The American War on Free Speech? A Timeline

Original artwork by Harper Gold

On day one of his second term, President Trump signed twenty-six executive orders, one of which was Executive Order 14149: “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Censorship.” The order accused the previous administration of “trampling free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms” and directed the Attorney General to review all federal activities from the past four years for potential violations of free speech protections. While the measure was introduced as a safeguard for First Amendment rights, critics argue that it marked the beginning of the administration’s own pattern of suppressing expression.

January: Oversight and Education

On January 24, 2025, Trump dismissed seventeen inspectors general across federal agencies. These officials act as internal watchdogs, investigating fraud, waste, and abuse within the government. The mass termination prompted multiple legal challenges questioning its constitutionality. Several experts interpreted it as an attempt to eliminate independent oversight. 

On the same day, the Department of Education closed eleven investigations related to school book bans, framing the decision as an effort to “restore the fundamental rights of parents to direct their children’s education,” according to Acting Assistant Secretary Craig Trainor. Civil liberties groups countered that it signaled a federal retreat from protecting students’ access to diverse materials and perspectives.

February: Press Access and Language Control

On February 11, the Associated Press (AP) was barred from the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other press areas after refusing to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology, using “Gulf of Mexico” with “Gulf of America.” The White House subsequently excluded the AP from broader press-pool events, including a joint news conference with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modie. 

Roughly ten days later, the AP sued three White House officials, alleging a First Amendment violation. In June, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a partial ruling: the administration could continue restricting AP access to “presidential spaces” like the Oval Office but must allow the outlet to attend larger press events. As of November 3, the case was still pending before the Supreme Court.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision, arguing that no journalist has an inherent right to Oval Office access and accusing the AP of spreading misinformation. The administration framed its position as “holding falsehoods accountable,” though critics said it blurred the line between accuracy enforcement and viewpoint control.

Later that month, the Trump administration launched a review of federal websites, flagging hundreds of words for removal or restriction such as “diversity,” “minorities,” “racism,” “women,” “equality,” and “climate change.” Officials denied issuing a formal banned words list, instead directing agencies to comply with executive orders restricting DEI programs and gender terminology. Critics argued that this ambiguity effectively encouraged bureaucratic self-censorship and narrowed public discourse.

March: Protests and the Past

In March, Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestine protest leader, was detained by ICE agents despite being a legal U.S. resident and facing no criminal charges. Another student, Remeysa Ozturk of Tufts University faced similar scrutiny for campus activism. These actions were designed to systematically intimidate student activists and quell campus protests. Officials framed this as enforcing existing immigration law and maintaining campus safety, arguing that some protesters had violated federal statutes beyond their speech activities.

On March 27, Trump issued Executive Order 14177: "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” directing the Smithsonian Institution to avoid exhibits that "degrade shared American values” or “divide Americans based on race.” Supporters framed the measure as restoring neutrality in federal cultural institutions, while critics warned that it amounted to government intervention in historical interpretation and the suppression of contested narratives. 

April: Targeting Officials

On April 9, Donald Trump revoked the security clearance of Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), ordering investigations into his prior work. The presidential memorandum accused Krebs of “abusing government authority” while combatting election misinformation and COVID-19 disinformation during the previous administration. The order directed comprehensive evaluation of CISA's activities over six years, specifically targeting efforts to combat misinformation. This established the precedent for punishing former officials who contradicted Trump's preferred narratives.

May: Defunding Public Media

On May 1, Word Press Freedom Day, Trump signed Executive Order 14202: "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” eliminating $1.1 billion in federal funding for NPR and PBS. The order instructed agencies to “minimize or eliminate indirect funding” of both outlets.

The White House Fact Sheet stated that "NPR and PBS have fueled partisanship and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars," arguing that such outlets should operate independently of public funding. The Cato Institute and other conservative groups supported this move, arguing that it was a legitimate budgetary reform, while press freedom organizations called it a blow to independent journalism.

That week, the administration launched the White House Wire, a taxpayer-funded news platform promoting administration narratives. Critics said the simultaneous defunding of independent media and creation of a state-run platform marked a symbolic turning point in the administration’s relationship with the press.

August-September: Legal and Broadcast Pressure 

In August, the White House had increasingly leaned on litigation as a political tool. The administration filed or settled a series of defamation suits against major networks, including a $10 billion claim against The Wall Street Journal over Jeffrey Epstein-related reporting, a $16 million settlement with Paramount and CBS News over "60 Minutes" coverage, a $15 million settlement with ABC News over host comments, and threats to sue The New York Times and CNN over Iran airstrike reporting. 

On September 15, 2025, Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and several journalists, alleging "industrial-scale defamation.” Trump's legal team argued they were seeking to end unchecked, deliberate defamation by legacy media outlets.”

Later that month, the most striking escalation occurred when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened ABC over Jimmy Kimmel's late-night monologue criticizing Trump's MAGA movement. Disney capitulated, suspending Kimmel "indefinitely." Trump celebrated this victory, calling it, "the courage to do what had to be done.” The ACLU's Christopher Anders condemned the episode as "beyond McCarthyism," while Carr argued that Kimmel had “directly misled the American public.” 

October: Flag Burning and Early Warnings

By October 2025, several major press freedom organizations were sounding alarms. The Committee to Protect Journalists released “Alarm Bells: Trump’s First 100 Days Ramp Up Fear for the Press and Democracy,” while Reporters Without Borders declared the period as “press freedom under siege.” International watchdogs noted similarities to measures used by governments in Hungary and Turkey to consolidate control over information.

On October 8, President Donald Trump claimed his administration "took the freedom of speech away" regarding flag burning, which the Supreme Court has traditionally protected under the First Amendment. Trump pointed to his August executive order directing prosecutors to pursue legal action against flag desecration that incites violence or violates laws, emphasizing the flag's sacred symbolism. Despite this, legal experts note the Supreme Court protects flag burning as free speech unless it provokes imminent lawless action. The administration argues it targets only unlawful acts linked to flag burning, not the act itself, sparking debate over free speech limits and executive power.

What Now?

Taken together, the administration’s actions; funding cuts, access restrictions, defamation suits, regulatory warnings, and linguistic controls; reflect a systematic use of executive power to shape public discourse. Supporters argue these moves restore accountability to a biased media ecosystem and promote ideological balance in public institutions. Detractors counter that they amount to a coordinated campaign to chill dissent and centralize control over information.

What distinguishes Trump’s second term is less the volume of criticism than the machinery behind it. Federal agencies, regulatory bodies, and courts have been drawn into a political struggle over who defines truth and who gets to speak. Each executive order and lawsuit raises a deeper constitutional question: can a government simultaneously claim to defend free speech while deciding which voices are legitimate?

For now, the answer depends on where one believes the greatest threat lies, in unchecked media power or in the state’s growing role as arbiter of what Americans may say, see, and know.