“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.

This month, in a speech to Congress, President Trump asserted that he has “restored free speech to America.” However, only two months into his second term, the president has launched an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment liberties of journalists, students, academic institutions, government employees, legal practitioners, and judges.

This article delves into a series of recent measures implemented by the Trump administration that pose a threat to all five tenets of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards freedoms related to speech, religion, the press, the right to assemble, and the ability to petition the government for remedies concerning injustices.

THE RIGHT TO PETITION

The right to petition empowers citizens to communicate with the government, whether to express grievances, request action, or share perspectives — devoid of fear of retaliation. Yet this right is under siege from the current administration on various fronts. To begin with, numerous GOP legislators are now following their leadership’s guidance to avoid local town hall gatherings and escape the ire of constituents impacted by the administration’s numerous federal budget and workforce reductions.

As another instance, President Trump recently dismissed most of the personnel responsible for handling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government bodies. FOIA serves as a vital instrument employed by journalists and the public to obtain government records and to hold officials accountable.

The most significant revelation this week came from The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who described his experience of being accidentally included in a Signal group chat featuring National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and 16 other Trump administration officials outlining preparations for a forthcoming assault on Yemen.

A notable aspect of Goldberg’s astonishing account is that by strategizing and organizing the strike on Signal — which provides messages that can self-destruct after a brief period — officials were evidently attempting to avoid creating a long-lasting (and potentially FOIA-accessible) record of their discussions.

“Whether intended or not, the utilization of Signal in this scenario constituted an act of deletion—because in the absence of Jeffrey Goldberg being inadvertently included in the thread, the general populace would lack any record of these communications or means of knowing they even took place,” Tony Bradley noted this week at Forbes.

Petitioning the government, especially when it disregards your appeals, frequently necessitates contesting federal agencies legally. However, this process becomes exceedingly challenging if the most skilled law firms begin to shy away from cases that might involve opposing the president and his administration.

On March 22, the president released a memorandum instructing the leaders of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “pursue sanctions against attorneys and law firms that engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and harassing litigation against the United States,” or in issues that come before federal agencies.

The POTUS recently announced several executive actions criticizing specific law firms with attorneys who have worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president declared that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had consented to provide $100 million in pro bono assistance on matters he supports.

Trump issued a further order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to contribute $40 million in pro bono legal support for the president’s initiatives.

Other Trump executive actions targeted law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both of which employ attorneys who collaborated with special counsel Robert Mueller during the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Nevertheless, this week, two federal judges issued separate rulings blocking parts of those orders.

“There is no question that this retaliatory measure suppresses speech and legal advocacy, which constitutes a constitutional injury,” wrote Judge Richard Leon, who ruled against the executive directive aimed at WilmerHale.

Recently, President Trump took the unusual measure of calling for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against the administration. Trump labeled U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and called for his removal for obstructing the deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members citing a rarely used wartime legal authority.

In a rare public critique of a sitting president, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a statement on March 18 emphasizing that “For more than two centuries, it has been upheld that impeachment is not an appropriate response to differences of opinion regarding a judicial ruling.”

The U.S. Constitution stipulates that judges can only be removed from their positions through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Additionally, the Constitution enshrines that judges’ salaries cannot be diminished while they remain in office.

Undaunted, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested this week that the administration might still harness its financial power to regulate the judiciary, and even proposed the outright abolition of federal courts.

“As you know, we do possess authority over the federal courts,” Johnson stated. “We can abolish an entire district court. We have financial control over the courts, along with all these other matters. However, urgent circumstances call for extreme measures.”

“initiatives, and Congress is set to respond, so keep an eye on that.”

RIGHT TO GATHER

President Trump has implemented various measures to hinder lawful gatherings at universities and colleges nationwide, threatening to withdraw federal funding from any institution that endorses demonstrations he categorizes as “illegal.”

A Trump executive order issued in January detailed an extensive federal crackdown on what he described as “the surge of antisemitism” on U.S. college campuses. This administration claims that international students legally present in the United States on visas do not possess the same rights to free speech or due process as citizens do.

Reuters reveals that the acting civil rights director at the Department of Education (DOE) on March 10 communicated with 60 educational institutions, cautioning them they risk losing federal funding if they do not intensify their efforts against anti-Semitism. On March 20, Trump issued a decree demanding the closure of the DOE.

In the meantime, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and attempting to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally residing in the United States. The administration is focusing on students and academics who criticized Israel’s assaults on Gaza or engaged in campus demonstrations against U.S. support for those assaults. Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed reporters on Thursday that at least 300 international students have had their visas revoked under President Trump, a significantly larger number than was previously acknowledged.

During his first term, Trump threatened to deploy the national guard or the U.S. military to confront protesters, and in seeking re-election, he pledged to reconsider that option.

“I believe the larger issue stems from the enemy within,” Trump stated to Fox News in October 2024. “We have some very dangerous individuals. We have some disturbed individuals, radical left extremists. And I view them as the major issue — and this should be easily managed, if required, by the National Guard, or if truly warranted, by the military, as they cannot allow such occurrences.”

In this term, Trump promptly initiated the removal of the top legal representatives in the armed forces who would likely resist any request from the president to deploy U.S. troops to suppress public demonstrations or to arrest and detain immigrants. In late February, the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed the senior legal officials for the military services — those accountable for ensuring compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice by commanders.

Military.com alerts that the purge “establishes a concerning precedent for a vital role in the military, as President Donald Trump has contemplated utilizing the military in unconventional and potentially unlawful manners.” Hegseth told journalists the dismissals were essential, as he did not want them to create any “obstacles to commands issued by a commander in chief.”

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

President Trump has filed lawsuits against various U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other smaller media entities for unfavorable coverage.

In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent company Paramount, Trump alleges they edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris unfairly prior to the 2024 election. The television news program published transcripts of the interview central to the dispute last month; however, Paramount is reportedly exploring a settlement to avoid jeopardizing its prospects for obtaining governmental approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.

The president sued The Des Moines Register and its parent organization, Gannett, for releasing a poll that indicated Trump was trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential election in Iowa (a state that supported Trump). The POTUS is also pursuing action against the Pulitzer Prize board regarding awards given in 2018 to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The validity or success of any of the president’s lawsuits against media entities is perhaps beside the main point. The approach of litigating against the media is to compel journalists and newsrooms to reconsider criticizing or questioning the president and his administration. The president is also aware that some media organizations may choose to settle to avoid further complications.

Trump also took legal action against ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for claiming that the president had been found liable for “rape” in a civil suit [Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll]. ABC’s parent company, Disney, resolved that allegation by agreeing to contribute $15 million towards the Trump Presidential Library.

Subsequent to the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Facebook blocked President Trump’s account. Trump filed suit against Meta, and following the president’s triumph in 2024, Meta settled and consented to pay Trump $25 million: $22 million designated for his presidential library, and the remainder for legal expenses. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg additionally declared that Facebook and Instagram would eliminate fact-checkers and instead depend on user-submitted “community notes” to counteract misinformation on the social media platform.

Brendan Carr, who is the president’s nomination to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has committed to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for ordinary Americans.” However, on January 22, 2025, the FCC reopened

complaints lodged against ABC, CBS, and NBC regarding their reporting on the 2024 election. The former chair of the FCC had dismissed these grievances as assaults on the First Amendment and an effort to weaponize the agency for political motives.

As reported by Reuters, the allegations prompt a probe into how ABC News handled the pre-election television debate involving Trump and Biden, along with the appearances of then-Vice President Harris on 60 Minutes and NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”

Since the initial complaints, the FCC has initiated inquiries into NPR and PBS, claiming that they are violating sponsorship regulations. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a think tank located in Washington, D.C., pointed out that the FCC is also examining KCBS in San Francisco for its coverage of the whereabouts of federal immigration agencies.

“Even if these investigations ultimately conclude without further action, the initiation of such inquiries — along with the implicit threat to the news organizations’ operating licenses — can deter the press from covering stories that the Administration disfavors,” stated the CDT’s Kate Ruane.

Trump has frequently threatened to “revise” libel statutes, aiming to simplify the process of suing media entities for negative coverage. However, this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge presented by Trump backer and Las Vegas casino tycoon Steve Wynn to overturn the pivotal 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which protects the press from libel lawsuits stemming from legitimate criticism of public figures.

The president has also insisted on selecting which journalists and news agencies will be granted access to cover White House affairs and participate in the press pool that follows the president. He excluded the Associated Press from the White House and Air Force One due to their refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico using an alternative name.

Additionally, the Defense Department has instructed several prominent media organizations to vacate their offices at the Pentagon, encompassing CNN, The Hill, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Politico, and National Public Radio.

“Incoming media organizations include the New York Post, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, the Free Press, the Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Huffington Post, and One America News Network, the majority of which are perceived as conservative or supportive of Republican President Donald Trump,” reported Reuters.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Shortly after Trump resumed office in January 2025, the administration started disseminating lists of numerous words that government employees and agencies are prohibited from using in their communications and reports.

The Brookings Institution indicates that in an effort to comply with this anti-speech directive, federal agencies have discarded countless taxpayer-funded datasets from numerous government websites, including information concerning crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development.

The New York Times states that in the last two months, hundreds of terabytes of data-driven resources have been removed from government websites.

“While in many instances the fundamental data remains available, the tools that allow the public and researchers to interact with that data have been eliminated,” The Times reported.

On January 27, Trump issued a memorandum (PDF) that halted all federally funded initiatives pending a review of those programs to ensure alignment with the administration’s priorities. Among these priorities was preventing any funding from contributing to “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering agendas.”

According to the CDT, this order represents a blatant endeavor to compel government grantees to refrain from expressing opinions that the current administration finds objectionable, such as discourse surrounding the merits of diversity, climate change, and LGBTQ topics.

“The First Amendment does not allow the government to discriminate against grantees based on their disapproval of certain viewpoints those grantees represent,” argued the CDT’s Ruane. “In fact, those entities challenging the constitutionality of the order raised similar claims in their complaint and achieved an injunction that halts its application.”

On January 20, concurrently with Trump’s executive order concerning free speech, the president also released an executive order named “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which froze funding for initiatives administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Among these were programs intended to support civil society and human rights organizations, journalists, and others combating digital suppression and Internet blackouts.

As per the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this encompasses numerous freedom technologies that utilize cryptographic techniques, challenge censorship, and safeguard freedom of expression, privacy, and anonymity for millions globally.

“Although the State Department has issued a few limited waivers, it appears that those waivers do not cover the open-source internet freedom technologies,” the EFF commented regarding the USAID disruptions. “Consequently, many of these initiatives are forced to halt or significantly reduce their efforts, terminate talented staff, and suspend or slow further development.”

On March 14, the president signed another executive order that effectively dismantled the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which supervises or funds media platforms like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America (VOA). The USAGM also manages Radio Free Asia, which advocates assert has been one of the most dependable tools used by the government to counter Chinese propaganda.

However, this week, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed by Reagan, temporarily halted the USAGM’s shutdown ordered by the administration.

“RFE/RL has, for decades, functioned as one of the organizations designated by Congress to implement this policy,” Lamberthauthored a 10-page ruling. “The management of USAGM cannot, based on a single sentence of justification offering nearly no clarity, compel RFE/RL to cease operations — even if the President has instructed them to do so.”

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

The Trump administration revoked a long-standing guideline that directed officers to refrain from carrying out immigration enforcement actions in or nearby “sensitive” or “protected” locations, including places of worship, educational institutions, and medical facilities.

This directive was swiftly contested in a lawsuit initiated by a coalition of Quakers, Baptists, and Sikhs, who contended that the policy change was hindering individuals from attending services due to fears of being detained for civil immigration infractions. On February 24, a federal judge concurred and prohibited ICE agents from entering houses of worship or targeting migrants within proximity.

The president’s executive order purportedly aimed at addressing antisemitism was accompanied by a fact sheet that characterized college campuses as “infested” with “terrorists” and “jihadists.” Numerous religious organizations voiced concerns regarding the order, asserting it seeks to exploit antisemitism and foster “dehumanizing anti-immigrant policies.”

The president additionally declared the establishment of a “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” which will be chaired by Attorney General Pam Bondi. This comes despite Christianity being the most widespread faith in America, with considerable representation in Congress.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist clergy member and leader of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, released a statement accusing Trump of duplicity by asserting to support religion while forming the task force.

“From permitting immigration raids in religious sites, to targeting faith-based organizations, to stifling religious diversity, the Trump Administration’s intrusive governance is violating religious freedom in ways we haven’t seen for generations,” Raushenbush remarked.

A statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State warned that the task force might result in the persecution of those belonging to different faiths.

“Instead of safeguarding religious beliefs, this task force will misappropriate religious freedom to rationalize prejudice, discrimination, and the undermining of our civil rights legislation,” stated Rachel Laser, the organization’s president and CEO.

What direction is President Trump headed with these overt assaults on the First Amendment? The president has openly expressed admiration for autocratic leaders and “strongmen” throughout the globe, with particular fondness for Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on two occasions in the past year.

A March 15 article in The Atlantic by Hungarian investigative journalist András Pethő details how Orbán ascended to prominence by centralizing authority over the judiciary and constructing his own media landscape while simultaneously tightening control on the independent press.

“As I observe from afar what’s transpiring with the free press in the United States during the early weeks of Trump’s second term — the verbal intimidation, the legal pressure, the capitulation by media proprietors in the face of threats — it all appears quite familiar,” Pethő noted. “The MAGA administration has assimilated Orbán’s strategies effectively.”