Jerry quits Ben & Jerry's, saying its independence on social issues has been stifled

Ben & Jerry's co-founder Jerry Greenfield is leaving the ice cream brand after 47 years, saying that the independence it once had to speak up on social issues has been stifled by its parent company Unilever.

In a letter, which co-founder Ben Cohen posted on social media on Greenfield's behalf, Greenfield said he could not “in good conscience” remain at Ben & Jerry's — citing a loss of independence to Unilever, which he said had once agreed to give Ben & Jerry's autonomy around its social mission when it acquired the brand more than two decades ago.

“For more than 20 years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry's stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world,” Greenfield wrote “It's profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone.”

Ben & Jerry’s, famous for its colorful ice cream containers with flavor names such as Cherry Garcia and Phish Food, has also long been known for its progressive political values — speaking out on a range of social issues over the years. And in his letter late Tuesday, Greenfield noted that the brand's loss of independence arrived at time in the U.S. when the Trump administration “is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women and the LGBTQ community."

"Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power," he wrote.

Tensions between Ben & Jerry's and its parent have heightened in recent years — with the ice cream brand accusing Unilever of silencing its statements in support of Palestinians amid Israel's war in Gaza, among other conflicts. And Greenfield's departure also arrives as the consumer product giant, based in London, is spinning off its ice cream business into a stand-alone company called The Magnum Ice Cream Company.

In a statement on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Magnum said that it would be forever grateful to Greenfield for his contributions to Ben & Jerry’s and thanked him for his service, but was not aligned with his viewpoint.

“We disagree with his perspective and have sought to engage both co-founders in a constructive conversation on how to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s powerful values-based position in the world,” the spokesperson said — adding that Magnum is still committed to Ben & Jerry’s mission and remains “focused on carrying forward the legacy of peace, love, and ice cream of this iconic, much-loved brand.”

Meanwhile, Greenfield and Cohen have been pushing for Ben & Jerry's to be allowed to become an independently owned company again, saying in a letter to Magnum's board that they don't believe the brand should be part of a corporation that doesn't support its founding mission.

Ben & Jerry's has been at odds with Unilever for a while. In March Ben & Jerry’s said that its CEO was unlawfully removed by Unilever in retaliation for the ice cream maker’s social and political activism.

In a federal court filing, Ben & Jerry’s said that Unilever informed its board on March 3 that it was removing and replacing Ben & Jerry’s CEO David Stever. Ben & Jerry’s said that violated its merger agreement with Unilever, which states that any decisions regarding a CEO’s removal must come after a consultation with an advisory committee from Ben & Jerry’s board.

Unilever said in a statement at the time that it hoped Ben & Jerry’s board would engage in the agreed-upon process.

Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 for $326 million. At the time, Ben & Jerry’s said the partnership would help the progressive Vermont-based ice cream company expand its social mission. But experts stress that preserving complete independence from a corporate owner is never promised.

“What Ben & Jerry’s does spills over onto brand Unilever, and vice versa,” said Kimberly Whitler, a marketing professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. “If a brand wants complete and total autonomy, then it is best to remain independent," she added.

Tommaso Bondi, an assistant professor of marketing at Cornell Tech, speculates that both Unilever and Ben & Jerry's “underestimated” conflicts that would arise out of the arrangement — noting that the way that brands now talk about politics and social issues is “completely different” from when this deal was struck 25 years ago. And the size of the parent company today also piles on pressure.

“Unilever is just simply too big to be polarizing,” Bondi said, while speaking out on social issues remains a defining feature of Ben & Jerry's identity. “In some sense, it was an obvious clash," he said.

Particularly in recent years, the marriage has been on shaky ground. In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s announced it would stop serving Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and contested east Jerusalem. The following year, Unilever sold its Israeli business to a local company that said it would sell Ben & Jerry’s under its Hebrew and Arabic name throughout Israel and the West Bank.

In March 2024 Unilever announced the spinoff of the ice cream business — including Ben & Jerry’s — by the end of 2025 as part of a larger restructuring. Unilever also owns personal hygiene brands like Dove soap and food brands like Hellmann’s mayonnaise.

But the acrimony continued. In November, Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever in federal court in New York, accusing it of silencing Ben & Jerry’s statements in support of Palestinians in the Gaza war.

In its complaint, Ben & Jerry’s said Unilever also refused to let the company release a social media post that identified issues it believed would be challenged during President Donald Trump’s second term — including minimum wages, universal health care, abortion and climate change.

Businesses across sectors have encountered growing pressure to take a backseat when it comes to social activism today — particularly amid the Trump administration's wider crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in both government and workplaces across the U.S.

Vanessa Burbano, a professor at Columbia Business School, notes that her research shows that corporate stakeholders today “most appreciate” when companies take an apolitical stance, or try their best to distance themselves from politics as much as possible.

Still, Burbano notes that it's a “tough line to navigate.” She and others note that there can be a sense of whiplash if companies stay silent on something today that they may have commented on just a few years ago.

“You need to know what your brand is. You need to know what your brand is not. And you need to be consistent,” said Beth Egan, an associate professor of advertising at Syracuse University.

While she understands that a company "the size of Unilever is being cautious in this political environment," Egan adds that it's important to recognize Ben & Jerry's longstanding brand and nature of their relationship as a well-known subsidiary. “I think trying to silence them will probably backfire,” she said.

FILE - Founders of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Jerry Greenfield , left, and Ben Cohen, pink shirt, protest in front of Sudan's embassy July 29, 2004, in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

FILE - Ben & Jerry's co-founder Jerry Greenfield speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 10, 2014, about a House proposal that would deny Americans the right to know about the genetically engineered ingredients in their food during a news conference. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

FILE - Jerry Greenfield, left, and Ben Cohen scoop ice cream cones during their 20th anniversary party at a scoop shop in Burlington, Vt., in this May 5, 1998 photo. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File)

FILE - Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen, left, and fellow co-founder Jerry Greenfield, center, scoop ice cream before a campaign event for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., not shown, Sept. 1, 2019, in Raymond, N.H. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)

Ben Cohen, second from left, and Jerry Greenfield, center, founders of Ben & Jerry Homemade Inc., serve ice cream to Washington residents July 12, 2006, to kick off a federal budgets priority campaign. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.

“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”

Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.

Tricia McLaughlin, a Homeland Security Department spokesperson, called the ruling “a vindication of the rule of law.”

In a statement, she said the department will “work to enforce his lawful removal order” and encouraged Khalil to “self-deport now before he is arrested, deported, and never given a chance to return.”

It was not clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.

In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil called the appeals ruling “deeply disappointing."

“The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability," he said. "I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”

Baher Azmy, one of Khalil's lawyers, said the ruling was “contrary to rulings of other federal courts."

“Our legal options are by no means concluded, and we will fight with every available avenue,” he said.

The ACLU said the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Khalil until the order takes formal effect, which won't happen while he can still immediately appeal.

Khalil’s lawyers can request that the panel's decision be set aside and the matter reconsidered by a larger group of judges on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, or they can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested last March. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his first child.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil, 31, of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests.

In June, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Donald Trump's administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

New York City’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, said on social media Thursday that Khalil should remain free.

“Last year’s arrest of Mahmoud Khalil was more than just a chilling act of political repression, it was an attack on all of our constitutional rights,” Mamdani wrote on X. “Now, as the crackdown on pro-Palestinian free speech continues, Mahmoud is being threatened with rearrest. Mahmoud is free — and must remain free.”

Judge Arianna Freeman dissented Thursday, writing that her colleagues were holding Khalil to the wrong legal standard. Khalil, she wrote, is raising “now-or-never claims” that can be handled at the district court level, even though his immigration case isn't complete.

Both judges who ruled against Khalil, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, were Republican appointees. President George W. Bush appointed Hardiman to the 3rd Circuit, while Trump appointed Bibas. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, appointed Freeman.

The two-judge majority rejected Freeman's worry that their decision would leave Khalil with no remedy for unconstitutional immigration detention, even if he later can appeal.

“But our legal system routinely forces petitioners — even those with meritorious claims — to wait to raise their arguments," the judges wrote.

The decision comes as an appeals board in the immigration court system weighs a previous order that found Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family.

His attorneys have said he faces mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister and Anthony Izaguirre contributed to this story.

FILE - Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil holds a news conference outside Federal Court on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025 in Philadelphia (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)