- Share via
When most people think of how governments stifle free speech, they think of censorship. That’s when a government directly blocks or suppresses speech. In the past, the federal government has censored speech in various ways. It has tried to block news outlets from publishing certain stories. It has punished political dissenters. It has banned sales of “obscene” books.
Today, however, the federal government rarely tries to censor speech so crudely. It has less blatant but very effective ways to suppress dissent. The current actions of the Trump administration show how government can silence speakers without censoring them.
My quarter century of research and writing about 1st Amendment rights has explored the varied tools that governments use to smother free expression. Among the present administration’s chosen tools: making institutions stop or change their advocacy to get government benefits; inducing self-censorship through intimidation; and molding the government’s own speech to promote official ideology.
Retribution against Harvard and all students from abroad? This is not how a free country treats its schools or the international visitors who attend them.
As to the first of those tools, the Supreme Court has made clear that the 1st Amendment bars the government from conditioning benefits on the sacrifice of free speech.
Government employers may not refuse to hire employees of the opposing political party, nor may they stop employees from speaking publicly about political issues. The government may not stop funding nonprofits because they refuse to endorse official policies, or because they make arguments the government opposes.
The 1st Amendment, however, works only if someone asks a court to enforce it, or at least threatens to do so.
The Trump administration has issued orders that withdraw security clearances, cancel government contracts and bar access to government buildings for law firms that have opposed the administration’s policies or have advocated for diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. Some law firms have sued to block the orders. More firms, however, have made deals with the administration, agreeing to end DEI programs and to do free legal work for conservative causes.
“We all need to understand what is happening,” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez told an audience at a free press event.
The administration similarly has withheld funding from universities that embrace DEI or that, by the administration’s account, have fomented or tolerated antisemitism. Harvard University has resisted that pressure. But Columbia University has capitulated to President Trump’s demands, which have included cracking down on protests, giving university officials more control over controversial academic programs and hiring more conservative professors.
The Supreme Court may ultimately declare the administration’s gambits unconstitutional, but the White House has already succeeded in leveraging government benefits to make major institutions change their speech.
The Trump administration’s second form of indirect speech suppression is even more subtle — intimidating speakers into silence with actions that deter or “chill” expression without squarely banning it.
That means the government may not regulate speech through vague laws that leave lawful speakers uncertain whether the regulation reaches them. For example, the Supreme Court in 1971 struck down a Cincinnati ordinance that criminalized any public assembly the city deemed “annoying.”
Complaints of antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus have skyrocketed. Figuring out when speech is protected or violating the rights of others is no easy task.
Likewise, the government may not make people disclose their identities as a requirement for acquiring controversial literature or for supporting unpopular causes. In the classic case, the Supreme Court during the civil rights era blocked Alabama from making the NAACP disclose its membership list.
The mechanisms of chilling speech make it hard to detect, but the current public climate strongly suggests that the Trump administration has dialed down the thermostat.
College and university campuses, which rumbled in spring 2024 with protests against the war in Gaza, have gone largely quiet. Large corporations that challenged the first Trump presidency have fallen into line behind the second, as evidenced by the tech leaders who donated to and attended the president’s inauguration. Big donors to some liberal causes have folded up their wallets.
Some of that dampening likely reflects fatigue and resignation. Much of it, though, appears to reveal successful intimidation.
I have been outspoken about my concern about increasing antisemitism on campuses. But deporting activists violates the 1st Amendment and does nothing to combat antisemitism.
The administration has proclaimed that it is deporting noncitizen students, using their lawful speech as justification. While those expulsions themselves are classic censorship, their hidden reach may be much more effective at stifling expression, even among U.S. citizens. The Trump administration could not lawfully treat citizens as it is treating foreign nationals. But most citizens don’t know that. The vivid spectacle of punished protesters seems likely to chill the speech of others.
The administration’s final tool of indirect speech suppression is propaganda. The 1st Amendment only bars the government from controlling private speech. When the government speaks, it can say what it wants. That means people who speak for the government lack any 1st Amendment right to replace the government’s messages with their own.
In theory, then, every new federal administration could sweepingly turn government institutions’ speech into narrow propaganda. That hasn’t happened before, perhaps because most governments realize they are just temporary custodians of an abiding republic.
The Trump administration’s decision to rescind or terminate National Endowment for the Arts grants is not only a threat to the survival of arts organizations.
The Trump administration has broken this norm. The administration has ordered the purging of ideologically disfavored content from the Smithsonian museums, implemented book bans in military libraries and installed political supporters to run cultural institutions.
None of those actions likely violates the 1st Amendment. All of them, however, have significant implications for free speech. In what may be the most quoted line in the 1st Amendment legal canon, Justice Robert Jackson declared in 1943 that government should never “prescribe what shall be orthodox … in matters of opinion.”
A 21st-century federal government can dramatically skew public discourse by honing government speech with the flint of official ideology. Trump has assigned Vice President JD Vance, who sits on the Smithsonian’s board, the role of “seeking to remove improper ideology.” If Vance decides what the Smithsonian can and cannot say about slavery and Jim Crow, for example, then the Smithsonian will teach people only what Vance wants them to learn about those subjects. That influential source of knowledge will push public discussion toward the government’s ideology.
The secret to building back trust in government and other institutions is not centered on what’s happening in Washington, but in our own communities.
When government beneficiaries agree to say what the president wants, when the government intimidates speakers into silence, and when the government sharpens its own speech into propaganda, no censorship happens.
But in all those scenarios, the government is doing exactly what 1st Amendment law exists to prevent: using official power to make speech less free.
Gregory P. Magarian is a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. He is the author of “Managed Speech: The Roberts Court’s First Amendment.” This article was produced in partnership with the Conversation.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The Trump administration is accused of indirectly suppressing free speech by conditioning government benefits on institutions altering their advocacy, such as withholding contracts or funding from law firms and universities that oppose administration policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or support liberal causes[4].
- Intimidation tactics, such as deporting noncitizen students for lawful speech, are seen as creating a chilling effect that deters broader public dissent, including among U.S. citizens who may self-censor due to fear of repercussions[4].
- Government propaganda efforts, including purging disfavored content from Smithsonian museums and military libraries, are criticized for skewing public discourse toward official ideology, effectively narrowing the range of acceptable viewpoints without direct censorship[4].
Different views on the topic
- The Trump administration has issued executive orders aimed at protecting free speech by prohibiting federal agencies from infringing on constitutionally protected expression, including actions that pressure private platforms to suppress dissenting voices[1][2].
- Critics argue that earlier government efforts, such as those led by Chris Krebs at CISA, unfairly targeted conservative speech under the guise of combating misinformation, justifying current measures to prevent bureaucratic overreach[2].
- Legal analyses highlight that while government speech itself is not subject to First Amendment restrictions, recent court cases like Murthy v. Missouri underscore the need to scrutinize coercion of private platforms to ensure free expression[3][4].
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
John Orr was a renowned fire investigator who was also a prolific arsonist, and whose thinly veiled novel helped to convict him. In this episode we hear from the fire captain who first suspected him—and from Orr himself.
Tom Girardi was a legal legend—until he was found guilty of stealing millions from his own clients. Host Madison McGhee and pop culture commentator Kiki Monique unpack how his downfall became a Real Housewives scandal, and what Erika Jayne may or may not have known. Plus, L.A. Times reporter Harriet Ryan joins to share how she helped bring Girardi’s crimes to light.
Sammy Roth visits America’s second-largest nuclear plant, Arizona’s Palo Verde Generating Station, and sits down with three experts to explore the pros and cons of atomic energy.
