The U.S. State Department’s recent dismissal of Shahed Ghoreishi, its top press officer for Israeli and Palestinian affairs, has sparked a storm of controversy and debate over Washington’s approach to the intensifying conflict in Gaza. The episode, which unfolded in mid-August 2025, has laid bare internal rifts over official language, policy direction, and the boundaries of dissent within the government’s foreign policy apparatus.
According to The Washington Post and corroborated by multiple outlets, Ghoreishi was terminated on Monday, August 18, following a series of heated disputes about the wording of public statements on the Gaza war. At the heart of the matter was a draft line for an official press statement that Ghoreishi had authored: “We do not support forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza.” Senior officials at the State Department ordered the removal of this phrase, citing an internal memo circulated a week earlier. The removal, and the subsequent firing, have raised profound questions about whether the U.S. is willing to publicly distance itself from Israeli policies in the region—or even acknowledge the humanitarian concerns voiced by its own staff.
Ghoreishi, whose State Department email was last active on August 13, told The Washington Post that he was given no reason for his dismissal. “Despite my strong reputation and good rapport with my colleagues, I could not withstand these disputes,” he said. Ghoreishi, a graduate of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, had been employed on a contract basis and had previously worked as a communications manager at Win Without War, as well as in other foreign policy roles. His résumé includes stints as a communications consultant, policy fellow at Defense Priorities, and volunteer adviser to several 2020 presidential campaigns, with bylines in Defense One, Business Insider, Newsweek, and The Atlantic.
The language Ghoreishi proposed was not out of step with earlier U.S. pronouncements. In February 2025, former President Donald Trump and his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, had stated that the U.S. would not endorse a “Gaza eviction plan.” Yet, when Ghoreishi attempted to echo this sentiment in the context of ongoing violence and Israeli war cabinet decisions, he encountered resistance from higher-ups. The State Department’s spokesperson, Tommy Pigott, declined to elaborate on the reasons for Ghoreishi’s dismissal, stating, “We don’t comment on leaked emails or allegations,” and emphasizing that employees are expected to prioritize government policy over personal views.
The controversy didn’t end with the issue of forced displacement. Earlier in August, following the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif and other media workers in Gaza, Ghoreishi recommended adding a line to a press statement: “We mourn the loss of journalists and express condolences to their families.” According to reporting from The Washington Post and other outlets, this suggestion was rejected by senior officials in an August 10 email, which stated, “No response is needed. We can’t be sending out condolences if we are unsure of this individual’s actions.” Israeli officials had accused al-Sharif of being a “Hamas operative”—a claim vehemently denied by both al-Sharif and Al Jazeera, and widely criticized by press freedom groups as a pretext to justify attacks on journalists.
Inside the State Department, Ghoreishi’s principal antagonist was reportedly David Milstein, senior adviser to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Milstein, known for his staunch defense of Israeli policies, clashed with Ghoreishi not only over the issue of forced displacement but also over terminology such as the use of “Judea and Samaria” to describe the occupied West Bank. The phrase is commonly used by right-wing Israeli factions advocating for annexation of Palestinian territory. According to officials cited by The Washington Post, Milstein’s involvement extended well beyond his advisory role, often intervening in policy and communications decisions. “Milstein is merely an adviser to an ambassador, yet he involves himself in everything,” one official remarked.
The reverberations of Ghoreishi’s firing were immediate. U.S. officials told The Washington Post that the move “sent a chilling message” to State Department staff that any deviation from a staunchly pro-Israel line would “not be tolerated.” Critics inside and outside the department voiced concerns that the termination signaled a narrowing of acceptable discourse and a willingness to quash dissent, even when it aligned with previous U.S. policy statements. Ghoreishi himself said his firing had “raised troubling questions” about the Department’s position on the potential expulsion of Palestinians.
The episode unfolded against a broader backdrop of policy shifts and political pressure. Just days before Ghoreishi’s dismissal, the State Department announced a halt to all visitor visas for people from Gaza, pending a review. This decision came on the heels of far-right activist Laura Loomer posting videos online of children from Gaza arriving in the U.S. for medical treatment—questioning how they had obtained visas. Loomer, known for inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric, also claimed credit for Ghoreishi’s removal, accusing him of ties to pro-Iran groups and jihadists—allegations he strongly denies.
Adding to the tension, the administration revoked security clearances for 37 current and former national security officials, many of whom had signed a 2019 letter critical of former President Trump. This move, too, was highlighted by Loomer and other right-wing commentators as evidence of a broader purge of dissenting voices within the national security establishment.
Supporters of the State Department’s recent actions argue that discipline and message control are essential in times of crisis, especially when U.S. interests and alliances are on the line. They contend that public disagreements or mixed signals could undermine diplomatic efforts and embolden adversaries. On the other hand, critics—both inside the department and among outside observers—warn that stifling internal debate and sidelining experienced professionals like Ghoreishi risks eroding the integrity of American diplomacy and diminishing the country’s credibility as an advocate for human rights and press freedom.
As the Gaza conflict grinds on and the Biden administration faces mounting scrutiny from all sides, the firing of Shahed Ghoreishi has become a flashpoint in the larger debate about America’s Middle East policy—one that is sure to reverberate in Washington and abroad for months to come.
