Trump administration engaged in anti-free speech jawboning amid Kimmel cancellation

This analysis is in response to breaking news and it will be updated. Please contact pr@rstreet.org to speak with the author.

In a harrowing week for free speech, President Donald J. Trump and several executive branch officials pursued and punished several individuals and companies for engaging in speech that the administration finds offensive.

Trump suggested in a White House interview that ABC be sued or lose its license for airing certain critical coverage of him. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that the government would prosecute anyone identified as targeting others with “hate speech.” And to top it off, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to pull the broadcast licenses of local ABC affiliates if late-night host Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t fired—a demand with which the network promptly complied. Taken together, these actions represent a serious threat to the First Amendment and the principles of free expression in a democratic society.

This all comes after the administration’s stated recommitment to protecting free speech and pushing back against “jawboning,” (a term used to describe the actions of government officials who pressure private companies to censor their content) in the wake of the Biden administration’s controversial role in encouraging social media platforms to remove COVID-related content. The pivot from championing free speech to wielding state power against speech deemed disagreeable isn’t just ironic—it’s dangerous.

What the current administration fails to understand—or perhaps chooses to ignore—is that speech is a specially protected category in this country. The First Amendment does not include a “disagreeable speech” exception, nor does it allow for censorship in the name of political convenience, personal vendettas, or perceived social good. The government has no constitutional authority to interfere in private speech decisions, whether by direct action or indirect coercion.

These comments and actions from top administration officials mark a disturbing escalation of governmental intrusion into the speech arena. Suing networks, pulling licenses, or threatening legal consequences for dissenting viewpoints are tactics one might expect in authoritarian regimes—not in a country founded on the ideals of individual liberty and limited government.

Moreover, the invocation of terms like “hate speech” or “public interest” as justification for state intervention is deeply troubling. These terms are intentionally vague and endlessly expandable. What is in the public interest, and who gets to define it? Once government actors have the power to make those determinations, every controversial opinion becomes a potential target—and every critic a potential criminal. While there are very narrow limitations on the First Amendment (e.g., defamation), hate speech and the public interest in no way qualify for government involvement in speech.

This is not a hypothetical concern; in fact, history provides ample warning. From the Sedition Acts of the 18th century to McCarthy-era blacklists, the United States has stumbled into moments where fear, power, and politics trumped the Constitution, requiring a reassertion of foundational values to course correct.

The current administration’s flirtation with speech suppression echoes these mistakes and risks normalizing the idea that the state should serve as the arbiter of acceptable discourse. However, once a government has that power, it will not remain confined to one administration or one party. The tools created today can—and will—be used by future officials to silence their own opponents.

Free societies are built on the premise that individuals (rather than bureaucrats) determine the boundaries of conversation. The moment that changes, even under the pretext of protecting the public, is the moment we trade liberty for comfort—and eventually lose both.

If the Trump administration truly values free speech, it must act like it. That means ending all attempts to leverage federal power to chill, punish, or influence private expression, including threats to broadcasters, lawsuits against media outlets, and regulatory pressure on dissenting voices.

Free speech isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a foundational one. And it’s time the people in power started treating it that way.