Throughout history, freedom of speech has never been lost in a single, instant moment. It erodes slowly, when truth becomes disloyalty, and loyalty becomes the only acceptable language. In a country founded on the basis of its constitution, the First Amendment was written to protect Americans, but when leaders utilise their power to silence critics, that constitutional promise starts to ring hollow.
Donald Trump has often positioned himself as the pioneer for free speech, rallying against censorship and political righteousness. In his first term, he issued the Executive Order Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Censorship in March 2019, expressing the importance of free inquiry and open debate in higher education, directing federal officials to use the government’s funding in order for institutions to promote ‘open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debates.’. Trump has also highlighted this during his July 2020 Mount Rushmore speech, where he warned that America was facing a ‘merciless campaign to wipe out our history’, urging citizens to resist ‘cancel culture’, in defense of free expression and patriotic values. Moreover, on his second day in office, Trump signed Executive Order 14149, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, asserting that the previous administration had undermined Americans’ First Amendment rights by exerting coercive pressures on media platforms to suppress certain views. Together, these efforts painted Trump as a champion of open discourse and a staunch defender of the First Amendment. Yet, beneath such rhetoric, his administration’s approach to free expression would soon reveal a striking inconsistency.
An Antagonistic Portrayal of the Media
While Trump publicly presented himself as a defender of free expression, his actions often told a different story. Despite his claims to champion open debate, he waged an ongoing battle against the press, often referring to journalists and news outlets as the ‘opposition party’. Less than a month into his presidency in 2017, he posted on Twitter (now X), stating that ‘The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @CNN, @NBCNews and many more) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people. SICK!’. This attack on the press was not an isolated event – it marked the beginning and trajectory of his presidency to come. Since entering office for his second term, the Trump administration has continued to take an aggressive approach to news organisations it disfavours. In February 2025, the White House announced that it would ban the Associated Press from accessing certain press events because of its refusal to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, as per Trump’s wishes. This decision sparked widespread criticism from journalists and news outlets, with 40 organisations signing a letter urging the White House to reverse the restrictions on AP, arguing that this represented yet another attempt to punish media outlets that refused to comply with Trump’s political agenda. Such actions sent a clear message to other news outlets: challenge the administration’s narrative, and you risk losing your career. More recently, late-night talk show host, Jimmy Kimmel, was suspended by Disney following his controversial remarks on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. This decision came shortly after public
criticism by the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, where he condemned Kimmel’s comments, and stated that the regulatory agency would be willing to ‘throw its weight’ behind making sure the companies airing Kimmel’s show are held accountable. Again, this reflects the growing willingness of those in power to punish individuals who do not align with the government’s agenda, signalling another defiance against the Constitution. Following this, Trump furthered his distaste towards critical television coverage of him, claiming that such negative reporting is ‘illegal’, arguing that ‘when 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech.’, and went as far as to say that perhaps their licenses should be revoked. Such distaste towards independent journalism poses a significant threat to democratic accountability, undermining the press’s essential role to question authority and hold leaders to account.
Silencing Student Activists
Across American college campuses, student protests have long been a symbol of democracy, yet under Donald Trump’s administration, that tradition of dissent has increasingly been met with hostility, surveillance and punishment. In March 2025, Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil was arrested and detained by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, following his engagement in pro-Palestine protests on campus last spring. He was held for more than a hundred days. Similarly, a Tufts University graduate student, Rümeysa Öztürk, was arrested by ICE agents for writing an op-ed calling on the University to protect human rights in Gaza. Judge William Young of the U.S. district court of Massachusetts found that the Trump administration violated the right to free speech in its assertion to detain and deport pro-Palestinian student activists, demonstrating how the administration’s push for free speech was merely conditional – only extended to those whose opinions aligned with their beliefs. In his judicial decision, he made clear that the first amendment does not distinguish between those born in the U.S. and those who have immigrated there, noting that Trump ‘ignores everything … The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies – all of it.’, arguing that the President ‘will not countenance … dissent or disagreement’. When dissent is punished and conformity is rewarded, the very principles of the First Amendment are eroded, exposing a system where freedom of speech becomes a privilege granted by those in power.
Potential Consequences
The erosion of free speech under Trump’s presidency extends far beyond the media outlets and individuals he has targeted, its consequences reach to the very foundation of American democracy. A robust democracy is sustained by the free flow of ideas and a healthy civil society, and when the public fear retaliation for speaking their minds, this autonomy is threatened and begins to wither. Trump’s repeated attacks on the press, dismissing them as ‘the enemy of the people’ creates a chilling precedent – one in which loyalty is valued over truth. This atmosphere of intimidation discourages transparency, and weakens public trust in institutions, designed to hold leaders accountable. The checks and balances system of governance in the U.S. was initially intended to ensure that no single political leader could dominate, but partisan divide and loyalty to Trump, could now outweigh constitutional responsibility, threatening American democracy.
The freedom of speech, the very cornerstone of American democracy, does not vanish overnight, it fades when American politicians weaponise loyalty, punishing dissent. From silencing media outlets to targeting student activists, Donald Trump has proven the fragility of that freedom. To preserve free speech, therefore, depends not on any single leader, but on the courage of citizens, journalists, and institutions to continue speaking truth to power, even, and especially, when doing so comes at a cost. The real question, then, becomes whether we, the public, are willing to confront injustice when it demands, or would we remain silent, paralysed by moral inertia. Too often, freedom erodes, not by force or coercion, but by the quiet consent of those who have chosen silence over courage.
Written by Kelly Ng
