The Attack on Free Speech Under the Second Trump Administration

Author: Kate Minichiello

November 12, 2025

[Image credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]

Introduction

Recent actions by Trump and his Executive Cabinet suggest that they are not upholding the First Amendment as they promised. Focusing on the second administration, actions have threatened the free speech of news media, universities, law firms, libraries, and data-collecting bureaucracies. Most of the cases are acts of jawboning–“the attempt to persuade or pressure by the force of one’s position of authority” (“Jawboning”). Threats from the federal government create a chilling effect — “a phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation” (Hudson).

Trump’s Executive Order

Trump claims to be an avid protector of free speech, but his actions suggest otherwise. During his first day in office, he made his position on the First Amendment clear. Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship” (Exec. Order. No. 14,149, 2025). According to the White House website, the order's purpose is to address the infringements on the First Amendment that the Biden Administration covered up as misinformation. Section 2, the policy explanation, reinstates the First Amendment, and Section 3 prohibits censorship by stating that no part of the federal government should act or use federal resources to act contrary to Section 2. Additionally, the Attorney General must write a report on the violations of this order conducted under the Biden Administration and provide remedial actions for the listed violations. Considering the clear stance written out in the order, subsequent actions toward media, law firms, libraries, and federal agencies have been characterized by critics as inconsistent with the administration’s stated approach.

Media

The press provides the clearest case, as recent funding bans, high-profile lawsuits, and tightened press-pool control raise concerns about press freedom amongst independent journalists and the press. 

In May, Trump banned the use of congressionally appropriated funds for PBS and NPR, cutting $1.1 billion. According to the executive order, the news stations were failing to produce “fair, accurate, or unbiased” news (Taormino). 

In July, The Wall Street Journal came under fire because it published a letter that Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, which the President claimed was fake news. Trump then filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the journal. He also sued Paramount and CBS for the way they edited their interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race. 

The list of disputes between the administration and the media continues with a lawsuit on ABC about a misquotation, threats against CNN and The New York Times for their coverage on the airstrike on Iran, and denouncing polls that predicted a Kamala win as suppression and illegal.

Within the White House, after over a hundred years of the White House Correspondents’ Association controlling press conference audiences, Trump has taken control of the selection. Following the transfer of power, the White House banned the Associated Press (AP) from the press pool. The Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, claimed it was because the AP spreads lies and continues to use the name “Gulf of Mexico,” although Trump renamed it “Gulf of America” (Taormino). 

More recently, on October 15th, journalists at the Pentagon turned in their badges and walked out after being asked to sign onto new restrictions. The restrictions include getting authorization for all publications by an authorizing official. The journalists represented networks ranging from The Washington Post to the administration-friendly Fox News (Politico). 

These moves resemble acts of jawboning and may contribute to a chilling effect across independent media. 

Universities

In higher education, many fear that conditional funding and directives from the administration may cause a chilling effect across universities. Trump’s demands of universities nationwide may stem from his belief that universities feed their students with progressive ideologies and are “infested with radicalism like never before” (Smith-Schoenwalder). Recently, Trump asked nine universities to agree to a list of demands in order to get priority for federal funding. Among the requests were protections for conservative voices and a limit on the number of international students allowed to enroll (Hartocollis, Anemona, et al.). 

Ted Mitchell, the former President of the American Council on Education, responded to the letters sent to universities by saying, “Today it is these things. Next week, it may be a whole new set. This is a power play, and it is designed to divide the higher education community.” (Bender). The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, opposed Trump’s proposals by stating that he would reduce state funding to universities that accepted the deal (Hartocollis, Anemona, et al.). 

The University of Virginia (UVA) was among these nine universities, and its former President, Jim Ryan, had his own controversies with Trump. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice called out UVA for still using Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies despite Trump's executive order to ban them, leading Ryan to resign early instead of fighting the administration on the issue (Schmidt).

 In April, Harvard University and President Trump began a high-profile legal battle. The administration believed the university did not do enough to battle antisemitism, leading them to demand changes in hiring practices, admissions, and several policies on conduct and admissions or face over $2 billion in cuts in federal funding. This included a call for stricter disciplinary measures against student protesters. The school refused to accept the demands, with the university president, Alan M. Garber, saying, “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue” (Bianco). Harvard sued Trump and ultimately won the battle in September when the Judge claimed the termination of $2.2 billion in grants was illegal and “targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” (Smith-Schoenwalder). 

Columbia University encountered a similar conflict when its campus became a focal point for pro-Palestinian protests. Trump cut $400 million from their funding and instructed them to revise their protest policies and reorganize the leadership within the Middle Eastern Studies Department (Smith-Schoenwalder).

 Some universities resist orders sent by the administration, exclaiming the importance of protecting institutional freedom. However, others rely too heavily on federal funding to incur the costs, leading them to follow orders that do not align with their values or the First Amendment. Together, these disputes align with a broader pattern of administrative pressure that critics say risks self-censorship on campus.

Concessions in agreements with the Trump Administration across universities and law firms. [Image Credit: New York Times]

Law Firms

As shown in the graphic above, federal funding cuts are impacting major law firms nationwide, pressuring them to focus on specific ideologically aligned issues instead of litigating freely. The chart shows that all 9 major law firms have had concessions in money or services, redefining discrimination, additional oversight, and assessing their ideology, in deals with the administration. The law firms involved in deals with Trump either had staff members who had investigated Trump in the past, worked closely with someone who had, were prominently Democratic, or often criticized the President (Wu). Four of the nine law firms refused to strike deals with the President and instead filed lawsuits, resulting in a temporary block on the targeted executive orders. Trump has recently attempted to appeal the rulings. 

Evidence suggests the cherry picking of law firms is biased towards those that have worked to check the President's power or oppose his views. A writer from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression explains that the actions are a targeted assault on “the ability of private attorneys to bring lawsuits against the government.” The writer goes on to ask, “If the Trump administration can target specific firms on this basis, what prevents future administrations from blacklisting firms that represent, say, gun-rights groups?” (Vile). As the writer suggested, the administration's actions have widespread ripple effects that could lead to a pattern of threats to speech protection and the chilling of specific aspects of advocacy.

Libraries

Regarding libraries, authorities are banning books and firing librarians — affecting what is available to read. The head librarian of the Library of Congress, Carla Hayden, was fired by Trump, and he provided no explanation for the decision. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said Hayden was “putting inappropriate books in the library for children”, although the library is not open to children. The federal government is banning books across the nation based on topics like the LGBTQ+ community, gender, and race. The free speech organization PEN America recently released a report on the banning of books, highlighting how the frequency of such actions is desensitizing. PEN found that “3,750 unique titles were banned in 87 school districts across the country” and “over the last four school years, the organization has tracked nearly 23,000 cases of book bans across 45 states” (Harris). 

Museums, another important source of history, have come under heightened scrutiny. The administration has been conducting in-depth evaluations of the Smithsonian because Trump believes it only discusses “how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was” (Kanno-Youngs). The White House told the Smithsonian they expect them to “adjust any content that the administration finds problematic in ‘tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals’ within 120 days” (Kanno-Youngs). A presidential historian, Douglas Brinkley, responded to the minimization of black history by saying, “It is what led to our Civil War and is a defining aspect of our national history. And the Smithsonian deals in a robust way with what slavery was, but it also deals with human rights and civil rights in equal abundance”(Kanno-Youngs). The censorship of our history and progressive topics, in libraries and museums, is widely viewed as a blatant infringement on the freedom of authors, historians, and students. 

Along with previously discussed domains, the censorship on libraries adds to the overwhelming pressure on the First Amendment.

Federal Agencies

The chilling effect may be reaching the executive branch as well, causing staff to be reluctant to release unflattering information. The head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, was fired immediately following her release of data that showed slow job growth and revised earlier reports to be lower than previously stated. Trump used his social media to exclaim that she had rigged the reports and that the Bureau must fire her. McEntarfer said that previous meetings with advisors had seemed to go well, with no warnings, so this was out of the blue for her.

This raises concerns not only for the First Amendment but also for the economy. The Bureau has a duty to release truthful reports on the state of our economy. Aggressive actions, such as job termination, taken against those who release facts that put Trump's performance in a negative light, create a chilling effect. The effect causes other government officials to fear being honest when it is not favorable, leading to biased reports (Niedzwiadek). 

Jimmy Kimmel Suspension

More recently, the suspension of the late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel in September sparked nationwide conversation about freedom of speech. Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist, was assassinated at Utah Valley University. Following the assassination, right-wing political actors took to public platforms to claim the assassination was related to the radical left. Vice President JD Vance said, “We have to talk about this incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism that has grown up over the last few years and, I believe, is part of the reason why Charlie was killed by an assassin’s bullet”(The Free Speech Center). On Jimmy Kimmel’s nightly show, he stated, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”(The Free Speech Center). The chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, threatened Kimmel by saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take actions, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead”(The Free Speech Center). 

The FCC’s website explains the commission's stance on freedom of speech by saying, “Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seeks to encourage responsive 'counter-speech' from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive”, suggesting a different position than the one Carr has taken (The FCC and Speech). 

]

Following Carr’s comment, ABC told NPR that it would indefinitely preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live. Disney, ABC’s parent company, stated the termination was due to the “ill-timed and thus insensitive” joke made by Kimmel (Saad). In the coming days, many conservatives exclaimed that Kimmel’s comments were inappropriate and disgusting. Many actors, comedians, and liberal politicians used public media to express their concerns about what this means in terms of the First Amendment. Facing an overwhelming disapproval of Kimmel’s suspension, ABC announced the show host’s return just 5 days later. According to a Yahoo/YouGov survey, 58% of Americans approve of Kimmel’s return, while 28% disapprove (Romano). 

Under the First Amendment, ABC was acting within its legal limits when it suspended Kimmel, as it is a private company. The threat made by the FCC Chair, raises concerns amongst the American public about what this means for the freedom of all stations. Comments made by executive officials with threatening language when they don’t like what was said may lead stations to preemptively censor their language to avoid repercussions — as a result of the chilling effect.

Echoes of the McCarthy Era

The wide-ranging encroachments on citizens' freedom of speech across the nation raise the question: Is this unprecedented? Are the actions of the President new tactics to enforce power and ideas, or is this a repeat of history? Is jawboning a common approach by officials?

Law professor at Seton Hall Law School and Membership Officer of the International Bar Association (IBA) Human Rights Law Committee, Johnathan Hafetz, said, “We are seeing the gravest assault on freedom of speech at least since the McCarthy era, and I think in many respects the nation’s history” (Johnson). Joseph McCarthy was a senator in the 1950s who was extremely anti-communist following World War II, during the height of the Red Scare. During the McCarthy era (1950-54), Hollywood stars created a committee for the First Amendment to combat the repression of American Citizens for their political beliefs. This year, on October 1st, 330 celebrities relaunched the committee to stand against the government's “coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry” (Committee for the First Amendment). The activist and actor Jane Fonda, the daughter of original member Henry Fonda, headlines the committee (Tsioulca). Although there are similar historical examples to his individual actions, “in modern times, no president has gone so far in using his power to pressure media figures and political opponents”, according to many historians (Baker). The unprecedented nature of Trump’s actions demands the urgent attention of the American people and the continued oversight of his powers. The historical parallel of McCarthy highlights the risk that perceived pressure restricts public discourse.

Joseph McCarthy and his right-hand man, Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn goes on to be one of Trump's mentors. [© APA—Hulton Archive/Getty Images]

Why Free Speech Matters

The threat to free speech has spread across many different institutions, and is not limited to those directly affected. The chilling effect of the threats creates fear among all institutions as they weigh the potential consequences of acting in a way that opposes the administration's views. To many Americans, the sense of safety that the First Amendment once brought does not feel as concrete anymore. 

Freedom of speech is widely understood to be essential to our democracy because it enables open and productive discussions on all controversial topics. The censorship of opinions deemed controversial or biased does not change them, but open discussion can. Discussion is how a nation can grow and improve—without it, we remain stagnant. Additionally, in order to have a representative government, voters must be presented with truthful and accurate information. Once political officials are perceived as using their power to pressure and change the ideas of universities, books, people, institutions, and news stations, the freedom of speech is in great danger.

Several guardrails could protect the First Amendment from informal pressures. One being monthly disclosures of senior-official communications with the institutions discussed above. Second, any change in funding should be based on clear, written, publicly available criteria with a brief written rationale. Finally, with the change in authority over the White House press pool, codified inclusion or exclusion criteria should be published to justify the selection of media outlets.

Across media, universities, law, culture, federal agencies, and entertainment, recent conflicts point to a growing pressure around speech. Even when laws stay the same, perceived pressure can make people and institutions hold back. Protecting open debate and reliable information is essential to public trust and a healthy democracy. In order to do so, our government must resist using federal funds to pressure decisions about what people can publish, teach, air, or display, or else jawboning will create a chilling effect which decays the democratic value of free speech. 

---

Glossary

• Academia: The world of higher education and scholarly research.

• Administration: The executive branch leadership during a president’s term (the president and their appointees/agencies).

• Antisemitism:  Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews.

• Appeal / Appellate: To ask a higher court to review a lower court’s decision; “appellate” relates to appeals.

• Attorney General: The chief legal officer of the United States (heads the Department of Justice) or of a state.

• Blacklist / Blacklisting: To exclude or deny opportunities by putting someone on a list to be avoided.

• Bureaucracy: A system of administration with formal rules and hierarchy; often refers to government agencies.

• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): A U.S. agency that produces official data on employment, prices, and other labor-economics topics.

• Censorship: The control or suppression of what may be published, broadcast, or said.

• Chilling effect: A phenomenon where individuals or groups refrain from engaging in expression for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation.

• Congressionally appropriated funds / Appropriation: Money set aside by Congress for specific purposes.

• Counterspeech: Responding to harmful or erroneous speech with more speech that corrects or challenges it, rather than suppressing it.

• Defamation: False statements presented as fact that harm a person’s reputation (libel if written, slander if spoken).

• Disciplinary measures: Sanctions or actions an institution takes in response to rule violations.

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Policies and programs that aim to promote diversity, fairness, and belonging in institutions.

• Executive Cabinet: Senior officials (secretaries) who head executive departments and advise the president.

• Executive order: An order issued by the president (or other executive) under authority granted to the executive branch.

• First Amendment: The part of the U.S. Constitution that protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

• Ideologically motivated: Driven by a particular system of beliefs or ideas.

• Independent journalism / press freedom: News reporting free from government control; the right of the press to gather and publish information.

• Infringement / Infringe: A violation or encroachment on a right or law.

• Jawboning: Using the authority of office to pressure private actors to take certain actions, often through threats or public pressure rather than formal law.

• Misinformation: False or inaccurate information, especially when spread unintentionally.

• Pollster: A person or firm that conducts public-opinion polls.

• Preempt (broadcasting): To replace a scheduled TV or radio program with different content.

• Press pool: A small, rotating group of journalists who share coverage when access is limited (e.g., at the White House).

• Progressive ideologies: Political beliefs favoring reform or social change.

• Radicalism / Radical: Advocacy of fundamental or far-reaching political or social change.

• Remedial (remedial actions): Intended to correct a problem or provide a remedy.

• Rigged: Manipulated or fixed to produce a desired outcome.

---

References

1. Baker, Pete. “In Assault on Free Speech, Trump Targets Speech He Hates - The New York Times.” The New York Times, 21 Sept. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/09/21/us/politics/trump-free-speech.html.

2. Baêta, Sabrina. “The Normalization of Book Banning.” PEN America, 1 Oct. 2025, pen.org/report/the-normalization-of-book-banning/#heading-10.

3. Bender, Michael C. “Trump Administration Asks Colleges to Sign ‘Compact’ to Get Funding Preference - The New York Times.” The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2025, archive.ph/2025.10.02-123501/https:/www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/politics/trump-college-funding.html.

4. Bianco, Ali. “Harvard Takes a $2B Hit after Defying Trump Administration.” Politico, 14 Apr. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/04/14/harvard-university-trump-federal-grants-00289619.

5. “Committee for the First Amendment.” Committee for the First Amendment, 1 Oct. 2025, www.committeeforthefirstamendment.com/.

6. Executive Order. No. 14149, 2025, pp. 8243–44.

7. Executive Order. No. 14290, 2025, pp. 19415–16.

8. The Free Speech Center. “Kimmel’s Back: Timeline of Who Said What and When.” Middle Tennessee State University , 23 Sept. 2025, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/kimmels-back-the-timeline-of-who-said-what-and-when/.

9. "The Trump Administration's War on Free Speech, the McCarthy Analogy, and the Limits of the First Amendment-- Part One." Balkinization, 5 July 2025. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A846686506/AONE?u=uga&sid=ebsco&xid=bb05de3a. Accessed 1 Oct. 2025.

10. Harris, Elizabeth A. “‘Rampant’ Book Bans Are Now Taken for Granted, Free Speech Group Warns.” The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/10/01/books/book-bans-pen-america.html.

11. Hartocollis, Anemona, et al. “Trump Asked Universities to Sign a Compact. Some See a Trap.” The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/trump-universities-compact-funding.html.

12. Hudson, David L. “Chilling Effect Overview.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overview. Accessed 6 Oct. 2025.

13. “Jawboning, N.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/8715630123.

14. Johnson, Alice. “Trump’s Assault on the First Amendment.” International Bar Association, 14 May 2025, www.ibanet.org/Trumps-assault-on-the-First-Amendment.

15. Kanno-Youngs, Zolan. “Trump Says Smithsonian Focuses Too Much on ‘How Bad Slavery Was.’” The New York Times, 19 Aug. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/us/politics/trump-smithsonian-slavery.html.

16. Kilgore, Ed. “It’s Hard to Fight McCarthyism When McCarthy Is President.” NYMag, Intelligencer, 2 Oct. 2025, nymag.com/intelligencer/article/its-hard-to-fight-mccarthyism-when-mccarthy-is-president.html.

17. Martin, Roland. “Red Scare.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc., 2 Oct. 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/Red-Scare-politics.

18. Niedzwiadek, Nick. “Ex-BLS Chief Said She Was Blindsided by Trump Firing.” Politico, 16 Sept. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/ex-bls-chief-said-she-was-blindsided-by-trump-firing-00567852. 

19. Romano, Andrew. Poll: Americans Approve of Jimmy Kimmel’s Return to TV by a More than 2-to-1 Margin, Yahoo!entertainment, 30 Sept. 2025, www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tv/article/poll-americans-approve-of-jimmy-kimmels-return-to-tv-by-a-more-than-2-to-1-margin-183746388.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGcdZW-LHsv6btRQUKrgSWRdO_4pl-dd_G5_xFZKPfJnRs2ZLlg8qgBavhMbdhn3-wh4KTVB-PfQ6fE0ALJbk_gGH7xqYHzRWXxrAZUJz4eoZbEwlQX6it-SiukkrpEZjB2oE80umov2SsafDMtHC1K1IEi2GFMYjAc4yoPhZA9g.

20. Saad, Nardine. “Disney Reinstates Jimmy Kimmel after Suspension over Charlie Kirk Remarks.” BBC News, BBC, 23 Sept. 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c701jr01dj2o. 

21. Schmidt, Michael  S., and Michael C. Bender. “University of Virginia President Resigns under Pressure from Trump Administration - The New York Times.” University of Virginia President Resigns Under Pressure From Trump Administration, 27 June 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/us/politics/uva-president-resigns-jim-ryan-trump.html.

22. Smith-Schoenwalder, Cecelia. “Tracking Trump’s Crackdown on Higher Education.” U.S. News, 3 Oct. 2025, www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/trumps-higher-education-crackdown-visa-revocations-dei-bans-lawsuits-and-funding-cuts.

23. Taormino, Ellessandra. “Trump’s Attacks on Press Freedom Escalate: NPR, PBS Funding Cuts Explained.” American Civil Liberties Union, 5 Aug. 2025, www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/trumps-attacks-on-press-freedom-escalate-npr-pbs-funding-cuts-explained.

24. “The FCC and Speech .” Federal Communications Commission, 2022, www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech. 

25. Tsioulcas, Anastasia. “Hundreds of Celebrities Relaunch a McCarthy-Era Committee to Defend Free Speech.” NPR, 1 Oct. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/10/01/nx-s1-5559223/committee-for-the-first-amendment-jane-fonda-billie-eilish-pedro-pascal-gracie-abrams.

26. United States. “Amendment I.” The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. National Archives, 7 Aug. 2025, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

27. Vile, John R. “Control of Library of Congress.” The Free Speech Center, Middle Tennessee State University , 21 May 2025, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/control-of-library-of-congress/.

28. Vile, John R. “Trump’s Executive Orders against Law Firms.” The Free Speech Center, Middle Tennessee State University , 2 Oct. 2025, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/trumps-executive-orders-against-law-firms/.

29. Wendler, Jacob. “Pro-Trump Outlets Flock to the Pentagon under New Media Policy.” Politico, 22 Oct. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/10/22/pentagon-trump-press-corps-00619002. 

30. Wizner, Ben, and Vera Eidelman. “Protecting Free Speech in the Face of Government Retaliation.” American Civil Liberties Union, 18 Sept. 2025, www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/protecting-free-speech-in-the-face-of-government-retaliation.

31. Wu, Ashley. “What Has the Trump Administration Gotten from Law Firms and Universities?” The New York Times, 5 Sept. 2025, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/06/us/trump-deals-law-firms-universities-concessions.html.