SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
first amendment
Hiding Behind Kirk, Team Trump Launches 'Biggest Assault on the First Amendment' in Modern US History
"This is the time where every American must stand proudly for free speech and our freedoms," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
Sep 16, 2025
US President Donald Trump and his administration have been signaling that they are planning to use the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk as a justification to launch a broad campaign targeting their political opponents.
Trump adviser Stephen Miller on Monday singled out left-wing organizations that he baselessly alleged were promoting violence in the United States and he said that the full weight of the federal government would soon come down on them.
"We are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people," said Miller.
Shortly after this, Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on the podcast hosted by Miller's wife, Katie Miller, and vowed that the Justice Department would "go after" people who engage in "hate speech" against conservatives.
"There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society," Bondi said. "We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
While many prominent conservatives denounced Bondi's remarks and reiterated that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Trump himself appeared to give her views his endorsement.
When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl about Bondi's comments on Tuesday, the president signaled that he would favor prosecuting journalists on "hate speech" charges.
"We'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly," Trump said in response to Karl's question. "You have a lot of hate in your heart."
Trump then pointed to the $16 million defamation settlement he agreed to with Disney after ABC News host George Stephanopoulos said on air last year that Trump had been found liable for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll, when in fact the jury had technically only found Trump liable for sexually abusing her.
"ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech," Trump said. "Your company paid me $16 million for a former a hate speech, right? So maybe they'll have to go after you."
These development have caused widespread alarm among some Democratic politicians.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) posted a video on social media in which he warned that Trump and his administration were engaging in "the biggest assault on the First Amendment in our country's modern history."
He then pointed to statements made by Vice President JD Vance, Stephen Miller, and Bondi, and he encouraged his supporters to be willing to confront dangers to American liberty.
"This is the time where every American must stand proudly for free speech and our freedoms," he said.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), after posting the video of Trump threatening to "go after" ABC News' Karl, argued that Trump's actions made it impossible for him to vote in favor of continuing to fund the federal government.
"How can we fund this?" he asked. "I am being asked this week to fund a government that locks up a reporter Trump doesn’t like. This isn’t a close call folks."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who has become the target of a censure resolution by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) amid false claims that she did not condemn the Kirk assassination, hit back at Republicans for being hypocrites on free speech.
"Nancy Mace is trying to censure me over comments I never said," she said. "Her [resolution] does not contain a single quote from me because she couldn’t find any. Unlike her, I have routinely condemned political violence, no matter the political ideology. This is all an attempt to push a false story so she can fundraise and boost her run for governor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Without Free Speech, Democracy Dies
To avoid past failures, we must remember freedom of expression is for everyone, including those who we disagree with.
Sep 16, 2025
Democracy is hanging precariously in a world tilted upside down in the face of today’s endless crises. Our rights and freedoms are dwindling. Free speech, an essential precursor to all human rights, is faltering.
Less than 4% of the world’s citizens enjoy a wide range of civic freedoms, and nearly three-quarters live in countries with little. With 1,100 violations and 45% of all violations, freedom of expression topped the CIVICUS Monitor list of global attacks on rights.
States that once set an example as bastions of free speech are also faltering.
United States ‘Leads’ Western Democracies’ Backslide
United States first amendment to the Constitution once stood out as a north star for freedom of expression. Creative freedom, critical journalism, dissent, and mockery of leaders were all a go.
When attacks against journalists and activists took place around the world, the US and Western democracies stood up. They helped protect journalists, activists, and groups persecuted by strongmen leaders.
But today, that legacy is fading. Freedom of expression and free press are struggling in the West. Political commitment to defend free speech both at home and abroad is waning.
The current administration has hurt free expression and journalism more than any modern American government.
Leaders and influencers from the left and right distorted public narratives to win elections or push through their agenda. Big tech, media, and corporations too have played similar games to build traction and profit.
Leading up to last election, US President Donald Trump and allies cried foul at the left’s attacks at free speech. Democrats’ use of the Espionage Act on whistleblowers and influencing of tech and media to promote narrative compliance and political correctness were called out, albeit exaggerated.
Despite that rhetoric, the current administration has hurt free expression and journalism more than any modern American government.
The president himself has sued major media outlets that criticized him. Two outlets, ABC and CBS, settled, putting profits ahead of defending truth and integrity. Days after comedian Stephen Colbert called the settlement “a big fat bribe,” CBS announced cancellation of the "Late Show," the most popular nightly show in the US.
The list of recent attacks is worryingly long. The Federal Communications Commission threatened broadcast licenses. The White House banned journalists and cut funds to public service broadcasters. A bill to protect journalists from state surveillance stalled, and the executive blacklisted law firms defending critics.
While the US’ butchering of free speech stands out, it’s not alone. The United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, Spain, and other Western democracies are seeing free expression dwindling, though at a slower pace.
The hits come diguised as national security, surveillance, anti-extremism and hate speech, anti-defamation, and protest restrictions. These are the same excuses used in countries with fewer civic freedoms. It is the playbook of extreme authoritarian states China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia.
Global Failure to Protect Free Speech
The world is failing miserably at protecting free speech. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe journalists have faced bloody clampdowns or arrests in attempts to expose the truth. Two hundred journalists have been reportedly killed in Gaza. That the international community took no action shows its gross incompetence or a complete lack of will.
Many governments around the world use censorship to silence truth, block criticism, and deny access to information. Public information and narratives are also perverted by political, business, military, or other interests.
Where there is a lack of transparency of ownership and capture, vested influence stalls open and democratic public conversation. This is particularly the case where civic and democratic freedoms are limited.
Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia continue to use technology, social media, and artificial intelligence to destabilize global democracies. As we speak, the Kremlin is flooding social media with false information and using artificial intelligence tools to influence Moldova’s elections. China has used similar tactics to create anti-democratic narratives in Taiwan.
Effective counter measures seem non-existent on a global scale today. When and where they existed, countering disinformation and fact-checking efforts often were flawed or exclusive. Even the sincere efforts have been seen as partisan by masses owing to more visible and large-scale efforts excluding voices that didn’t fit convenient political and profit motivations.
Only Citizen Demand Can Save Free Speech
Given failures to defend free speech and acceleration attacks, a silver lining seems illusive. While governments, global organizations, and civil society have proposed plenty of solutions, they often end up as mere rhetoric or at best half-baked projects.
Promoting constitutional freedoms, free speech laws, media transparency, journalistic independence, platform accountability, and such only ever get discussed in technocratic forums. In action, they reach only select groups of society, without ever being inclusive.
Bold action is needed but by movements of citizens. We must start by exercising our free speech to demand the same rights and protections be afforded to all. People’s power standing up and demanding change may just tilt the needle beyond rhetoric. Citizens can force significant action by governments, media houses, or tech platforms.
To avoid past failures, we must remember freedom of expression is for everyone, including those who we disagree with. Pope Leo XIV’s wisdom comes handy here, “We have to know how to listen—not to judge, not to shut doors as if we hold all the truth and no one else has anything to offer.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's 'Psychotic' NYT Defamation Lawsuit Elicits Ridicule From Legal Experts
One critic said the lawsuit was "a full frontal attack on free speech" that also "almost reads like a parody."
Sep 16, 2025
US President Donald Trump on Monday evening filed a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times that was quickly ridiculed by legal experts for entirely lacking merit.
In the lawsuit, Trump accused the Times of conspiring to prevent his victory in the 2024 election through a campaign of "election interference" that included, among other things, its editorial board's decision to endorse former Vice President Kamala Harris.
"It came as no surprise when, shortly before the election, the newspaper published, on the front page, highlighted in a location never seen before, its deranged endorsement of Kamala Harris with the hyperbolic opening line '[i]t is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump,'" the lawsuit states.
Pointing to what it claimed was defamatory material published by the Times, the lawsuit singled out "a malicious, defamatory, and disparaging book written by two of its reporters and three false, malicious, defamatory, and disparaging articles, all carefully crafted by Defendants, with actual malice, calculated to inflict maximum damage upon President Trump."
The book in question is "Lucky Loser," written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, which did a deep examination of the president's finances and contrasted it with what it described as his false claims of unprecedented success in business.
The three articles cited by the lawsuit include one that quotes Trump's own former chief of staff, John Kelly, warning that he would rule "like a dictator" in his second term; a news analysis piece that described Trump as facing a well documented "lifetime of scandals"; and an article by Buettner and Craig that is an adapted excerpt from their book.
"The book and articles are part of a decades-long pattern by The New York Times of intentional and malicious defamation against President Trump," the complaint stated. "Defendants maliciously published the book and the articles knowing that these publications were filled with repugnant distortions and fabrications about President Trump."
The lawsuit then demanded the Times pay $15 billion in compensatory damages.
The Times issued a brief response to the lawsuit in which it defended its reporting and labeled Trump's defamation allegations as baseless.
"This lawsuit has no merit," said the paper. "It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people."
Some experts who examined the lawsuit were quick to side with the Times in this dispute, and many of them flat-out ridiculed Trump for filing the suit in the first place.
Holger Hestermeyer, chair of international and EU law at the Vienna School of International Studies, wrote on Bluesky that the lawsuit was "a full frontal attack on free speech" that also "almost reads like a parody."
In addition to lampooning the suit's specific defamation claims, Hestermeyer also mocked the suit for being loaded with hyperbolic statements, including one that said "The Apprentice" reality TV series "represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump's singular brilliance, which captured the zeitgeist of our time."
Attorney George Conway delivered an even pithier dismissal of the suit.
"Is it possible for a legal pleading to be psychotic?" he asked rhetorically. "I think we have an answer."
Chris Geidner, a journalist who publishes the "Law Dork" newsletter, similarly expressed astonishment at the contents of Trump's lawsuit.
"I honestly thought there was a chance that I'd fallen asleep and was dreaming the most absurd, childlike, ego-maniac lawsuit when I tried to read this Trump defamation complaint against the Times, Penguin Random House, and individual journalists," he wrote. "Like, seriously. What are we even doing here, folks?"
Bloomberg columnist Tim O'Brien, who was unsuccessfully sued by Trump for defamation over his 2005 book "TrumpNation," predicted that Trump's lawsuit against the Times would similarly end poorly for him.
"Trump says he plans to sue the Times for $15 billion," O'Brien wrote on Bluesky. "Been there, done that. He sued me for less—$5 billion. Discovery will be invasive and grueling—and involve Trump’s finances, family history and political machinations. And that’s just for starters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular