Trump is committed to free speech and firing Jimmy Kimmel
President Donald Trump was asked about free speech and firing Jimmy Kimmel at a press conference in the UK
- Free speech advocates, lawyers, and experts from around the world gathered at Vanderbilt University in Nashville for the Global Free Speech Summit.
- Although there was disagreement among some speakers regarding the Trump administration’s actions related to the speech, there was broad agreement that efforts must be made to protect free speech worldwide.
- Among the topics was recent survey data showing that 65% of Americans are afraid to speak freely.
NASHVILLE – The state of free speech in America is in turmoil.
The issue took center stage as free speech advocates, lawyers and experts from around the world recently convened at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
Conversations at the World Free Speech Summit focused on the recent pressures facing the First Amendment in the United States. Lawyers and academics largely agreed that the government has played an “unprecedented” and creative role in seeking to curtail certain speech since the Trump administration took office in January.
There was agreement on this, even among those who didn’t see eye to eye with the government’s actions. Cultures around the world that are more hostile to free speech require immediate action, especially as political violence becomes more common.
“I always have to be very clear: You have a first amendment right to engage in cancel culture,” said Greg Lukianoff, CEO and president of the Individual Rights and Expression Foundation (FIRE). “What I’m saying is, take a deep breath, people. Do you want to live in a country where you can have strong opinions and work?”
Free speech issues have dominated headlines in recent weeks, especially since the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Civil servants have been fired, the head of the Federal Communications Commission has made veiled threats against ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has drawn criticism, including from conservatives, over comments she made about targeting hate speech.
Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, and Bondi later revealed that the Justice Department would target hate speech that leads to violence.
This comes on top of President Donald Trump’s policies targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, increasing criticism of what’s aired on television, targeting pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses, and filing lawsuits against news media.
Key takeaways from this global gathering include:
Is this the worst moment for free speech in US history? rage of debate
Harvard University Professor Randall Kennedy and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley debated whether the Trump administration’s pressure on free speech represents the worst period in American history.
Kennedy insisted yes, saying Trump’s “brazen disregard” of executive orders and laws was worse than anything he had seen before. He pointed to an executive order in which Trump issued a law firm labeling work for his political enemies as a national security threat. The order revoked the government’s contract with the company and the attorney’s security clearance.
Turley said Kennedy’s opinion did not take into account how censored the Biden administration was, especially when it came to pressure on social media companies during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.
It also failed to recognize the Trump administration’s positive steps toward free speech, such as rejecting the European Union’s digital services law. The law modernizes regulations for how tech companies navigate “illegal and harmful activity online” and the “spread of disinformation.” Turley said free speech advocates had long been looking for an ally in the White House to reject the DSA.
Turley said the fact that federal courts held sway against both sides of the Trump administration showed the system was working. He said the lack of productivity by Congress reflects the true polarization of the nation.
He acknowledged that it was a problem for the government to try to quash dissent, but said the court gave Trump the upper hand by targeting law firms. “The rule of law is not dead in this country,” Turley said.
Although Kennedy hopes his own alarm will be proven wrong, he said he believes political rights need to return to the principles of limited government, separation of powers and transparency.
Lack of understanding worsens the culture of debate
A few weeks apart, the Freedom Forum and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released a study that found Americans lack understanding of the First Amendment, but students are more accepting of violence. Both, Freedom Forum’s Kevin Goldberg and Lukianoff agree, are threats to the country’s free speech culture.
Americans are largely divided on how far the First Amendment should go, a Freedom Forum survey found. The number of Americans who identify the First Amendment as a constitutional right remains high, 9 in 10, but the number who can describe how it affects their daily lives remains low. When asked to name all five freedoms, only one in ten were able to do so.
“The purpose of the First Amendment is not to change minds. The purpose of the First Amendment is to be able to even speak in the first place,” said Goldberg, a corrections attorney and expert. “Everyone wants to use free speech to win, but free speech is not a zero-sum game.”
Students at colleges and universities across the country have increasingly negative views of First Amendment rights on campus, the fire has found. Students in record numbers are increasingly supporting destructive tactics, including violence, silencing controversial speakers and suppressing opposing viewpoints over the past five years.
“This is a disaster,” Lukyanov said.
Both surveys found that Americans are increasingly afraid to express their rights. A majority of Americans (65%) say they are afraid to speak out freely, citing fear of violence, tensions with friends and family, or perceptions.
The role of higher education in supporting free speech
Speakers on the “Academic Freedom Under Pressure” panel expressed concern about the Trump administration’s tactics with universities, but emphasized higher education’s responsibility to foster free expression on campuses.
According to New York Post columnist Rikki Schlott, universities are “desperately in need” to provide students with a First Amendment and free speech orientation.
For example, a broader understanding of time, place, and etiquette restrictions, both of which allow pro-Palestinian student protesters to express their opinions, could prevent a “bold” response from school officials via encampments, Sirott said.
Jonathan Rauch, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he is excited about the future of free speech on college campuses, noting efforts such as Arizona State University’s School of Civic and Economic Thinking and Leadership. The school grew out of GOP-led legislation and received early funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, prompting early concerns about bias.
Rauch said he, too, is skeptical. However, he said his experience at the school changed his mind and noted that the execution was done thoughtfully and responsibly.
The University of Virginia’s “Think Think Again” organization promotes “civil and thoughtful conversations from all sides, both inside and outside the classroom, about the big issues of our time.”
According to panelist Mary Kate Carey, a politics professor who serves as the organization’s director, there was a “remarkably large” turnout on the program in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
She added that hundreds of students have enrolled in courses in the 2024 election, jointly won with professors with opposing political views.
“The student demands are there,” Carey said.
From “culture wars” to “cancel culture”
Speakers discussed the social changes in earthquakes from 2020 to 2025. There, the start of the decade was shaped by racial reckoning and culture wars across political aisles over educational curriculum. More recently, Kirk’s death sparked a nationwide shooting frenzy over employees posting opinions critical of Kirk, which experts have called another form of “cancel culture.”
The main concern was whether they could continue to speak in a respectful and civil discourse. John Wood, who works with the organization Braver Angels and is an opinion columnist for USA Today, said this was evident during Black Lives Matter in 2020, prompting what he called a “radicalization effect” that led to widespread disrespect among those with opposing viewpoints.
Wood likened it to Trump’s speech at Kirk’s memorial in recent weeks. The president compared himself to Erica Kirk. Erica Kirk said she forgave the man who killed her husband by declaring he hated his enemy.
“He said it in his own stand-up comic kind of way, but I also think it’s because it’s a line that runs through the heart of every human being in addition to the middle of our politics,” Wood said.
Moderator journalist Michael Moynihan said one example that came under public scrutiny in 2020 was whether people posted “black squares” on social media to show solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Moynihan said it seemed like a disagreement, especially at the time.
Atlantic writer Thomas Chatterton Williams agreed. He said discussions become impossible if both sides have an “impulse to deny the free principles and norms of compromise, grace and negotiation.”
“When ideas overlap with identity, you can’t have honest disagreement because it’s a rejection of self,” said Chatterton Williams.
USA Today Network’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through collaborations with the Freedom Forum and our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
