Free Speech on the Line: First Amendment Flashpoints in Contemporary America
- Ash A Milton
- 3 days ago
- 30 min read
A Timeline of Regulatory Pressure, Government Rhetoric, Legal Warfare, and the Battle Over Constitutional Protections
Free speech is the bedrock of democratic society. It empowers citizens to challenge power, expose wrongdoing, and engage in robust public debate. Yet in recent years—including under the current administration—speech has faced pressures not just from private platforms or social movements, but from government actors themselves, raising critical questions about the future of First Amendment protections.
**Author's Note on Perspective and Research Methodology**
This article is written from the perspective of a feminist defender of the First Amendment who conducted research primarily through internet sources, including news reports, government statements, video evidence, and public records available online as of February 2026. The analysis reflects a deep commitment to free speech as essential to democracy, with particular attention to how speech restrictions disproportionately harm marginalized communities and women.
The following examination traces how free speech confrontations have unfolded across multiple domains: from regulatory threats against media outlets to federal responses toward citizens recording law enforcement, from political pressures on athletes to controversies surrounding public figures, and from unprecedented waves of presidential lawsuits against journalists to the weaponization of defamation claims. Each incident, viewed in isolation, might appear as a discrete dispute. Taken together, they reveal a pattern of government actions—both overt and subtle—that test the boundaries of constitutional protections and democratic norms.
This is not merely a chronicle of conflicts, but an analysis of what happens when the apparatus of state power intersects with the fundamental right to speak, dissent, and bear witness.
The Free Speech Executive Order: Proclaiming Protection While Punishing Dissent
On January 20, 2025—his first day back in office—President Trump signed Executive Order 14149, grandly titled "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship." In his inaugural address, Trump declared:
"After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America. Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents."
The executive order itself proclaimed that "Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society" and established as policy that "no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen."
Strong words. Clear principles. Unambiguous commitment.
Except the administration's actual conduct tells a dramatically different story.
The Reality: Systematic Attacks on Press Freedom
Within days of signing his "free speech" executive order, Trump and his administration engaged in precisely the conduct the order purportedly prohibits: using government power to punish, intimidate, and silence critical voices.
Reporters Without Borders noted the stark contradiction:
"We cannot ignore the irony of Trump appointing himself the chief crusader for 'free speech' while he continues to personally attack press freedom—a pillar of the First Amendment—and has vowed to weaponize the federal government against expression he doesn't like."
Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, called the executive order "a clear effort at revisionist history," noting that "the first section of the executive order simply announces the Trump administration's preferred narrative, seemingly without regard for what the evidence actually shows."
The Treatment of Female Reporters: Sexism as Silencing Tactic
Perhaps nowhere is the hypocrisy more visible than in Trump's systematic verbal abuse of female journalists—attacks that function as both gender-based harassment and speech suppression.
"Quiet, Piggy"
In November 2025, when Bloomberg correspondent Catherine Lucey asked about the Epstein files, Trump snapped: "Quiet. Quiet, piggy." Some tried to justify her having a nickname of "Peggy" her name is Catherine.
"You Should Smile More"
In February 2026, when CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins asked about survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse, Trump launched into a tirade:
"You are the worst reporter. No wonder CNN has no ratings because of people like you. You know, she's a young woman. I don't think I've ever seen you smile. I've known you for 10 years. I don't think I've ever seen a smile on your face."
When Collins responded that she was asking about survivors of a sexual abuser, Trump continued: "You know why you're not smiling? Because you know you're not telling the truth. And you're a very dishonest organization, and they should be ashamed of you."
The "smile" demand drew widespread condemnation. As workplace experts noted, telling women to smile is a classic power move designed to enforce gender conformity and put women "in their place." Research shows women smile approximately 62 times a day—nearly eight times the average man—yet women are constantly told to smile more. Men, particularly those in positions of authority, are never subjected to similar demands.
Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson responded: "How dare the Pres. of the US once again attacks a woman in the WH press corp—because Kaitlan Collins doesn't smile when talking about Epstein survivors? You Mr. President are the disgrace for the way you treat other human beings."
MSNBC's Nicole Wallace called Trump's behavior "sick shit," warning: "We're either gonna normalize this, and usher in an era of unprecedented misogyny or that press corps is gonna act as one and say, 'No more.'"
The Pattern of Gendered Attacks
The Lucey and Collins incidents are part of a systematic pattern:
ABC News correspondent Rachel Scott: Called "the most obnoxious reporter"
ABC News correspondent Mary Bruce: Called "horrible" and "insubordinate," followed by Trump threatening ABC should lose its broadcast license
CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes: Called "a stupid person"
New York Times reporter Katie Rogers: Called "third rate" and "ugly inside and out"
Washington Post reporter Natalie Wilson: Told "You have a bad attitude" before being allowed to ask her question
The cumulative effect of these attacks—invariably directed at women asking tough questions—creates what scholars call a "hostile environment for female journalists." The attacks function simultaneously as gender-based harassment and as intimidation tactics designed to discourage critical reporting.
The Contradiction Exposed
The executive order Trump signed on his first day promised to "stop all government censorship" and declared that "Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents."
Yet the administration Trump leads:
Files multibillion-dollar lawsuits against media organizations for critical coverage
Threatens broadcast license revocations for networks whose reporters ask tough questions
Systematically verbally abuses female journalists with gendered insults
Uses presidential authority to pressure employers to fire employees for protected speech
Revokes visas from foreigners who criticize administration allies
Investigates universities and threatens funding cuts for speech the administration dislikes
As Michelle Deutchman, executive director of the National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, observed:
"You can claim that you are championing expression and are a free-speech supporter, but saying those things doesn't change what are a number of steps that add up to government censorship. The government is using content-based and even viewpoint-based discrimination to make decisions about what words and thoughts people can express."
The Interesting Situation with Nicole Good's Father being a supporter
The administration's calculated approach to suppressing dissent became even more apparent when Trump's rhetoric shifted dramatically upon learning that Renée Good's father was a Trump supporter. Initially, Trump had posted on Truth Social blaming Good for her own death, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem immediately labeling her a "domestic terrorist" who was "stalking and harassing law enforcement" and claiming she "gunned the vehicle" toward ICE agents—an account contradicted by video evidence.
But days later, when CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil informed Trump that Good's father was "a big supporter of yours" who was "heartbroken" by both his daughter's death and the administration calling her a terrorist, Trump's tone changed entirely.
"When I learned her parents, and her father in particular—I hope he still is, but I don't know—was a tremendous Trump fan. He was all for Trump, loved Trump. And, you know, it's terrible," Trump said at a White House press briefing. "I hope he still feels that way. And it's hard, hard situation."
He told Dokoupil: "I want to say to the father that I love all of our people" and claimed Good was likely "a very solid, wonderful person" under normal circumstances—a stark departure from the "domestic terrorist" framing his administration had promoted for two weeks.
The family's attorney, Antonio Romanucci, responded that "the family's voting choices are not relevant" and that what matters is they remain "unified in their quest for justice and accountability."
The episode revealed the transactional nature of the administration's rhetoric: Americans killed by federal agents are "domestic terrorists" deserving of blame—unless their families voted Republican, in which case the deaths become "terrible" tragedies and the victims become "solid, wonderful" people. The framework for who deserves sympathy versus condemnation depends not on facts or constitutional rights, but on political loyalty to Trump personally.
Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee
The framework becomes unmistakable: Trump's "free speech" executive order protects speech that serves his interests—misinformation favorable to his narrative, attacks on his opponents, content from allies—while the full apparatus of presidential power is deployed against speech that criticizes, questions, or challenges him.
Protected under Trump's "free speech" framework:
Misinformation and disinformation that advances administration narratives
Attacks on journalists, Democrats, and critics
Nazi jokes and racist comments from Republican officials (per Vance: "kids being kids")
Pro-Trump content on social media platforms
Subject to government punishment:
Journalists asking tough questions (especially female journalists)
Media organizations that fact-check or provide critical coverage
University professors who question administration policies
Olympic athletes who express concerns about U.S. policy
Anyone who criticized Charlie Kirk after his death
Pollsters whose results don't favor Trump
The executive order becomes, in practice, not a shield for free expression but a sword against critics—a document that proclaims lofty principles while the administration violates those very principles on a daily basis.
The Gender Dimension
The gendered nature of Trump's attacks on journalists deserves particular emphasis. By demanding women smile, calling them "piggy," attacking their appearance, and questioning their professionalism with gender-specific insults, Trump uses misogyny as a speech suppression tool.
The message to female journalists is clear: ask tough questions and you'll face not just professional criticism but personal, gendered attacks designed to demean and diminish you. This creates a chilling effect specific to women in journalism—a barrier to full participation in the Fourth Estate's crucial role.
As workplace expert Ruchika Malhotra noted:
"Not only is it sexist, but also a hidden way to reinforce a power imbalance for women at work. Men are not told to smile at work and them smiling or not doesn't impact their ability to be hired, promoted or their perceived leadership competence."
The Broader Implications
The contradiction between Trump's executive order rhetoric and his administration's actual conduct reveals something fundamental about authoritarian approaches to free speech: the claim to defend free expression becomes a tool to attack actual free expression.
By positioning himself as the defender of free speech against "censorship," Trump gains rhetorical cover for his own censorious activities. He can sue media organizations, threaten broadcast licenses, verbally abuse journalists, and weaponize government power against critics—all while claiming he's the one protecting speech from government interference.
This represents perhaps the most insidious threat to free expression: not the honest authoritarian who openly suppresses dissent, but the one who wraps suppression in the language of protection, who claims to defend free speech while systematically attacking the free press.
Key Evidence to Highlight:
Executive Order Proclamations:
"Stop all government censorship"
"Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents"
"Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society"
Actual Administration Actions:
Called female reporter "quiet, piggy" (November 2025)
Told female reporter to smile while asking about Epstein survivors (February 2026)
Filed $10+ billion in lawsuits against media organizations
Threatened broadcast license revocations
Over 600 Americans fired for Kirk-related speech at administration urging
Visa revocations for foreigners' critical speech
Gendered Attacks on Female Journalists:
Catherine Lucey (Bloomberg): "Quiet, piggy"
Kaitlan Collins (CNN): "I don't think I've ever seen you smile"
Rachel Scott (ABC): "most obnoxious reporter"
Mary Bruce (ABC): "horrible," "insubordinate"
Nancy Cordes (CBS): "stupid person"
Katie Rogers (NYT): "ugly inside and out"
Natalie Wilson (WaPo): "bad attitude"
The Vance Paradox: Selective Free Speech Enforcement
Perhaps no figure better illustrates the administration's selective approach to free speech than Vice President JD Vance, whose positions on protected expression shift dramatically depending on whose speech is at issue and what political outcome is served.
The Kirk Death Response: Speech as Punishable Offense
Following Charlie Kirk's assassination in September 2025, Vance adopted an extraordinary position: that Americans who made critical or insufficiently respectful comments about Kirk should face employment termination and government investigation.
Guest-hosting Kirk's podcast from the White House—broadcast in the White House press briefing room—Vance told listeners:
"When you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer. We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination."
Days later, Vance elaborated on Fox News: "The First Amendment protects a lot of very ugly speech but if you celebrate Charlie Kirk's death, you should not be protected from being fired for being a disgusting person. If you are a university professor who benefits from American tax dollars, you should not be celebrating Charlie Kirk's death and if you are, maybe you should lose your job or your university should face a loss of funding."
The campaign worked. Reuters reported that over 600 Americans were fired from their jobs over comments about the assassination. Employers ranging from MSNBC to Clemson University to local fire departments terminated employees. The Washington Post documented firings at U.S. airlines, Office Depot, Nasdaq, FEMA, and the Carolina Panthers.
The State Department revoked visas from at least six foreigners who made critical comments about Kirk on social media, explicitly stating these individuals were no longer welcome in the United States. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau invited followers to report foreign-born U.S. residents who "glorify violence and hatred" to the Department of State. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller vowed to use law enforcement to go after Americans who mocked Kirk's death, calling it domestic terrorism and promising: "we will not live in fear, but you will live in exile, because the power of law enforcement under President Trump's leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you have broken the law to take away your freedom."
The Young Republicans Scandal: Nazi Jokes as Harmless Fun
In October 2025—just weeks after demanding employment termination for Kirk critics—Vance was asked about leaked Telegram messages from Young Republican leaders. The messages showed party officials joking about gas chambers, expressing love for Hitler, and using racial slurs more than 250 times.
Vance's response: "The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy, offensive jokes. That's what kids do. And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke—telling a very offensive, stupid joke—is cause to ruin their lives."
The contrast is stark. Pro-Nazi rhetoric, jokes about genocide, and extensive use of racial slurs from Republican Party officials: harmless edginess that shouldn't ruin lives. Criticism of Charlie Kirk or insufficiently respectful commentary about his death: grounds for termination, visa revocation, and federal investigation.
After the death of US Citizens by ICE/CPB Agents
When an ICE agent fatally shot Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, Vance's response revealed the administration's approach to dissent with chilling clarity. Rather than express condolences or promise accountability, Vance appeared in the White House briefing room to declare Good's death "a tragedy of her own making." He accused the media of disgraceful coverage that "puts our law enforcement officers at risk," claimed Good was "part of a broader left-wing network" engaged in "domestic terror techniques," and asserted without evidence that she had been "brainwashed" or "radicalized." Most remarkably, Vance insisted the ICE agent who shot Good was "protected by absolute immunity"—a claim constitutional law experts immediately dismissed as "absolutely ridiculous" with no basis in 120 years of case law.
When video evidence contradicted the administration's account that Good had "rammed" the agent with her car, Vance doubled down, telling Americans they should "thank" the officer and offering him "a debt of gratitude."
The pattern repeated with Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and military veteran fatally shot by Border Patrol agents on January 24, 2026—the second U.S. citizen killed by federal agents in Minneapolis in less than three weeks. Within hours of Pretti's death, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller declared him "an assassin" and "domestic terrorist" who "tried to murder federal agents." Vance immediately amplified Miller's post, spreading the "assassin" smear to his millions of followers. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed Pretti was "brandishing" a weapon and intended to "massacre law enforcement."
Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino told CNN that "the victims are the Border Patrol agents" and claimed Pretti "perpetrated violence." Yet video evidence told a dramatically different story: Pretti was filming with his phone, never removed his legally-carried firearm from its holster, and had his "phone in his right hand and his empty left hand raised above his head" when agents tackled him, pepper-sprayed him, and shot him ten times after disarming him. When asked weeks later if he would apologize to Pretti's family for spreading the "assassin" lie, Vance replied with a dismissive "For what?" The reporter clarified: "For labeling him an assassin with ill intent." Vance doubled down, calling Pretti "a guy who showed up with ill intent" despite having no evidence—moments after claiming he wouldn't "prejudge the investigation" and that federal agents deserved "presumption of innocence." Even as Trump himself disavowed the "assassin" characterization and Miller admitted he spoke before knowing the facts, Vance refused to apologize, arguing it wouldn't be "fair to those ICE officers" to express remorse for slandering their victim.
Karoline Leavitt, amplifying the administration's narrative, reposted from her personal account: "I would simply just not wake up on a Saturday morning, dress up like a militia character, arm myself with a gun, and go tr[y to attack federal agents]." Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a "how to avoid ICE" graphic mocking the dead, and Trump—facing bipartisan Republican criticism including calls for Noem's resignation—finally acknowledged the deaths "should not have happened" but immediately added that Good and Pretti were "not angels," as if imperfection justifies extrajudicial killing. The Justice Department, which investigated the church protest within days, initially declined to open civil rights investigations into either killing—a reversal came only after sustained public pressure. Pretti's parents condemned the "sickening lies" told about their son, while the
National Rifle Association and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie rebuked the administration for suggesting that "carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it's a Constitutionally protected God-given right." The coordinated smear—assassin, domestic terrorist, would-be mass shooter—deployed within hours, amplified by Vance and Leavitt, defended with "For what?" callousness, reveals the administration's approach: shoot first, lie about it immediately, refuse to apologize ever, and characterize any criticism as attacks on law enforcement.
The message to critics became explicit when protesters disrupted a church service days later, chanting "ICE out" and "Justice for Renée Good." Vance declared from Ohio: "Those people are going to be sent to prison so long as we have the power to do so." He accused them of "scaring little kids" and promised aggressive prosecution.
Within hours, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel announced arrests, with around 50 agents deployed to arrest civil rights attorney and former NAACP Minneapolis president Nekima Levy Armstrong in what her husband called a deliberate "spectacle." Her attorney had offered for her to turn herself in peacefully, but the administration insisted on the show of force.
The Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation into the church disruption with stunning speed—the very investigation it refused to conduct for Good's killing by a federal agent. As Vance visited Minneapolis claiming to want to "lower the temperature," federal agents were captured on video warning protesters "Gas is coming!" before deploying chemical weapons against crowds, authorized by a federal appeals court that suspended protections against retaliation.
The framework could not be clearer: federal agents who kill U.S. citizens receive "absolute immunity" and "gratitude," while citizens who protest those killings face criminal prosecution, and elected officials who criticize federal conduct face obstruction investigations.
Speech critical of ICE becomes evidence of "left-wing radicalization" and "domestic terrorism," while the actual killing of an unarmed American mother merits no investigation at all.
Olympic Athletes: Political Silence as Patriotic Duty
Vice President JD Vance drew attention during the 2026 Winter Olympics when he criticized U.S. athletes for speaking out about politics, saying they were “not there to pop off about politics” but instead to compete and represent the country. He argued that athletes should try to bring Americans together because, when representing the nation, they stand for people across the political spectrum and should focus on winning medals rather than engaging in political debate.
Vance also warned that those who step into political discussions should expect backlash, framing his remarks as advice amid controversy sparked by some athletes publicly criticizing U.S. policies and the broader political climate. While he acknowledged that most competitors were doing a good job regardless of their beliefs, his comments became part of a wider debate over athletes’ freedom to speak out versus expectations of unity during international competition.
The position: Olympic athletes representing America should not express political opinions. They should focus on sport, not criticism of the government.
The Pattern: Speech Protection for Allies, Punishment for Critics
The framework emerging from Vance's positions is clear:
Protected speech includes:
Young Republican leaders making Nazi jokes and using racial slurs
Pro-Trump political commentary from any source
Criticism of liberals, progressives, or Democrats
Punishable speech includes:
Criticism of Charlie Kirk after his death
Olympic athletes expressing concerns about U.S. policy
University professors questioning the administration
Any commentary deemed insufficiently respectful of conservative figures
As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted, "it's hypocrisy—it doesn't make any logical sense to hold up Kirk as a defender and advocate of free speech, and then in the next breath threaten people for not speaking the correct way about the person. The idea that the state itself has essentially an approved view of the situation and will try to punish people for not agreeing to that official view is a direct attack on American free speech principles."
The selective enforcement reveals that the administration's commitment is not to free speech as a principle, but to speech outcomes—protecting expression that serves political allies while punishing dissent. This represents perhaps the most fundamental threat to free speech: not overt censorship that can be challenged in court, but the establishment of informal rules where constitutional protections apply only to politically favored speakers.
Key Statistics :
Over 600 Americans fired for Kirk-related comments
At least 6 foreign nationals had visas revoked for social media posts
Employers who fired workers include: MSNBC, Clemson University, FEMA, Carolina Panthers, U.S. airlines, Office Depot, Nasdaq, local fire departments
KAROLINE LEAVITT - THE ENABLER
Standing at the podium defending the indefensible is White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, a 28-year-old whose rapid-fire justifications for Trump and Vance's behavior have earned her a reputation as the administration's chief apologist. When Trump called Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey "Quiet, piggy" after she asked about the Epstein files,
Leavitt didn't condemn the sexist insult—she praised it. "The president is very frank and honest with everyone in this room," Leavitt declared, arguing that Trump's verbal abuse represented transparency and that reporters should "appreciate the frankness and openness" of being insulted to their faces. She even suggested journalists should be grateful Trump looks them in the eye while demeaning them, claiming his treatment was "a lot more respectful" than the previous administration. When pressed on what Trump meant by "piggy," Leavitt refused to address the sexist slur directly, instead pivoting to attacks on "fake news" and praising Trump's "unprecedented access"—as if being verbally assaulted by the president constitutes a professional perk.
Leavitt's defense of misogyny extends beyond isolated incidents. When Trump told CNN's Kaitlan Collins to smile while she asked about Epstein survivors, when he depicted the Obamas as apes in a racist video, when he systematically attacked female journalists with gendered insults—Leavitt was there to spin each outrage as evidence of Trump's authenticity.
Asked whether the White House has "a social media problem" after Trump's racist Obama post and Vance's deleted Armenian genocide tweet, Leavitt simply replied: "No." She dismissed the Obama-as-apes video as merely an "Internet meme depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle" and called criticism "fake outrage." By reframing cruelty as candor, abuse as honesty, and misogyny as frankness, Leavitt performs a crucial function for the administration: she normalizes the abnormal, making each successive violation of democratic norms and human decency seem like just another day at the office. Her defenses don't just excuse Trump's behavior—they actively legitimize a framework where women can be reduced to their appearance, journalists can be called "stupid" and "ugly," and presidential harassment constitutes transparency.
The hypocrisy becomes most visible when Leavitt defends contradictory positions with equal fervor. She stood by Vance when he demanded 600 Americans be fired for criticizing Charlie Kirk, then defended him when he dismissed Nazi jokes and racial slurs from Young Republicans as "kids being edgy." She praised Trump's "free speech" executive order while defending his lawsuits seeking billions from media organizations. She explained away racist posts as "mistakes" while insisting there's "no social media problem."
As critics noted, "Trump could kill three innocent people in cold blood right in front of Karoline Leavitt and she would still find a way to crap on the victims to defend him."
Her role is not to explain policy or convey information—it's to construct an alternate reality where harassment is respect, censorship is freedom, and systematic attacks on women journalists represent the president being "frank and open." In this capacity, Leavitt serves as the administration's chief architect of doublespeak, translating authoritarian behavior into the language of democratic virtue with machine-gun speed and unwavering commitment to the lie.
Lawfare Against the Press: Strategic Litigation as Censorship
Perhaps the most extraordinary development in contemporary threats to press freedom has been President Trump's systematic deployment of defamation lawsuits against major media organizations. Over the course of his life, Trump has been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits. But what distinguishes his current litigation strategy is not just volume but
strategic intent: legal experts and media scholars increasingly argue that these cases function less as good-faith attempts to vindicate reputation and more as weapons designed to silence critics, drain media resources, and create a chilling effect on journalism.
The ABC/Disney Capitulation
In December 2024, ABC News and its parent company Disney agreed to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit—money designated for Trump's future presidential library—plus an additional $1 million in legal fees. The case arose from anchor George Stephanopoulos stating on air that Trump had been found liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll civil case. In fact, the jury found Trump liable for
sexual abuse, not rape, though Judge Lewis Kaplan noted that the jury's findings met the common understanding of rape even if not New York's narrow statutory definition.
Six media lawyers consulted by journalists indicated ABC had an exceptionally strong case given the actual malice standard—the high bar public figures must meet to prove defamation. Yet Disney CEO Bob Iger authorized the settlement after Federal Judge Cecilia Altonaga allowed the case to proceed and ordered imminent depositions of both Trump and Stephanopoulos.
The New York Times later reported Disney's calculus: the company feared a vindictive sitting president might take the case to a conservative Supreme Court that could overturn
New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 First Amendment decision that established the actual malice standard and made it difficult for public figures to win libel cases. Disney also worried about losing before a Florida jury, maintaining access to the Trump administration, and avoiding Trump's threatened revocation of ABC's broadcast license.
The settlement sparked widespread condemnation. First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams called it a major victory for Trump. Former Washington Post writers termed it an awful precedent and huge sellout. The Society of Professional Journalists expressed concern that the decision risks setting a troubling precedent about news organizations' willingness to defend their journalists. Most significantly,
the settlement was finalized within hours on a Friday evening—corporate capitulation dressed as pragmatism.
The CBS/Paramount Settlement
In July 2025, CBS's parent company Paramount Global settled Trump's $20 billion lawsuit over alleged deceptive editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. The settlement: $16 million to Trump's future presidential library. Legal scholars had dismissed the case as particularly weak—editorial judgment about which portions of an interview to air falls squarely within protected journalistic discretion.
Yet Paramount settled weeks before the FCC—led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr—approved Paramount's $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. The timing was not coincidental. Paramount explicitly stated it settled to avoid the uncertainty and distraction of litigation. The implicit message: regulatory approval from a Trump administration might depend on cooperating with Trump's legal demands.
The BBC: International Targets
In December 2025, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC—a British public broadcaster—over a Panorama documentary that misleadingly edited footage from his January 6, 2021 speech. The edit spliced together two separate moments to create the false impression Trump directly called for violent action.
The BBC issued multiple apologies and its director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness both resigned over the error. But the BBC declined to pay damages, correctly noting the documentary never aired in the United States and that Trump was not materially harmed—he won re-election shortly after the documentary aired in the UK.
Trump sued anyway, in Florida federal court, despite the one-year statute of limitations having expired in British courts. Legal experts identified multiple fatal flaws: questionable jurisdiction since the documentary didn't air in the US, no showing of actual damages, and dubious prospects for proving actual malice given the BBC's prompt acknowledgment of error.
Yet the lawsuit serves its purpose regardless of legal merit. As First Amendment attorney Bob Corn-Revere observed, the suit has no legal basis on defamation or jurisdictional grounds. The
publicity may be the real point.
Additional Lawsuits: Building the Docket
Trump has filed or threatened lawsuits against:
The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over a report about Trump sending Jeffrey Epstein a bawdy letter—$10 billion in claimed damages.
The New York Times, for unspecified coverage Trump characterizes as defamatory.
Bob Woodward, the celebrated investigative journalist Trump himself sat for multiple interviews.
The Pulitzer Prize Board, over awards given to stories about Russia and his 2016 campaign. The Board has asked courts to force Trump to produce tax and medical records to substantiate his claims of financial and emotional harm.
The Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer, in a case that merits separate examination.
Suing Pollsters: The Selzer Case
In December 2024, Trump sued the Des Moines Register, pollster Ann Selzer, and parent company Gannett over a poll published three days before the 2024 election showing Kamala Harris leading Trump by 3 percentage points in Iowa. Trump won Iowa by 13 points.
Trump's lawsuit, filed in Iowa state court, alleges
consumer fraud—claiming the poll was intentionally misleading and constituted election interference. The suit asserts that millions of Americans, including Iowa residents and Trump donors, were deceived by what it calls a doctored poll.
The legal theory is extraordinarily weak. Consumer fraud statutes target sellers making false statements to induce purchases—used car dealers rolling back odometers. They do not cover polling, weather forecasting, or other predictive analysis that turns out to be wrong. As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes in its defense of Selzer, election polling is core First Amendment activity—asking people how they will vote and sharing an educated prediction.
Selzer's methodology was identical to her previous polls that accurately predicted Trump victories in Iowa in 2016 and 2020. The 2024 poll was simply wrong—an outlier, not fraud. Yet Trump's suit seeks to criminalize polling errors and classify predictive journalism as deceptive commerce.
The procedural gamesmanship is telling. Trump initially filed in Iowa state court one day before Iowa's new anti-SLAPP law took effect—legislation specifically designed to protect against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. When defendants moved the case to federal court where dismissal seemed likely, Trump
dropped and refiled in state court to avoid federal review. The maneuvering reveals the goal: not to win in court, but to impose costs, consume resources, and deter future unfavorable coverage.
The SLAPP Pattern
Taken together, Trump's lawsuits exhibit classic SLAPP characteristics: they target protected speech, they rely on dubious legal theories unlikely to prevail, they impose massive litigation costs even when dismissed, and they chill future speech by demonstrating the price of criticism.
As media law professor Clay Calvert observed, the odds of success are slim to none, but winning in court is not likely the real goal of these lawsuits. The true motivation is to intimidate the press and journalists.
The Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the pattern, noting that Trump's lawsuits undercut the First Amendment values he claims to uphold and create an environment where journalists and newsrooms are forced to self-censor in order to ward off potentially costly legal retribution.
The settlements Trump has secured—$15 million from ABC, $16 million from CBS—demonstrate that even weak cases can extract payment when defendants fear regulatory retaliation, loss of access, or protracted legal warfare with the President of the United States. This dynamic fundamentally alters the economics of investigative journalism and critical reporting.
The War on Late-Night: Regulatory Coercion and Media Intimidation
In 2025, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel found his show suspended following commentary about a politically charged shooting incident. The suspension itself came from the networks—ABC and others—but the backdrop revealed something more troubling:
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, had publicly criticized networks for perceived political bias and explicitly implied that broadcast licenses could be at risk if certain content were aired.
This episode became a crucial test case for what constitutional scholars call jawboning—the practice of government officials using the threat of regulatory action to pressure private entities into censoring speech. While the FCC possesses legitimate authority over technical standards and public interest obligations for broadcasters, leveraging that power to influence the political content of comedy shows represents a fundamental overreach.
As First Amendment experts noted, the government cannot constitutionally condition broadcast licenses on adherence to particular political viewpoints. When regulators signal that criticism of political figures might jeopardize a network's license, they create a chilling effect that extends far beyond any single comedian or show. The message becomes clear: self-censor, or face consequences.
The American Civil Liberties Union and media law scholars argued that this represented
informal censorship—government pressure that achieves through intimidation what direct legal prohibition would accomplish through force. The First Amendment's prohibition on abridging speech based on viewpoint applies equally whether the government acts through statute or through regulatory threats.
A Coordinated Response from Late-Night Television
The Kimmel suspension triggered an unprecedented coordinated response from across the late-night television landscape, revealing both the breadth of the threat and the professional solidarity among hosts who suddenly found themselves on the front lines of a free speech battle.
Stephen Colbert of The Late Show was among the most forceful voices, calling the suspension blatant censorship and warning that with an autocrat, you cannot give an inch. Colbert's stance proved prescient—and costly. In July 2025, CBS/Paramount cancelled The Late Show, a decision widely speculated to be an attempt to appease the administration following a legal settlement. The cancellation of one of television's most prominent political satirists sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry and beyond.
Seth Meyers of Late Night directly accused the administration of a crackdown on free speech, noting that President Trump had labeled him and Jimmy Fallon total losers and suggested NBC should take action against them. Meyers has consistently used his platform to document Trump's threats against media critics, creating a running chronicle of authoritarian rhetoric aimed at journalists and entertainers.
Jon Stewart approached the crisis with characteristic satire. On The Daily Show, Stewart delivered what he called an administration-compliant monologue, sarcastically praising Trump while highlighting how the First Amendment was being distorted to suppress criticism. The performance was both comedy and constitutional commentary—showing through absurdist compliance exactly what was being demanded of media figures.
Jimmy Fallon of The Tonight Show, typically known for a less political approach than his peers, expressed support for Kimmel and called the FCC pressure on networks WTF. That even Fallon—who had faced criticism for being too soft on Trump during a 2016 interview—felt compelled to speak out underscored the severity of the threat. Trump responded by publicly urging NBC to fire both Fallon and Meyers.
David Letterman, though retired from The Late Show since 2015, weighed in on the 2025 controversy, calling Kimmel's suspension ridiculous and a sign of managed media under an authoritarian administration. That Letterman—who had left the daily grind of late-night television a decade earlier—felt obligated to re-enter the public debate speaks to the extraordinary nature of the moment.
The Pattern of Intimidation
What emerged from these incidents was a clear pattern: the President of the United States publicly demanding that private media companies fire specific entertainers for their political speech, while the FCC—a nominally independent regulatory agency—signaled that broadcast licenses might be contingent on compliance with presidential preferences.
This represents a fundamental departure from democratic norms. While presidents have long complained about media coverage, the systematic use of regulatory authority to threaten broadcasters, combined with direct presidential demands for termination of specific critics, crosses into territory more familiar in authoritarian systems than in constitutional democracies.
The late-night hosts' response—refusing to comply, documenting the threats, and standing in solidarity with targeted colleagues—became itself a form of resistance. Yet the cancellation of Colbert's show demonstrated that such resistance carries real professional and institutional costs. When major media corporations begin cancelling their most prominent voices to avoid government pressure, the chilling effect becomes not theoretical but concrete.
Recording Federal Agents: The Right to Bear Witness Under Threat
In early 2026, Minneapolis became ground zero for a different kind of free speech confrontation—one centered not on what people say, but on their constitutional right to document government action.
Following high-tension immigration enforcement operations by ICE and Border Patrol, numerous incidents emerged of federal agents allegedly telling bystanders they could not record officers performing their duties. In some cases, individuals filming peacefully were reportedly detained or threatened. The most extreme incident involved
the fatal shooting of Renée Good by an ICE agent, an event that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem subsequently characterized as involving domestic terrorism—a label applied despite significant ambiguity about the circumstances and evidence.
The constitutional dimensions are stark. Federal courts, including multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals, have consistently held that citizens possess a
clearly established First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public spaces. This right serves a vital democratic function: it enables accountability, provides evidence of misconduct or proper conduct, and allows the public to scrutinize how government power is exercised.
Yet civil complaints filed by advocacy groups and the Minnesota Attorney General's office alleged that DHS policy documents and internal guidance sometimes classified the act of recording federal agents as a potential threat that could be responded to with force or addressed as a crime. When government rhetoric labels peaceful documentation as
domestic terrorism, the chilling effect becomes profound. Citizens who might otherwise record potential abuse or document enforcement practices may reasonably fear arrest, detention, or worse.
This represents a direct collision between state power and transparency. The ability to record police—whether local, state, or federal—functions as a check on authority. When that check is threatened, accountability itself is imperiled.
Protest, Dissent, and the Minnesota Resistance
The 2026 Minnesota ICE protests represented more than opposition to immigration enforcement—they embodied fundamental questions about the right to dissent against federal policy. Organizers called for a Day of Truth and Freedom, coordinating economic strikes and demonstrations against what protesters characterized as federal overreach.
Local government officials found themselves navigating treacherous terrain: supporting protesters' constitutional rights while managing public safety concerns and responding to federal pressure. The protests raised familiar tensions in American democracy—the balance between maintaining order and protecting the robust, sometimes disruptive exercise of First Amendment freedoms.
What distinguished these protests from countless prior demonstrations was the intersection with federal enforcement actions and the subsequent federal rhetoric characterizing dissent as potentially criminal or even terroristic. When peaceful protest risks being reframed as domestic extremism, the space for legitimate political opposition narrows dangerously.
Political Speech in Unexpected Arenas: Athletes and Public Expression
Free speech battles have also erupted in spaces traditionally considered separate from political discourse. Florida Senator Rick Scott's suggestion that Olympic athletes who criticize the United States should be stripped of their uniforms—a position reinforced by Vice President JD Vance's emphasis that athletes should focus on competition rather than activism—signals a concerning expansion of where political loyalty tests might apply.
While these statements did not translate into formal policy, they represent what scholars call expressive sanctioning—government officials signaling disapproval and potential consequences for speech they deem unpatriotic or inappropriate. The implication is clear: representing the nation athletically comes with expected political silence.
This extends a troubling logic: that certain public roles—athlete, federal employee, grant recipient—carry with them diminished First Amendment protections. Civil liberties advocates argue that political expression by athletes, far from being inappropriate, represents precisely the kind of engaged citizenship a democracy should celebrate, not punish.
The Grand Jury, Dissent, and Legal Scrutiny
Additional concerns emerged around how dissenting political speech faces legal examination. A grand jury's decision not to indict lawmakers involved in disseminating a video alleging illegal military orders drew attention precisely because it demonstrated how fringe political speech—even when based on dubious claims—can trigger intensive legal processes.
The pattern is familiar from other contexts: government critics face investigations, subpoenas, or other legal scrutiny that, regardless of outcome, creates burdens and sends messages about the costs of dissent. While the grand jury correctly declined to indict for constitutionally protected speech, the very process of investigation serves a chilling function.
Looking Forward: Free Speech in a Polarized Democracy
These incidents—from multimillion-dollar lawsuit settlements that reward weak defamation claims to regulatory threats against broadcasters and the cancellation of prominent satirists, from federal rhetoric against those filming agents to political pressure on athletes, from lawsuits targeting pollsters to controversies surrounding public figures—reveal interconnected challenges to free expression.
Several patterns emerge:
First, government pressure on speech increasingly operates through informal mechanisms—regulatory hints, rhetorical characterizations, selective legal scrutiny, and strategic lawsuits—rather than through direct prohibition. This makes First Amendment violations harder to challenge legally while achieving similar censorious effects.
Second, speech restrictions are often justified through appeals to security, order, national loyalty, or supposed fraud. Whether characterizing recording of federal agents as domestic terrorism, suggesting athletes' criticism is unpatriotic, or classifying polling errors as consumer fraud, the logic remains: certain speech threatens rather than strengthens democracy.
Third, the weaponization of defamation law through strategic litigation creates economic incentives for media organizations to settle even weak cases rather than face protracted legal battles with the President. The ABC and CBS settlements demonstrate that SLAPP suits can succeed financially even when they fail legally, fundamentally altering the economics of critical journalism.
Fourth, support for free speech remains contingent and partisan. Political movements champion speech protections when convenient and advocate restrictions when speech serves opposing interests. This instrumentalization weakens the cultural commitment to free expression that supplements legal protections.
Fifth, the expansion of speech regulation into previously protected domains—athletes, social media users, bystanders with cameras, late-night comedians, pollsters, investigative journalists—signals a broader erosion of the distinction between government and private spheres, and between political roles and citizenship rights.
Constitutional protections for speech remain robust in law. Federal courts continue to strike down overt censorship and protect dissent, recording, and political expression. But law functions within a cultural and political context. When government officials routinely pressure speech, when regulatory agencies hint at consequences for political content, when peaceful documentation is labeled terrorism, when major television networks cancel their most prominent satirists to avoid regulatory retaliation,
when media corporations pay millions to settle dubious defamation claims rather than risk a vindictive president taking their case to a potentially sympathetic Supreme Court, the
practice of free speech becomes chilled even as the
law remains unchanged.
Preserving Free Expression: More Than Legal Protections
Defending free speech requires more than invoking the First Amendment. It demands:
Judicial vigilance against both direct censorship and informal government pressure that achieves censorship through coercion rather than law, including early dismissal of SLAPP suits and robust application of anti-SLAPP statutes.
Political accountability for government officials who weaponize regulatory power, use rhetorical intimidation to silence critics, or deploy lawfare against journalists and media organizations.
Corporate courage from media organizations willing to defend their journalists in court rather than settling to appease powerful figures, even when settlements appear economically rational in the short term.
Cultural commitment to tolerating speech that offends, challenges, and discomforts—including from political opponents.
Institutional resistance from media organizations, civil society groups, bar associations, and citizens who refuse to self-censor in response to government pressure.
Public engagement with the difficult reality that protecting speech means protecting expression we despise, from speakers we oppose, in contexts that make us uncomfortable.
Free speech does not guarantee comfort, consensus, or civility. It guarantees the
right to participate in democracy—to challenge, to dissent, to expose, to document, and to speak truth to power. When government actors, whether through regulatory threats, rhetorical intimidation, or strategic litigation, make that participation costly or dangerous, they undermine not just individual rights but democratic accountability itself.
The flashpoints documented here represent tests of American democracy's commitment to its founding principles. Whether that commitment endures depends not on constitutional text alone, but on the willingness of citizens, courts, lawmakers, media organizations, and institutions to defend free expression when defense is most difficult, most expensive, and most necessary.
References and Sources
The research methodology relied on publicly available internet sources, including mainstream news organizations (Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, The Washington Post, The New York Times), specialized legal and civil liberties publications (FIRE, ACLU, Knight First Amendment Institute, Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders), government documents and statements, court filings available online, verified video evidence, and expert commentary from constitutional scholars and First Amendment attorneys.
Limitations and Acknowledgments:
This internet-based research approach has inherent limitations. I did not conduct original interviews, access non-public documents, or observe events firsthand. The article relies on the accuracy of published reporting and public statements, though I have prioritized primary sources (government statements, court documents, video evidence) and corroborated claims across multiple independent news organizations where possible.
The feminist lens applied here emphasizes several principles:
A Note on Perspective
This article is written from the viewpoint of a feminist First Amendment defender using publicly available internet research. As a feminist, I recognize that speech protections are essential to challenging power, that censorship has historically targeted women's voices, and that robust dissent—including speech that offends—is necessary for democracy. The research relies on news reports, government statements, court documents, video evidence, and expert analysis available online as of February 2026. I do not claim neutrality; I am an advocate for free speech who is deeply concerned by the patterns documented here. Readers should evaluate the evidence and reach their own conclusions about whether these incidents represent systematic threats to constitutional freedoms or appropriate government action. The goal is to present documented facts and invite engagement with urgent questions about the state of free speech in America.
Comments