. Any one of these actions could be withdrawn by the folks who the president says are currently at the commission.

And here’s the thing — even if they oppose that, it doesn’t matter. In a world where the president can fire anyone, at any time, they have a choice. They can either obey, or if they say no, what will happen to them is what has just happened to me.

Note: In response to the FTC’s September 2023 lawsuit, Amazon called the complaint “misguided” and that the lawsuit revealed “the Commission’s fundamental misunderstanding of retail.”

Fadel: Some Trump allies would say the president has the right to put his own people in place and get rid of those he doesn’t want. What do you say to those Americans?

Bedoya: I say that this is about corruption and corporate pardons. Let’s go back to Amazon. We’re already seeing this kind of conduct happen. One of the last public statements I made about Amazon was calling out how they treated their warehouse workers. These folks work so fast, so hard, that their hands stop working. Their shoulders tear. Their backs bulge and break. And yet, Amazon has cut a deal with the First Lady that will flow $28 million into her pockets. And now the person nominated to lead the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is a former Amazon executive.

There is every reason to think that these billionaires are going to use their power to shut down the lawsuits they don’t like, that hurt small business sellers, that hurt people who are struggling to pay for their medicine. So this is not about a unitary executive. This is about corporate pardons and corruption for these folks who have sent hundreds of millions of dollars into the president’s pockets.

Note: The Wall Street Journal reported in February that Melania Trump stands to earn “more than 70% of the $40 million” Amazon is paying to license a film about the First Lady. NPR has not independently confirmed the reporting.

Fadel: You talked about your concern that these firings will set a precedent, that anybody can be fired at any time. Are you optimistic that you’ll be reinstated if you sue?

Bedoya: I am optimistic — and people need to understand if I can be removed for any reason at any time, so can Jerome Powell at the Fed. And so it’s not just about small businesses and consumers. It’s also about retirees and investors and

Ally Schweitzer edited this story. The radio version was edited by Lisa Thomson and produced by Destinee Adams.

The Pentagon has restored some of its webpages that highlighted Black veterans such as Jackie Robinson, the Tuskegee Airmen and Vietnam-era Medal of Honor recipient Major Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers as well as the Navajo Code Talkers from World War II and the Japanese-American 442nd Combat Regiment.

Two Defense Department officials not authorized to speak publicly told NPR that these and others were taken down through a review of thousands of stories, photos and videos meant to remove diversity, equity and inclusion material in line with Trump administration policy guidance.

Earlier, Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot had said in a statement:

“Everyone at the Defense Department loves Jackie Robinson, as well as the Navajo Code Talkers, the Tuskegee airmen, the Marines at Iwo Jima and so many others — we salute them for their strong and in many cases heroic service to our country, full stop. We do not view or highlight them through the prism of immutable characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, or sex. We do so only by recognizing their patriotism and dedication to the warfighting mission like ever other American who has worn the uniform.

DEI — Discriminatory Equity Ideology does the opposite. It Divides the force, Erodes unit cohesion and Interferes with the services’ core warfighting mission.

We are pleased by the rapid compliance across the Department with the directive removing DEI content from all platforms. In the rare cases that content is removed — either deliberately or by mistake — that is out of the clearly outlined scope of the directive, we instruct the components and they correct the content so it recognizes our heroes for their dedicated service alongside their fellow Americans, period.”

Regardless, one of the Pentagon officials said the ongoing review was too hasty in some respects and used search terms such as “gender” and “gay,” which also led to the flagging of images of the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped the Atomic bomb on Japan during World War II. “The review is ongoing and meant to comply with the policy and not erase history,” the official said.

In his recent address to Congress, President Trump declared that he had “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America.” Days later, immigration agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian Columbia University graduate student for his participation in campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza.

We want to know who feels freer to speak in this moment, who feels they’re being forced into silence, and the extent to which the right to free speech, as protected by the U.S. Constitution, might be changing for different people, for better or worse.

Fill out the form below and an NPR journalist may reach out for an upcoming story.