Inside the Archewell/MWC Fallout: An Interview with Janan Najeeb

media pressure, the end of a partnership with Harry and Meghan’s foundation, and what the public still misunderstands

Earlier this month, NewsNation reported that the Archewell Foundation, founded by Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, had severed ties with the Milwaukee-based Muslim Women’s Coalition (MWC), a community organization that had received two grants through the Foundation’s Welcome Project.

The report centered on an op-ed published in the Wisconsin Muslim Journal by MMWC founder and executive director Janan Najeeb, in which she described Israel as an apartheid state and used the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The article (published over a year ago) was flagged by NewsNation—a network with a track record of Islamophobic framing—along with criticism of Najeeb’s language and her stance on Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Janan Najeeb

In a letter to the MWC dated April 9th, 2025, Archewell cited the language in the op-ed as “going against the values of the foundation” and concern over “hateful words, actions, or propaganda.” At the time, Archewell declined to comment publicly on the matter.

Several days later, however, the foundation did release a formal statement…and this time, extended its rationale. Archewell now cited more-recently discovered information in its choice to cut off the MWC, including a mural created on property owned by Najeeb’s brother (and publicly supported by her) which incorporated the Star of David and a swastika in protest of the war in Gaza. Najeeb has defended the mural’s message (“The irony of becoming what you once hated”) while acknowledging the reasons that many found the imagery offensive.

In the time between NewsNation’s story and Archewell’s statement, my curiosity has been focused not just on whether pulling funding was justified—but on how and why that decision was made, and why Archewell’s explanation shifted over time.

I spoke directly with Janan Najeeb on Monday, April 21, to better understand the timeline, the communication between the foundation and the MWC, and how she views the backlash. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

---

After speaking with Janan, I’m left with a familiar thought: two things can be true at once.

It’s possible that Archewell had genuine concerns about the mural and its use of the swastika. But it may also be true that the decision to sever ties with the MMWC was made hastily—and, as Janan put it during our conversation, “for the benefit of journalists or tabloids.”

She told me that NewsNation was in her inbox seeking comment on Archewell’s decision to pull funding mere minutes after she herself had been informed of the move via email. The only contact she had with Archewell throughout the breakdown of relations was a junior staffer—the same person to whom she delivered a parting message: “Stand your ground. If you cave to bullies in this way, they’ll just keep coming back for more.”

Janan’s comments reveal not only how quickly this situation escalated, but also how difficult it is for grassroots organizations to navigate sudden shifts in support when media pressure enters the picture. In our conversation, she shared more about the timeline of events, the work that the MWC will continue doing, and what she believes was lost in the public conversation. We also touch on the controversy surrounding the mural (her response might surprise you) and why she believes it influenced Archewell’s decision.

What remains clear is that Janan has been thrust into a spotlight she didn’t seek…while continuing to do the kind of grassroots work that often exists at the mercy of more powerful institutions. And yes, Archewell can now count itself as a powerful institution. It’s one that also has every right to reconsider a funding relationship for whatever reasons. But the timeline of events here, the shifting justifications, and the speed with which the foundation’s decision aligned with media pressure? To me, these all raise legitimate questions about who gets supported, who gets dropped, and how that information is presented to the public.

These aren’t easy conversations, and they don’t always lead to clean conclusions. But if our goal remains preserving values like justice, equity, and inclusion, then we should be willing to ask hard questions…even when the answers don’t fit neatly into any one narrative.