TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TAKING FREE SPEECH FOR A WALK
THE QUESTION IS "WHERE"?
On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump, freshly inaugurated for his second term, signed a flurry of executive orders, including one grandiosely titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” It was a promise to unshackle the First Amendment, the sacred cow, a foundational pillar of our democracy. To let the voices of the people ring free from the clutches of government overreach. Sounds noble, right? Except, in true Trumpian fashion, the reality has been less “land of the free” and more “land of the selectively silenced.” The only speech that seems to pass muster with Trump and his MAGA faithful is, well, Trump’s own. If you’re a comedian, a journalist, a student, or anyone daring to wield a sharp tongue or a sharper pen, you’d better watch your back—or your visa status. Let’s unpack this Orwellian circus, take a whirlwind tour through America’s censorship history, and ponder what the Supreme Court, with its newfound affection for the dubious “unitary executive theory,” might do about it. Spoiler alert: hope springs eternal, but so does skepticism. And if you’re as fed up as we are, mark your calendar for October 18, 2025, for “No Kings 2,” a nationwide peaceful protest against Trump’s First Amendment trampling.
The Executive Order: A Masterclass in Irony
Let’s start with that executive order. On paper, it’s a love letter to free speech, vowing to protect Americans from government censorship and to hold accountable any federal employee who dares suppress protected expression. It even took a swipe at the Biden administration’s alleged cozying up to social media companies to squash “misinformation.” Noble stuff, until you realize the Trump administration’s definition of “free speech” seems to include only the kind that flatters the man in charge. Critics, comedians, and campus protesters? Not so much.
Take the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent resident arrested by immigration agents for organizing pro-Palestinian protests. Trump himself crowed about it, writing, “This is the first arrest of many to come,” branding such activism as “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American.” Never mind that the First Amendment, as clarified in *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (1969), protects speech unless it directly incites imminent lawless action with intent. Khalil’s lawyers argue he’s being targeted for his views, not his actions, and a federal judge has temporarily blocked his deportation. But the message is clear: dissent, especially on college campuses, comes with a price.
Then there’s the press. Trump’s war on journalists is less a battle and more a full-scale siege. He’s sued CBS for billions over an allegedly deceptive edit of a Kamala Harris interview, claiming “election interference.” He’s gone after ABC, CNN, and even the Des Moines Register for coverage he didn’t like. The Associated Press was banned from the Oval Office for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” (yes, really). And public broadcasters like NPR and PBS? Their funding’s been slashed, with Trump signing an executive order on May 1, 2025, to gut their budgets, calling them purveyors of “fake news.” The ACLU warns this is a “historic assault on independent journalism.
Comedians aren’t safe either. Trump’s thin skin is legendary—remember his Twitter tirades against *Saturday Night Live*? Now, with the power of the presidency, he’s not just tweeting; he’s weaponizing the state. The administration’s response to the tragic killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in 2025 was to float the idea of cracking down on “hate speech.” Attorney General Pam Bondi clarified that only speech crossing into threats of violence would be targeted, but the vagueness is chilling. If you can’t take a joke—or sue the comedian who tells it—you’re not exactly a First Amendment champion.
A Brief History of Censorship: America’s On-Again, Off-Again Love Affair with Free Speech
To understand the gravity of Trump’s actions, let’s take a quick jaunt through America’s checkered censorship past. Spoiler: it’s not a new story, just a new chapter.
Back in 1637, Thomas Morton’s *New English Canaan* was banned for poking fun at the Puritans—America’s first book ban. By the 1740s, antiliteracy laws in South Carolina kept enslaved people from reading, a blatant attempt to suppress antislavery ideas. The Sedition Act of 1798 made criticizing the government a crime, proving that even the Founding Fathers weren’t above silencing dissent. Fast-forward to the 19th century, and the Comstock Act (1873) gave the postal service carte blanche to seize “obscene” materials, targeting everything from abolitionist pamphlets to birth control literature.
The 20th century wasn’t much kinder. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts jailed anti-war speakers. The Hays Code (1930–1968) turned Hollywood into a moralistic straitjacket, banning anything deemed too spicy or subversive. The Comics Code Authority (1954) neutered comic books to avoid “juvenile delinquency.” And while the Supreme Court’s *Roth v. U.S.* (1957) and *New York Times v. Sullivan* (1964) pushed back on obscenity and libel restrictions, censorship kept evolving. The Pentagon Papers case (1971) was a win for press freedom, but the Communications Decency Act (1996) and recent book bans on race and gender topics show the fight’s far from over. In 2023 alone, the American Library Association reported 1,247 censorship attempts targeting 4,240 unique titles—a 65% spike from the previous year.
The Supreme Court: Trump’s Rubber Stamp or Wild Card?
Enter the Supreme Court, which has been distressingly cozy with Trump’s agenda, thanks to its embrace of the “unitary executive theory.” This legal notion, nowhere in the Constitution, posits that the president has near-unchecked power over the executive branch. It’s been a blank check for Trump’s overreaches, from defying federal judges to strong-arming universities with funding cuts. Harvard, UCLA, and others have sued, alleging the administration’s demands—like banning campus protests or scrapping diversity programs—violate the First Amendment.
Historically, the Court has been a mixed bag on free speech. *Tinker v. Des Moines* (1969) protected students’ rights to wear protest armbands, and *Texas v. Johnson* (1989) upheld flag burning as political expression. *Brandenburg v. Ohio* set a high bar for punishing incitement, and *Murthy v. Missouri* (2024) called out government pressure on social media as a First Amendment violation. But recent rulings, like *Kennedy v. Bremerton* (2022), show a Court increasingly friendly to individual and religious expression, sometimes at the expense of broader protections. With Trump’s appointees dominating the bench, will they rubber-stamp his censorship spree or draw a line? The *Moody v. NetChoice* (2024) decision, which rejected a social media exception to the First Amendment, offers hope, but it’s anyone’s guess.
The Chilling Effect: From Campuses to Comedy Clubs
The Trump administration’s tactics are textbook intimidation. Universities face billion-dollar fines and frozen research funding for not toeing the line. UCLA was hit with a $1.2 billion penalty after the DOJ accused it of “creating a hostile environment” for Jewish and Israeli students. The demands? Ban protests in certain areas, share international students’ disciplinary records, and ditch diversity initiatives. Harvard’s president called it “direct governmental regulation of intellectual conditions.”
Law firms representing Trump’s opponents have been sanctioned, and foreign students face visa revocations for protesting. The message: speak out, and you might lose your funding, your visa, or your job. Even Voice of America, a bastion of independent journalism, has been gutted, with over 1,000 employees suspended. The ACLU warns of a “chilling effect” on free expression, and they’re not wrong. When comedians self-censor to avoid lawsuits and students fear deportation for waving a sign, the First Amendment becomes a museum piece.
What Can You Do? Join the Fight!
So, where does this leave us? Trump’s executive order promised a free speech renaissance, but his actions scream censorship. The Supreme Court, with its unitary executive obsession, might not save the day. But you can. On October 18, 2025, join “No Kings 2,” a nationwide peaceful protest against Trump’s First Amendment assaults. From coast to coast, we’ll stand up for the right to speak, joke, and protest without fear of retribution. Because if there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s that free speech isn’t handed down—it’s fought for.
Whether you’re a student, a journalist, a comedian, or just someone who believes in the Constitution, now’s the time to raise your voice. Trump may think he can silence dissent, but as *Tinker v. Des Moines* reminds us, we don’t shed our rights at the schoolhouse gate—or anywhere else. So, grab a sign, crack a joke, and join us. Let’s make sure the First Amendment isn’t just a promise—it’s a reality
