US free-speech rights shredded despite Trump vow to be first-amendment champion

A cornerstone of the Maga movement during the Biden administration was to accuse a mixture of the so-called 'woke left' and the justice department of forcing America into the grips of a free speech crisis.
Common complaints were that nobody 'can say anything any more' without being canceled or arrested for extremism. In the same breath, Maga broadly described the January 6 insurrection, which killed a police officer, as peaceful, accusing the Democrats of a communist conspiracy.
Donald Trump vowed that when he returned to power, he would bring 'retribution'. So far, he hasn't disappointed, with unprecedented crackdowns on his perceived enemies.
But experts say the first amendment is measurably under attack in ways it has not been since the presidency of Richard Nixon. A double standard has also emerged: if you protest, criticize, or publicly object to the president's agenda, you're a target.
Katherine Jacobsen, the project coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists in the​​ US, Canada, and Caribbean region, said: 'The thing with the first amendment and free speech in general is that you have to respect everyone's rights to say and print what they think is appropriate, versus just cherrypicking opinions and views that you find to be supportive with your own world views.'
Cherrypicking is evidently at play, especially for individuals or institutions defying the Trump administration: Arresting and attempting to deport a Columbia University student who peacefully protested the Israeli war in Gaza and revoking the visas of foreign students who engaged in similar activism. Reversing a Biden-era protection prohibiting government officials from obtaining the confidential sourcework of the press. Denying billions in federal money to Harvard. Dismantling the education department and halting funds to schools practising diversity, equity, and inclusion.
'We've spent years listening to various elites crow about the threat that campuses and workplaces pose to conservative speech, only for them to suddenly lose their voices once campuses brought down the hammer on student protests against Israel's ongoing genocide of Palestinians,' Ed Ongweso Jr, a senior researcher at Security in Context, told the Guardian.
'Insofar as there is a real threat to free speech, it is from rightwingers interested in using this moment to purge critics and restructure the country and its institutions into forms more hospitable to the cruelty and greed at the heart of their politics.'
Nothing, though, has come under more public protest and scrutiny than Trump's recent deployment of 2,000 national guard members and 700 marines to Los Angeles, claiming demonstrators marching against Ice raids there were out of control – even as the LAPD had described those same protests as law-abiding and mostly under control.
Running against those actions was one of Trump's first acts in his second presidency – an executive order 'restoring' the first amendment and 'the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without government interference'. But the current president has always and historically favored using the military to stifle public dissent: In 2020, he called on the national guard from multiple states to quell protesters in the Capitol against the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, while privately advising the military to 'just shoot' them.
'It's quite concerning to have a military deployed in being sent to, quote unquote, help with these protests, because they are not trained to work in US open environments to my knowledge and one can only imagine the way that type of situation could snowball very quickly, in a very scary way,' said Jacobsen about the continued deployment of US troops, trained for war, on American soil.
'Journalists aren't going to be able to report more easily, protesters won't be able to express their first amendment rights more easily.'
Ongweso agreed, describing the military missions as a ploy, part of a grander plan to silence 'dissidents, journalists, and critics of the administration' to advance the ubiquity of Maga.
Among some of the president's most ardent supporters, these protesters and other leftists are not subject to the same standards of freedom of expression. For example, congressman Jim Jordan criticized some of the protesters for waving Mexican flags in solidarity with the many foreign nationals coming from south of the border who are the targets of Ice arrests.
'We fly the American flag in America,' Jordan posted on X, inferring it was indicative of some kind of foreign invasion. But a community note quickly fact checked him: 'Representative Jordan has an Israeli flag outside of his office door.' Other users also quipped that when the insurrectionists stormed the halls of the Capitol, one man was prominently seen carrying a Confederate flag.
'When it comes to what they've done domestically, here at home, this administration has been no friend to freedom of speech,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
'We've seen the administration attempt to retaliate against major law firms for representing causes that the administration is against and we've seen the administration target universities on a seemingly ideological basis.'
Fitzpatrick continued: 'So while they might talk the talk when it comes to free speech, they don't walk the walk.'
On Sunday, Trump followed up after his controversial and ill-attended military parade in DC by offering his 'unwavering support' to 'ICE, FBI, DEA, ATF, the Patriots at Pentagon and the State Department' to expand their operations and deployments into New York and Chicago, among other American 'Inner Cities'.
Fitzpatrick warned that Trump's degrading protections on the first amendment and using new weapons against public assembly only serves to provide another president with the same powers. While Maga cheer on the national guard, the next Democrat in the White House might target them with the same means established by Trump.
'Every infringement on freedom of speech is a tool that the next administration that you don't like can use in the opposite direction,' said Fitzpatrick.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Los Angeles Times

10 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

What to know about U.S. ‘bunker-buster' bombs unleashed on Iran's Fordo nuclear facility

BANGKOK — In inserting itself into Israel's war against Iran, the United States unleashed its massive 'bunker-buster' bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant. Those bombs were widely seen as the best chance of damaging or destroying Fordo, built deep into a mountain and untouched during Israel's weeklong offensive. U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 14 of the bombs were used in Sunday's attack on Fordo and a second target. The U.S. is the only military capable of dropping the weapons, and the movement of B-2 stealth bombers toward Asia on Saturday had signaled possible activity by the U.S. Israeli leaders had made no secret of their hopes that President Trump would join their week-old war against Iran, though they had also suggested they had backup plans for destroying the site. The U.S. hit three nuclear sites in all, and Caine told reporters Sunday that 'initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage.' The mission could have wide-ranging ramifications, including jeopardizing any chance of Iran engaging in Trump's desired talks on its nuclear program and dragging the U.S. into another Mideast war. Here's a closer look. 'Bunker buster' is a broad term used to describe bombs that are designed to penetrate deep below the surface before exploding. In this case, it refers to the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb in the U.S. arsenal. The roughly 30,000-pound, precision-guided bomb is designed to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels, according to the U.S. Air Force. It's believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. It was not immediately known how many were used in total in the Sunday morning strikes. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, but the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, which had raised the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Initial assessments by the IAEA, however, were that this had not happened. Fordo is Iran's second nuclear enrichment facility after Natanz, its main facility, which already has been targeted by Israeli airstrikes and was also hit by the U.S. on Sunday, along with Isfahan. The IAEA says it believes those earlier strikes have had 'direct impacts' on the facility's underground centrifuge halls. Fordo is smaller than Natanz and is built into the side of a mountain near the city of Qom, about 60 miles southwest of Tehran. Construction is believed to have started around 2006, and it became operational in 2009, the same year Tehran publicly acknowledged its existence. In addition to being an estimated 260 feet under rock and soil, the site is reportedly protected by Iranian and Russian surface-to-air missile systems. Those air defenses, however, probably have already been struck by Israel, which claims to have knocked out most of Iran's air defenses, and the U.S. bombers were not fired upon during their mission. Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the goal of attacking Iran was to eliminate its missile and nuclear program, which he described as an existential threat to Israel, and officials have said Fordo was part of that plan. 'This entire operation ... really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordo,' Yechiel Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., told Fox News. In theory, the GBU-57 A/B could be dropped by any bomber capable of carrying the weight, but at the moment the U.S. has configured and programmed only its B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver the bomb, according to the Air Force. The B-2 is only flown by the Air Force, and is produced by Northrop Grumman. According to the manufacturer, the B-2 can carry a payload of 40,000 pounds, but the Air Force has said it has successfully tested the B-2 loaded with two GBU-57 A/B bunker busters — a total weight of some 60,000 pounds. In the attack on Fordo, Caine said the first B-2 dropped two of the bunker busters on the facility. The strategic long-range heavy bomber has a range of about 7,000 miles without refueling and 11,500 miles with one refueling, and can reach any point in the world within hours, according to Northrop Grumman. The mission against Iran was flown from its home base in Missouri. Whether the U.S. would get involved had been unclear in recent days. At the Group of 7 meeting in Canada, Trump was asked what it would take for Washington to become involved militarily, and he said: 'I don't want to talk about that.' Then on Thursday, the president said he would decide within two weeks whether to get involved, to give another chance to the possibility of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. In the end, it took just two days to decide. Sunday's attack was restricted to the three nuclear sites, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. 'The scope of this was intentionally limited, that's the message that we're sending, with the capabilities of the American military nearly unlimited,' he told reporters. 'So Iran, in that sense, has a choice.' Rising writes for the Associated Press.

Politico

13 minutes ago

• Politico

Rep. Jim Himes warns Iran strike could lead to ‘dead soldiers and sailors'

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, warned on Sunday that President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran could lead to a 'worst-case scenario' that draws the U.S. into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Himes, a Democrat, told host Jonathan Karl on ABC's 'This Week' the Iran strike is a 'massive, massive gamble' that could embroil the nation in an overseas conflict similar to previous U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. 'We've seen this movie before,' Himes said, referencing the ascension of the Taliban in Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021 after maintaining a military presence in the country for 20 years. Himes outlined the 'worst-case scenario' as the possibility that Iran suffered minimal damage to its nuclear facilities and strikes back at U.S. military personnel leading to 'dead soldiers and sailors in the region.' On Sunday, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said the U.S. inflicted 'severe damage' on the three Iranian nuclear sites it targeted, but added it was too soon to determine whether Iran still possessed nuclear capabilities. When asked if it's possible that Trump's strike on Iran would result in a best-case scenario, Himes conceded there is 'some chance' of a positive outcome. 'But if you look at the history — and again, all we have is history to go on, if you look at the history of our military involvements in the region, they almost never end with the best-case scenario,' Himes said. 'In fact, they usually end in something approximating the worst-case scenario.' Himes also expressed concern that the strike on Iran could destabilize other nations in the region, inciting further danger to U.S. allies. He highlighted Jordan as an example, citing popular unrest in the country. 'It's not inconceivable that his people may decide, 'Hey, we've had it with you being allied with the Israelis and the United States,'' he said. 'And now we have chaos in Jordan.' Himes reiterated that it may take 'months or years' to determine whether Trump made the right decision in striking Iran, but said it would be 'crazy' to expect the best-case scenario to play out. 'Looking at history, you would be sort of crazy to put all your chips on the best outcome anytime we enter into military conflict in the Middle East,' he said.

Yahoo

16 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Investors Brace for Market Fallout From U.S. Strike on Iran Nuclear Sites

Investors on Sunday were bracing for a flight to safety after the U.S. struck three Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday evening. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' said President Trump in a televised address on Saturday night. A full assessment of the damage is pending, 'but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' said General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Sunday. Investors were relatively sanguine last week as Israel and Iran exchanged missile strikes and President Trump mulled getting the U.S. involved. The major stock indexes jumped to start the week amid optimism about a diplomatic solution, but slid as the conflict dragged on and finished the week little changed. Some analysts expect a sharp sell-off when markets open on Monday as investors rush to safe havens like Treasurys and gold. "I think the markets are going to be initially alarmed," Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital, told Reuters. Cryptocurrencies, which trade 24/7, suggested Monday morning would be a rough one for risk assets. Bitcoin slid more than 2% Sunday morning to trade below $100,000 for the first time since early May, while Ethereum tumbled more than 8%. A panic on Monday could present investors with a buying opportunity, said Wedbush analysts in a note on Sunday. 'This US strike was a matter of when, not if,' they wrote. Iran's nuclear program was, "the biggest threat to the region," so if the attack has decimated that program, 'this ultimately removes an overhang on the market.' American stocks on Monday could follow the lead of Middle East equities, which were rallying on Sunday as investors bet U.S. involvement would hasten an end to the conflict. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange 35 Index gained 1.5% and the Egyptian EGX 30 rose 2.7%. Still, oil prices are expected to jump when crude futures begin trading on U.S. exchanges Sunday evening. How Iran retaliates—if at all—will likely determine how high prices go. Analysts say surging oil prices would aggravate U.S. inflation, possibly delaying Federal Reserve rate cuts and pressuring stock valuations. Read the original article on Investopedia Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data