“Congress will not create any laws that establish religion, limit the free exercise of it, obstruct freedom of speech or press, impede the right of peaceful assembly, or hinder the right to petition the Government for grievances.” -U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.
Image: Shutterstock, zimmytws.
During a recent speech to Congress, President Trump asserted that he has “restored freedom of speech in America.” However, just within the initial months of his second term, the president has launched an unparalleled assault on the constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment, targeting journalists, students, universities, government employees, attorneys, and judges.
This narrative delves into a range of recent measures by the Trump administration that jeopardize all five foundations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, safeguarding freedoms related to expression, faith, the press, assembly rights, and the right to address the government and seek correction for injustices.
THE RIGHT TO PETITION
The right to petition empowers citizens to interact with the government, whether to express objections, request intervention, or present opinions — without the apprehension of repercussions. Nevertheless, this administration is challenging that right on various fronts. Initially, numerous GOP legislators are adhering to their leadership’s counsel to steer clear of local town hall meetings to evade the ire of constituents impacted by numerous federal budget and workforce reductions implemented by the administration.
For instance, President Trump recently dismissed most of the individuals responsible for handling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government entities. FOIA serves as an indispensable instrument utilized by journalists and the public to solicit government documents and uphold accountability among leaders.
The most significant revelation this week was the disclosure by The Atlantic’s editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, detailing how he was inadvertently included in a Signal group chat alongside National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and 16 other Trump administration officials deliberating plans for an imminent offensive in Yemen.
An unnoticed aspect of Goldberg’s extraordinary narrative is that by orchestrating and synchronizing the assault on Signal — a platform that enables messages to auto-erase after a brief period — administration officials arguably intended to sidestep creating a permanent (and potentially FOIA-accessible) record of their discussions.
“Whether deliberate or not, employing Signal in this context constituted an act of erasure — for, sans Jeffrey Goldberg’s accidental inclusion, the public would remain unaware of these communications and have no avenue to ascertain their occurrence,” Tony Bradley articulated in his recent Forbes piece.
Petitioning the government, especially when it disregards your appeals, typically necessitates confronting federal agencies in court. Nonetheless, this task becomes notably challenging if leading law firms start shying away from cases entailing confrontation with the president and his administration.
On March 22, the president issued a memorandum instructing the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “pursue sanctions against attorneys and law firms engaging in groundless, irrational, and harassing litigation against the United States,” or in matters presented before federal agencies.
Recently, the POTUS issued several executive orders denouncing specific law firms housing attorneys who handled legal cases against him. Most notably, on Friday, the president revealed that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had consented to supply $100 million in pro bono aid towards causes he endorses.
Trump also released another directive targeting Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to contribute $40 million in pro bono legal services toward the president’s initiatives.
Further executive orders from Trump took aim at law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both of which harbored attorneys who collaborated with special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Nevertheless, this week, two federal judges halted certain provisions of those orders in separate rulings mentioning.
“The retaliatory action undoubtedly stifles speech and legal advocacy, qualifying as a constitutional violation,” remarked Judge Richard Leon, who opposed the executive order targeting WilmerHale.
President Trump recently made the extraordinary demand for the impeachment of federal judges ruling against the administration. Trump labeled U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and advocated for his removal from office following the obstruction of the deportation of purported Venezuelan gang affiliates under a seldom-invoked wartime legal authority.
In a rare rebuke to a sitting president, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a statement on March 18 underscoring that “For over two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is an improper reaction to disagreement concerning a judicial ruling.”
The U.S. Constitution specifies that judges can solely be removed from office through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate; it also prohibits reducing judges’ salaries during their tenure.
Unfazed, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested this week that the administration could still exploit its financial authority to discipline the courts and even considered the prospect of entirely eliminating federal courts.
“As you are aware, we wield control over the federal judiciary,” Johnson articulated.Control over an entire local court. We hold authority of financing regarding the courts, as well as all these supplementary aspects. However, times of urgency necessitate extraordinary actions, and the Congress is set to take action, so be prepared for that.”
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
President Trump has implemented numerous measures to discourage lawful gatherings at tertiary institutions and schools across the nation, warning to withhold federal support for any school that endorses protests he considers “illicit.”
An executive directive by Trump in January highlighted a comprehensive federal crackdown on what he labeled as “the surge of anti-Jewish sentiment” on American academic grounds. This government has proclaimed that overseas scholars lawfully in the U.S. on visas do not possess the same freedom of expression or legal rights as citizens.
Reuters reports that the interim civil liberties chief at the Department of Education dispatched notices to 60 educational bodies on March 10 cautioning they risk losing federal support if they do not intensify efforts to combat anti-Jewish hostility. On March 20, Trump decreed the closure of the Education Department.
Concurrently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have been apprehending and aiming to expel pro-Palestinian scholars lawfully in the United States. The administration is singling out scholars and academics who voiced opposition against Israel’s offensives on Gaza, or who partook in campus demonstrations against U.S. support for the aggressions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed the press on Thursday that at least 300 foreign scholars have had their visas rescinded under President Trump, a notably higher figure than previously disclosed.
In his initial term, Trump raised the prospect of utilizing the national guard or the U.S. military to address demonstrators, and during his re-election campaign, he pledged to revisit the notion.
“I believe the key issue lies within our own country,” Trump told Fox News in October 2024. “We have some extremely malicious individuals. We have some unwell individuals, radical left fanatics. And I believe they are the principal — and it should be effortlessly addressed by, if necessary, the National Guard, or if absolutely necessary, by the military, because that can’t be allowed to transpire.”
This time, Trump promptly dismissed the foremost judicial advocates in the armed forces who would almost surely resist any solicitations by the president to employ U.S. troops to suppress public protests, or to seize and confine immigrants. In late February, the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ousted the top legal advisers for the military branches — those tasked with ensuring adherence to the Uniform Code of Military Justice by commanders.
Military.com cautions that the purge “establishes a concerning precedent for a critical role in the military, as President Donald Trump has contemplated employing the military in unconventional and potentially illicit methods.” Hegseth informed the media the dismissals were imperative as he did not want them to present any “hurdles to orders issued by a commander in chief.”
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
President Trump has litigated against numerous U.S. media institutions, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other minor journalism establishments for disparaging coverage.
In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump alleges they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris before the 2024 election. The television program last month released transcripts of the interview central to the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly contemplating a settlement to prevent jeopardizing its chances of getting the administration’s endorsement for an impending multibillion-dollar merger.
The president initiated legal action against The Des Moines Register and its parent firm, Gannett, for publishing a poll showing Trump trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential race in Iowa (a state that favored Trump). The POTUS is also suing the Pulitzer Prize committee over the 2018 accolades bestowed upon The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Regardless of whether any of the president’s litigations against media firms have foundation or prosper, it is nearly immaterial. The objective behind litigating against the press is to compel journalists and newsrooms to reconsider before criticizing or challenging the president and his administration. The president is also aware that certain media companies will perceive it as more expedient to arrive at a settlement.
Trump also sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for affirming that the president had been deemed accountable for “assault” in a civil lawsuit [Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carroll]. ABC’s parent company Disney resolved that claim by consenting to contribute $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library.
Subsequent to the assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Facebook barred President Trump’s account. Trump took legal action against Meta, and following the president’s triumph in 2024, Meta reached a settlement and consented to pay Trump $25 million: $22 million allotted to his presidential library, and the remainder to legal expenses. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg additionally revealed that Facebook and Instagram would eliminate fact-checkers and instead count on reader-submitted “community notes” to refute misinformation on the social media platform.
Brendan Carr, the president’s choice to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has vowed to “break down the censorship consortium and reinstate the freedom of speech entitlements for ordinary Americans.” However, on January 22, 2025, the FCC reignited grievances against ABC, CBS, and NBC regarding their reporting of the 2024 election. The previous chair of the FCC had rejected these grievances as assaults on the First Amendment and efforts to politicize the agency.
As per Reuters, the grievances urge an inquiry into how ABC News moderated the pre-election television debate between Trump and Biden, as well as the appearances of then-Vice President Harris on 60 Minutes and NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”
Subsequently, the FCC has commenced inquiries into NPR and PBS, accusing them of violating sponsorship regulations. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a policy institute in Washington, D.C., pointed out that the FCC is also examining KCBS in San Francisco for disclosing the whereabouts of federal immigration authorities.
“Even if these examinations are eventually concluded without any action, the mere act of launching them—along with the implicit threat to the news networks’ licensing—can dissuade the press from covering news that the Administration disapproves of,” noted the CDT’s Kate Ruane.
Trump has consistently vowed to “expand” defamation laws, aiming to facilitate legal actions against media entities for unfavorable reporting. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court this week refused to consider a challenge brought by Trump supporter and Las Vegas casino tycoon Steve Wynn to overturn the landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which shields the press from libel lawsuits over sincere criticisms of public figures.
The president has also insisted on determining which journalists and news organizations should be permitted to cover White House events and join the press entourage following the president. He excluded the Associated Press from the White House and Air Force One due to their refusal to use a different term for the Gulf of Mexico.
Moreover, the Defense Department has instructed several leading media outlets to vacate their Pentagon offices, including CNN, The Hill, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Politico, and National Public Radio.
“Incoming media outlets comprise the New York Post, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, the Free Press, the Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Huffington Post, and One America News Network, many of which are considered conservative or supportive of Republican President Donald Trump,” Reuters reported.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Shortly after Trump assumed office again in January 2025, the administration began circulating lists of hundreds of prohibited words for government staff and agencies to avoid in their reports and communications.
The Brookings Institution observes that in complying with this anti-speech directive, federal agencies have removed numerous taxpayer-funded data compilations from a variety of government websites, including data on crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development.
The New York Times reports that in the last two months, immense amounts of digital resources analyzing data have been withdrawn from government websites.
“Even though the underlying data remains accessible in many instances, the tools supporting the public and researchers to utilize that data have been eliminated,” The Times stated.
On Jan. 27, Trump released a memorandum (PDF) pausing all federally funded programs pending a review to ensure their alignment with the administration’s priorities. This included verifying that no funds support promoting “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”
According to the CDT, this directive is a direct attempt to compel government grantees to halt involvement in speech that the current administration disapproves of, including discussions on diversity, climate change, and LGBTQ matters.
“The First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against grantees based on their viewpoints,” wrote the CDT’s Ruane. “Indeed, those organizations challenging the constitutionality of the directive argued as such in their lawsuit, and have secured an injunction blocking its enforcement.”
On January 20, the same day Trump issued an executive order on free speech, he also issued an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which halted funding for programs managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Several of these programs were aimed at empowering civil society, human rights groups, journalists, and others combating digital suppression and Internet shutdowns.
As per the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this also includes various freedom technologies employing encryption, combating censorship, safeguarding freedom of speech, privacy, and anonymity for millions worldwide.
“Although the State Department has issued some limited exceptions, the current waivers do not seem to encompass the open-source internet freedom technologies,” the EFF stated about the disruptions in USAID operations. “This has compelled many of these projects to terminate or drastically reduce their operations, terminate skilled staff, and halt or slow down further developments.”
On March 14, the president enacted another executive order that significantly weakened the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees or funds media organizations such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America (VOA). USAGM also supervises Radio Free Asia, which advocates assert has been a crucial government tool against Chinese propaganda.
Yet, this week, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, provisionally prevented the closure of USAGM by the administration.
“RFE/RL has been functioning as one of the organizationsthat Lamberth penned a 10-page opinion, emphasizing that Congress has officially designated to execute this strategy. “The leadership of USAGM cannot, with a brief rationale offering minimal clarification, compel RFE/RL to cease operations — even if directed by the President,” he stated.
RECIPROCAL OF BELIEFS
The administration of Trump withdrew an age-old guideline instructing officers not to conduct immigration enforcement activities in or around “vulnerable” or “safeguarded” locations like places of worship, educational institutions, and medical facilities.
This decree was immediately contested in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of Quakers, Baptists, and Sikhs, contending that reversing the policy was deterring individuals from attending religious services due to apprehensions of being apprehended for civil immigration violations. On February 24, a federal judge intervened and prohibited ICE agents from entering churches or targeting migrants in proximity.
The executive order from the president, purportedly tackling antisemitism, was accompanied by an informative document characterizing university campuses as “infected” with “extremists” and “militants.” Various religious communities voiced dismay over the directive, alleging an attempt to weaponize antisemitism and endorse “dehumanizing anti-immigrant policies.”
The president further declared the establishment of a “Task Force to Eliminate Anti-Christian Discrimination,” to be overseen by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Disregarding Christianity’s predominant status in America and the significant representation of Christians in Congress.
The Baptist clergyman Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, who heads the progressive Interfaith Alliance, indicted Trump for duplicity in championing religion through the formation of the task force.
“From permitting immigration raids in churches, to singling out faith-based charities, to suppressing religious pluralism, the overbearing government intervention of the Trump Administration is violating religious liberty in an unprecedented manner,” stated Raushenbush.
A declaration from Americans United for Separation of Church and State cautioned that the task force might result in religious oppression towards those of alternative faiths.
“Instead of safeguarding religious convictions, this task force will exploit religious freedom to validate prejudice, bias, and the undermining of our civil rights statutes,” mentioned Rachel Laser, the organization’s leader.
Where is President Trump heading with all these blatant affronts on the First Amendment? The president has not concealed his fondness for authoritarian rulers and “strongmen” globally, showing particular admiration for Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a two-time guest at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in the past year.
An essay dated March 15 in The Atlantic by Hungarian investigative journalist András Pethő describes Orbán’s ascent to power through consolidating dominance over the judiciary and constructing his propaganda network while simultaneously restricting the independent media.
“Watching from a distance the erosion of press freedom in the United States during the commencement of Trump’s second term — the verbal intimidation, the legal intimidations, the media proprietors’ capitulation to threats — it all resonates very much,” Pethő penned. “The MAGA authorities have keenly imbibed Orbán’s teachings.”
About Author
