American multimillionaire and pro-Palestinian philanthropist James ‘Fergie’ Cox Chambers Jr., who was arrested in Ibiza in July, has appeared before Spain's National Court to oppose his extradition to the United States. During the hearing, he denied financing terrorism, defended his financial support for Palestinian humanitarian organisations and a Tunisian football club, and described himself as someone who had become “inconvenient for the United States”.

Chambers appeared before the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid on Friday, 13 November 2026, where judges are examining the US request for his extradition. He has been held in provisional detention at Aranjuez prison since his arrest in Ibiza on 10 July, following an international arrest warrant issued at the request of US authorities.

The United States is seeking his extradition over allegations involving international money laundering, participation in riots and conspiracy to cause riots. US authorities suspect that some of the money transferred by Chambers could have benefited organisations linked to Hamas.

Chambers strongly rejects the allegations, maintaining that his financial activities supported humanitarian projects and that the case against him is politically motivated because of his support for Palestine.

The hearing did not produce an immediate decision on extradition. The National Court must now consider the arguments presented by both sides before issuing its ruling.

‘I Am Inconvenient for the United States’

During his appearance before the court, Chambers maintained that his political positions and financial support for Palestinian causes had made him a target of the US authorities.

“I am inconvenient for the United States,” he said, arguing that his activism and financial resources had made him particularly visible among those supporting the Palestinian cause.

In his final statement before the court, he rejected any connection with terrorist activity.

He argued that a narrative had been constructed portraying him as involved in terrorism, despite what he described as the absence of any genuine connection with terrorist organisations or violent activity.

Chambers also said he had never financed terrorism and called on the court to consider his case fairly.

His position is that his donations were intended for humanitarian purposes, while the US authorities argue that the transfers form part of a wider pattern of financial activity that could have benefited Hamas.

Defending Millions in Donations to Palestinian Humanitarian Organisations

One of the central issues in the extradition proceedings concerns financial transfers made by Chambers to Tunisia and Palestine.

During the hearing, his defence argued that the money questioned by US authorities was directed towards legitimate organisations and activities rather than terrorist groups.

Chambers explained that his foundation had supported Palestinian organisations involved in providing medical treatment for children, transporting people to safer areas and supplying essential assistance, including food and drinking water.

He said that he had taken precautions to ensure that the organisations receiving financial support were not subject to sanctions.

His lawyers dispute the US interpretation of the transactions and argue that the humanitarian nature of the donations has been misrepresented.

The US authorities, however, suspect that some of the money transferred could have reached organisations linked to Hamas. The Spanish Public Prosecutor's Office has supported the extradition request, arguing that the facts presented by the United States could correspond to offences under Spanish criminal law.

These allegations have not been established by a final court judgment, and Chambers denies that the transfers were intended to finance terrorism.

Four Million Dollars for Tunisian Football Club Club Africain

Chambers also addressed his financial involvement with Club Africain, one of Tunisia's best-known football clubs.

During the hearing, he acknowledged transferring approximately four million US dollars to the organisation after becoming its principal sponsor.

He said the money was used to address the club's debts, support youth development programmes and help revive its women's football section.

Chambers explained that his decision to support the club was part of his activities in Tunisia after moving there with his family.

The financial transfers to Tunisia form part of the broader financial allegations in the US extradition request. Chambers maintains that the money was used for legitimate purposes and disputes any suggestion that it was connected to terrorist financing.

Chambers Admits Participating in Protests Against Israeli Arms Manufacturer Elbit Systems

Another part of the US case concerns protests against Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence and arms manufacturer.

During his testimony, Chambers acknowledged participating in two demonstrations at company facilities in Cambridge and New Hampshire in the United States.

He said he chained himself to the main entrance and helped block access alongside other demonstrators. He maintained that he did not cause property damage.

Chambers also acknowledged helping to pay bail for several people detained during the protests.

US authorities cite his alleged involvement in these demonstrations as part of the basis for the accusations relating to riots and conspiracy to cause riots.

The defence argues that the incidents had already been dealt with in US proceedings involving other activists, who received sentences of approximately 60 days in prison. His lawyers consider the potential five-year sentence sought in his case disproportionate.

Chambers' account and the US allegations differ significantly over the nature of his involvement and the interpretation of the events.

Why Chambers Moved to Tunisia

During the hearing, Chambers also explained why he had moved to Tunisia with his family.

He said the decision was political and connected to his opposition to US policy towards Palestine and what he described as increasing political repression in the United States.

He explained that he already had a friend in Tunisia and wanted to spend time in the country, including developing an intellectual and traditional interest in Islam.

He rejected suggestions that the move was connected to legal problems in the United States.

According to Chambers, he continued using his passport, bank cards and social media accounts after relocating and did not believe he was wanted by US authorities at the time.

His financial involvement with Club Africain subsequently became one of the issues examined in the extradition proceedings.

Defence Challenges 12 Alleged Translation Discrepancies

Before the hearing, Chambers' legal team raised concerns about the Spanish translations of documents submitted by US authorities to support the extradition request.

The defence, represented by ILOCAD, the law firm founded by former Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, says it identified 12 substantial discrepancies that could have increased the apparent seriousness of the allegations.

Among the examples cited by the lawyers is the translation of the expression “direct action” as “direct violence”. The defence also says references to three fires were added to the account of the protests against Elbit Systems, despite allegedly not appearing in the original documentation.

Another disputed translation concerns the activation of smoke canisters, which the lawyers say was translated as their detonation.

The defence has also questioned the translation of the expression “global terrorism game” in messages written by third parties in a chat in which Chambers was not participating. According to the lawyers, the expression was translated as “global terrorism activities”, changing its meaning.

The lawyers argue that these discrepancies could influence how Spanish authorities interpret the alleged conduct and whether the legal requirements for extradition are met.

They have accused the US authorities of acting in bad faith, an allegation that has not been established by the court.

Prosecutor Supports Extradition to the United States

The Spanish Public Prosecutor's Office has argued in favour of granting the US extradition request.

In its position, the prosecution considers that the legal requirements for extradition are satisfied and rejects the defence's argument that the request is politically motivated.

The prosecutor maintains that the conduct described by US authorities could correspond to offences under Spanish law, including terrorist financing, damage to property, terrorism-related public disorder and participation in a terrorist organisation.

The prosecution also considers the financial transfers and alleged involvement in the Elbit Systems protests relevant to the request.

The defence disputes this interpretation, arguing that the financial transfers supported humanitarian projects and a football club, while the protests should not be treated as evidence of terrorist activity.

The central legal question is whether the conduct described in the US request satisfies the requirements for extradition under Spanish law and the agreement between the two countries.

Why Was Fergie Chambers Arrested in Ibiza?

Chambers was arrested by the Spanish National Police on 10 July 2026 while in Ibiza with his family.

The arrest followed an international detention request issued by the United States. He was subsequently transferred to Madrid and placed in provisional detention while the extradition proceedings continued.

In October, the Criminal Chamber of the National Court rejected his request for release, agreeing with the investigating judge that there remained a risk of flight.

The judges considered his substantial financial resources and his opposition to extradition relevant to assessing whether he might leave Spain for another country from which he could avoid being handed over to the United States.

His defence had proposed alternative measures, including bail, regular court appearances and the withdrawal of his passport, but the court considered these insufficient to guarantee his availability during the proceedings.

Chambers has remained in Aranjuez prison since his arrest.

What Happens Next in the Extradition Proceedings?

The National Court must now decide whether the legal requirements for extradition are satisfied.

Following the hearing on 13 November, the court has a period of up to three days to issue its decision. The ruling will determine whether the judicial authorities consider the extradition request legally admissible.

However, even if the court approves extradition, the Spanish Government retains the final decision on whether to authorise the transfer to the United States.

The case has attracted considerable attention because of the political controversy surrounding Chambers' support for Palestine, the allegations made by US authorities and the defence's claims about the translation of the extradition documents.

For now, Chambers remains in provisional detention in Spain while the legal proceedings continue. His extradition has not been approved, and the allegations against him remain contested.