FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS UNDER IMMINENT ATTACK

 

Freedom of expression (and the right to dissent that goes with it) is the cornerstone of any democracy. If you are dropped by parachute into a place you know nothing about, you can immediately tell if it is governed by an authoritarian regime, because people will be afraid to talk about anything but the weather—and even then, there had better be no complaints. In authoritarian regimes, “nothing is wrong.” It’s business as usual, no matter what. Everything is hunky-dory…as long as it toes the official line. And if you don’t think so, there’s something wrong with you. You haven’t gotten with the program. You are, therefore, a “subversive” and need to be “re-educated”, or eliminated. Dissent, then, is a capital sin.

Because under authoritarian regimes, there is no left, right or center. There is only the official line—and whatever flag it happens to package itself in. Putinism in Russia, Castroism in Cuba, Orbanism in Hungary, Maduroism in Venezuela, Trumpism in America. No matter which flag they wrap themselves in, what they have in common is the alienation and repression of any view but their own—whatever it may be on any given day.

We Americans didn’t use to believe that was any way to live. We literally fought World War II, and accepted the terrible sacrifices made there during our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generations,  as the necessary cost of defending freedom, a basic tenet of which—apart from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—is, again, the right to have, exercise and freely express our ideals and convictions, no matter whether they agree or not with those of the powers that be…or anyone else’s, for that matter.

The current US administration—and the party, and state and local officials who support and defend it, no matter what action it takes—does not believe in freedom of expression. Or rather, they believe in it on a narrowly limited basis. That is, they vehemently defend their own right to freedom of expression (in fact, to voice whatever bizarre insulting, violent or divisive idea pops into their heads) and that of anyone who slavishly agrees with them, but not anyone else’s. Indeed, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they will move to belittle, undermine, denigrate, attack and suppress any view that does not coincide one hundred percent with that of the party’s leader and the administration’s president.

It is no accident that the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States that was passed and ratified is the one guaranteeing free expression to everyone inhabiting American soil. It is also the first of ten points  (amendments) included in what has since become known as The Bill of Rights. The list of basic civil rights guaranteed to everyone inhabiting US territory, and that are inalienable and inviolable by any other law or authority. Made law in December of 1791, freedom of expression is a two hundred thirty-four-year-old law and democratic tradition in the United States. And the mere fact that this administration feels (wrongly, illegitimately and illegally) that it is above obeying it, and somehow empowered to violate it, is a clear indication of the arrogance and authoritarian nature of the country’s current leadership.

The First Amendment is short, succinctly and brilliantly drafted, and crystal clear. It states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In other words, in questions of conscience, point of view, beliefs and opinions, and the stating thereof, the state is, by authority of the Constitution, powerless to dictate anything to the people. And that is true not only for American citizens but for “the people” as a whole—all people, everybody within the boundaries of the US.

It should be noted that the current administration has repeatedly violated the spirit and letter of this constitutional guarantee. And in far too many cases, has gotten away with it.

As an inalienable right, we have not only come to expect it, but are also entitled to it, as a principle enshrined in the United States Constitution. Free speech is where all rights begin, the concrete foundation and starting point for open all political discourse, social critique, and the exchange of diverse ideas.

It is, then, no coincidence that concerns are growing by the day among small-d democratic Americans of all stripes who understand that, if one person’s right to freedom of expression (and hence, to freedom in general) is suspended or repressed, everyone’s right to free expression and conscience is vulnerable and subject to violation. It is a matter of precedent.

Concerns have grown exponentially regarding the status of free-speech rights since President Donald Trump’s return to office in 2025. This was already a matter of deep concern under Trump’s first administration, but the beginning of his second term has proved to be Trump on steroids, a bull in a china shop with his erstwhile “handlers” standing, arms folded, in the street, gazing impassively through the window as he lays the place to waste.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting laws that abridge the freedoms of speech or the press. This protection extends to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal and state courts have consistently upheld broad free-speech rights. The only legal limitations to free expression are in regard to incitement (a principle clearly violated by Donald Trump himself during the infamous January Sixth Insurrection, in which he tried to overthrow the US government and remain in office as a de facto president), obscenity, and national security. Key legal precedents include Brandenburg v Ohio and New York Times v Sullivan, which establish the contours for permissible governmental regulation of speech. No such precedent exists when it comes to efforts by Trump to repressed criticism of his administration and the statement of facts that he denies.

It is worthwhile recapping some of the most blatant violations of free expression under the first Trump regime.

·      The Trump administration restricted press access to coverage of government activities by revoking reporters’ press credentials. One of the most high-profile cases was that of CNN’s Jim Acosta, a newsman of impeccable reputation, who was serving as the chief White House reporter for that major cable news network. Generally speaking, the first-term Trump White House consistently sought to cast itself as the “owner of the truth” and to label time-honored mainstream media outlets as “fake news.” Such actions raised profound concern about government retaliation against critical reporting, and the chilling effect it could have on journalistic independence. Indeed, that effect has more recently become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as major non-news corporations that have bought out the original owners of many mainstream media outlets have begun seeking to muzzle their own journalists to avoid multi-million-dollar lawsuits threatened by Trump and his political machine. Notably, the “taming” of CNN, and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos’s silencing of the renowned paper’s editorial board are good examples, but certainly not the only ones.

·      Protest suppression has also been a growing part of the Trump regime’s efforts to silence critics. In June 2020, federal law enforcement forcibly cleared peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House. The excuse was that the square needed to be cleared to facilitate a presidential photo op. The incident drew widespread condemnation and prompted lawsuits alleging violations of free-speech and assembly rights. It also forced a major split between Trump and the then-head of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Millie, who refused an unconstitutional order from the president to use military force to clear civilians out.

·      President Trump and senior officials pressured social media platforms to remove content deemed unfavorable to the regime. They also threatened regulatory actions, and attempted to block critics on official accounts. However, The Knight First Amendment Institute v Trump established that blocking critics on Twitter from official accounts violated the First Amendment.

·      Whistleblowers from among federal employees and contractors who publicly criticized administration policies or exposed misconduct suffered Trump retaliation, including dismissal and prosecution. Notable cases involved whistleblowers in the intelligence community and public health sectors.

·      Lesser-known First Amendment violations during Trump’s first term include restrictions on scientific communication. Reports from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have detailed instances in which employees were discouraged or barred from sharing scientific findings on climate change and public health, in a clear violation of academic and professional speech.

·      The regime also set limits on protest permits. Punitory actions included delays or denials of permits for protests on federal property, including the National Mall and outside federal courthouses. While the administration cited security concerns, its actions were clearly bent on suppressing dissent. At a state and local level, certain Trump-supporting states (Florida, Oklahoma and Tennessee spring to mind) enacted laws increasing penalties for protest-related offenses, broadening definitions of unlawful assembly, and granting immunity to drivers who injure protesters—a literal invitation to extremists to run protesters down. Such laws deter and discourage lawful protest and openly target social justice movements, thus flying in the face of the First Amendment.

·     The regime is also relentlessly attacking education and intellectual freedom. State legislatures and local school boards in conservative districts have passed measures limiting classroom discussion of topics such as race, gender, and history, citing concerns about "divisive concepts." Educators and advocacy groups point out that such actions infringe on academic freedom and student expression. The regime’s culture re-education efforts have also targeted libraries, imposing book bans in chillingly similar actions to those seen in every high-profile dictatorial regime throughout history—a practice tantamount to cultural erasure. Concretely, local governments in Trump-supporting areas have increased efforts to ban or restrict access to books addressing race, LGBTQ+ issues, and social justice, often in response to parental complaints. These bans have been challenged as violations of students' and authors' free-speech rights.

·      Other less-publicized moves by the Trump regime to suppress free expression include gag orders imposed on public employees. Specifically, city councils in certain conservative regions have slapped gag orders on public employees, restricting communication with the press and prohibiting comments on controversial local policies. Similarly, social and cultural activists and organizers in states such as Texas and Arizona report increased surveillance, harassment, and legal threats in response to their advocacy activities, particularly those critical of law enforcement or immigration policies. Some local governments have also limited or cancelled public forums and town halls addressing contentious issues. While these governments have cited security concerns or issues of “decorum”, it is clear that their actions are designed to   silence dissent.

While many of the both high-profile and lesser-known violations of free expression have resulted in lawsuits in which the defendants’ rights have been upheld, it is apparent that the regime’s purpose is to create nuisance suits that place significant pressure, expense and time constraints on their victims, who are subsequently forced to defend their inalienable rights in court, rather than being able to simply assume that they will be respected by what should be (but is not) a lawful and constitutionally respectful administration.

While most Americans have trouble wrapping their minds around what is happening, the regime’s strategy is clear to anyone who has experienced authoritarian regimes elsewhere in the world. The overall chilling effect of consistent and progressive repression is that it creates a climate of caution, and discourages people from expressing dissenting views or participating in protests, particularly in areas where enforcement of speech restrictions is aggressive.

The situation has only grown more grave since Donald Trump returned to office at the beginning of this year.

·      Since January, the Trump administration has imposed new and ever more aggressive federal restrictions on protests. Increased limitations have been imposed on the issuing of permits for demonstrations near federal facilities. The protests of activists citing these restrictions as nothing more than moves to suppress anti-Trump dissent have fallen on deaf ears.

·      The Trump White House has intensified its efforts to control the narrative in the presidential press room by revoking the legitimate credentials of multiple journalists from outlets critical of the administration, thus hobbling these outlets’ ability to report on official events and briefings.

·      Executive orders have been issued to expand federal oversight on major social media platforms, often compelling them to remove content deemed “anti-government” or “incendiary”, when the materials suppressed are usually just run-of-the-mill criticism of the regime’s actions. Civil liberties groups contend that these measures have led to the removal of legitimate political speech from much of social media discourse.

·      In Trump’s new term, federal prosecutors under orders from regime rubber-stamp Attorney General Pamela Bondi have aggressively pursued government whistleblowers, using expanded interpretations of the Espionage Act to deter disclosures of official wrongdoing.

·      At a state and local level, Trump-supporting governments have enacted policies and practices that restrict free-speech rights. Some lesser-known incidents include campus speech restrictions: State legislatures in several pro-Trump states have passed laws restricting campus protests, and otherwise limiting the ability of students and faculty to voice dissenting opinions or to criticize government policies. This is particularly true at all levels, from federal to local, when it comes to foreign students. Under the Trump regime, these students, many of them from authoritarian-ruled countries, are now prohibited from experiencing what was once the pride of the United States—namely, the equal rights of any and all people inhabiting American soil. In the healthy cultural exchange that was once presumed in multi-national educational programs, these students now return home with the sad but authentic belief that there is no freedom of speech anywhere in the world and that the ideas of equality in America are a false narrative and a PR myth.  

·      Other authoritarian advances in education include book bans and curriculum control , with local school boards sweeping numerous books off of library shelves—a grim reminder of book-burning rallies in Nazi Germany before the Second World War—and imposing curriculum changes to eliminate materials perceived as “anti-American” or “anti-Trump” (which MAGA equates as one and the same thing), undermining academic freedom and access to diverse viewpoints.

·      Latest local violations of the constitutional right to free expression include local ordinances against free assembly. City councils in certain municipalities have enacted ordinances requiring prior approval for public gatherings, which have been used to deny permits for rallies opposed to local or federal policies. This is a chilling emulation of local practices under dictatorial regimes in other parts of the world.

·      Local media are also being targeted. Community radio stations and independent newspapers in some areas have faced selective licensing reviews, funding cuts and official advertising boycotts after publishing content critical of local officials aligned with the Trump administration.

We are, furthermore, seeing the development of patterns in governmental actions, and therefore, the institutionalization of repression under the Trump regime. For instance:

·      Use of security to justify authoritarian overreach. Both federal and state authorities frequently cite security concerns as an excuse to restrict the right to protest, the right of assembly, assembly, and media access to government activities.

·      Political dissent is also being specifically targeted, with official actions disproportionately affecting individuals and groups that express opposition to Trump administration policies or to local government decisions.

·     We are witnessing expansion of executive power, including increasing use of  executive orders and administrative regulations to enable swift implementation of speech restrictions. This tactic has often bypassed any legislative debate.

·      State legislatures and local governments have enacted laws and ordinances specifically designed to curtail speech in educational, civic, and media contexts.

These governmental actions have triggered a wave of lawsuits. Federal courts have sometimes issued temporary injunctions against certain protest restrictions and press credential revocations, citing First Amendment concerns. Nevertheless, the composition of the judiciary, which has been significantly altered by recent appointments, has led to mixed outcomes. Some lower courts are thus upholding new restrictive regulations, limiting, as such, access to free expression rights.

Legislative changes at the state level have prompted lawsuits from civil liberties organizations, resulting in ongoing litigation and appeals. But the process of overcoming these de facto hurdles for free expression are long, and have the effect of allowing the regime to get away with violating free speech by imposing impromptu restrictions and then letting the victims fight it out in court.

The expansion of executive powers and reinterpretation of existing laws have had a highly pernicious effect on constitutional guarantees, calling the real durability of free speech into increasing question. Legal scholars are voicing concern about the negative effect of court decisions that create precedents that narrow the scope of permissible speech in public spaces and educational institutions. The long-term implications are clearly nefarious.

Beyond legal battles, the damaging  actions by the Trump regime are creating polarization and mistrust of government institutions on the one hand and of media outlets on the other. Media critical of Trump administration policies, have faced diminished access and heightened scrutiny, hindering their ability to inform the public properly and fully. Civil society organizations have also experienced pernicious effects, with activists and community leaders expressing reluctance to engage in public discourse due to fear of retaliation or prosecution. Academic environments have suffered as well, with restrictions on campus speech, stifling debate and undermining the role of universities as forums for the exchange of ideas. The suppression of community media has limited access to alternative viewpoints, reducing the diversity of information available to local populations.

Overall, the erosion of free-speech rights undermines the ability of citizens to hold government accountable, to participate in policy debates, and to express dissenting views. If current patterns persist, the US risks a decline in civic engagement and a further weakening of democratic institutions, which are already languishing at unprecedentedly low levels.

This is all key in  the advancing authoritarian takeover of the United States. There is a clear reason why the first thing dictatorial regimes do is launch aggressive campaigns to muzzle the press, restrict assembly and discourage the expression of diverse ideas and ideals. The reason is that these are the foundation of a healthy democracy, and democracy is the nemesis of authoritarianism. Seen in this light, and judging by not only its words but also its actions, the ultimate goal of the Trump regime couldn’t be clearer.