Blocking Assaults on the Fragile Freedom to Speak

Federal prosecutors in Washington attempted a direct assault on freedom of speech this month when they asked a federal grand jury to indict two U.S. senators and four House members for saying something the Trump administration didn’t like. The six Democratic lawmakers had produced a video reminding members of the military that they have a legal duty to disobey unlawful orders. The video accurately quoted existing law.

Nonetheless, under U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a Trump loyalist and former Fox News personality, prosecutors sought criminal charges for unlawfully urging insubordination in the military. The federal grand jury, made up of average citizens, refused to approve the charges and unanimously rejected the government’s blatant attempt to criminalize speech.

“Tonight, we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law,” Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said in a statement. A former CIA analyst, she was among the six accused lawmakers, the other five of them military veterans. “Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him,” said one of the lawmakers, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy Captain and former astronaut.

This administration has been unrelenting in efforts to chill free speech—by some counts totaling approximately 200 attempts in 2025 alone. It has targeted citizens, noncitizens, government officials, judges, celebrities, journalists and companies. President Donald Trump has filed suit against The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the Des Moines Register over their coverage. He has also sued ABC, CBS, CNN, the BBC and the Pulitzer Board.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to cancel broadcasting licenses because of comments made by late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel. ABC’s parent company responded by ordering the suspension of Kimmel, only to later reinstate him in the face of a massive public backlash. In January, FBI agents seized multiple electronic devices from a Washington Post reporter’s home in an effort to identify the journalist’s source, ignoring laws that protect journalists under First Amendment grounds. A judge preliminarily ruled for the reporter, forbidding the government from reading the devices until further court order.

The consequences of speaking in ways that offend the administration can be severe. A Reuters investigation determined that in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in August, “a government-backed campaign led to firings, suspensions, investigations and other action against more than 600 people” who posted comments deemed unfavorable toward Kirk, an important Trump backer. Vice President J.D. Vance urged listeners in a podcast in September to “Call them out, and, hell, call their employer.” Those punished included an assistant kindergarten teacher in South Carolina, a Missouri sheriff’s deputy and an Office Depot employee in Michigan, Reuters reported. A Georgia Teacher of the Year finalist was terminated after quoting Kirk’s own words on her private Facebook page.

Attacks on freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution have perhaps been most stark in the area of immigration enforcement. ICE and border patrol agents have assaulted peaceful demonstrators opposing government action as well as journalists and others attempting to document protests. They have pepper sprayed people at close range, beaten demonstrators, fired guns at people and killed two U.S. citizens.

Voicing support for Palestinians has likewise proven dangerous for noncitizens. A Turkish graduate student at Tufts University was whisked off the street by masked agents last year and detained because she co-authored an article favorable to the Palestinian cause. An immigration judge ruled last month that the government had no grounds to deport her and blocked further action to do so.

At a hearing in another case last month, Massachusetts Senior U.S. District Judge William G. Young criticized the administration for trying to deport noncitizen students with no criminal records because of pro-Palestinian speech. He called it a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s promise of free speech. Judge Young, a Ronald Reagon appointee, vacated as illegal the administration’s enforcement action in “view of the concerted action of the highest Cabinet Officials of the Executive Branch deliberately to violate the First Amendment right of free speech….”

The administration responded to Judge Young’s Order by attacking him. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said via email that Young’s “bizarre” comments show an “intent to engage in left-wing activism against the democratically elected President of the United States.”

Judge Young concluded his Order by quoting President Reagan’s 1967 gubernatorial inaugural speech: “Freedom is a fragile thing … It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended in every generation….”

More recently, Senator Kelly put it this way after grand jurors declined to indict him: “The most patriotic thing we can do is not back down.”