Trump needs to do three big things to protect free speech

President Donald Trump has claimed that one of his top priorities is "ending the unconstitutional censorship by the federal government." On its face, this is a noble goal: the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from limiting our ability to speak, is the cornerstone of our democracy. But everybody supports free speech when it is convenient for them – the real question is who is willing to protect that goal when it isn’t convenient for them. 

Since taking office, Trump has made some strides toward protecting free speech. He opened up the White House Press Room to podcasters and livestreamers so that Americans can access political news from a wider variety of viewpoints. He also delayed the impending TikTok ban, protecting a critical platform for debate and expression.  

But anyone who has followed Trump’s career knows that, like many politicians, his promises to eradicate censorship sometimes ring false: this is also the president that ordered federal law enforcement to quell peaceful protests in 2020, and the one that issued the executive order that became the basis for a historic wave of educational censorship.  

ASSOCIATED PRESS SAYS IT WAS BARRED FROM OVAL OFFICE OVER USE OF 'GULF OF MEXICO'

But if the president wants to make good on his promises to end censorship, we at the ACLU have a few ideas about where to start. 

President Donald Trump has done some good things to stand for free speech, but to really make a mark in this area, there's more to do. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

1. Protecting online speech  

Leaders from both parties want to amend or repeal Section 230, a portion of the Communications Decency Act that shields websites from liability over what their users post and over good-faith attempts at content moderation. During his first administration, Trump himself took steps to limit some of Section 230’s protections, allegedly to protect free speech.  

But amending or repealing Section 230 wouldn’t protect free speech: it would create the conditions for censorship.   

Platforms like Facebook, X, and TikTok can be important drivers of public discourse. Because of Section 230’s protections, those companies don’t need to worry about being sued over posts they didn’t create – like posts that some people would consider defamation or disinformation.  

Section 230 protections mean that websites are less likely to remove those kinds of posts, allowing for a wider array of viewpoints and more freedom for users. Without those protections, companies would be more likely to remove things that they deemed risky, making the Internet more hostile toward political debate.   

To begin to protect free speech online, Trump must refrain from reviving his previous executive order and encourage Congress to follow his lead.  

2. Protecting the press  

The president’s animosity toward the media – and his willingness to sue – is well-documented. Recently, in a lawsuit against CBS, he alleged that their editing of a Kamala Harris interview reflected bias toward her. The complaint also alleges that there have been "years of CBS's journalistic animosity toward President Trump and previous Republican presidential candidates," indicating that at least some motivation for this lawsuit is driven not by facts, but by CBS’s perceived wrongs over the years.   

Baseless lawsuits like this threaten our ability to access news. For the media to function, the government needs to leave them free to do their jobs. The Supreme Court has long held that publishers have editorial discretion – the right to publish whatever they want to, free from government interference.   

Suing over critical coverage doesn’t help the American people access the truth – it just deters reporting. Journalists are unlikely to pursue stories if they are afraid of being sued for making a mistake or running afoul of those in power. Some large media outlets can afford the legal risk, but smaller outlets and independent journalists, from podcasters to freelancers, almost certainly cannot. The result is less robust reporting, fewer viewpoints in the media and less public debate.  

FILE: Student protesters march around their encampment on the Columbia University campus, Monday, April 29, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)

If Trump were serious about ending censorship, he would stop suing outlets over stories he doesn’t like. And he would pressure Congress to pass the bipartisan PRESS Act, that would protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources to the government – protecting not only journalists but whistleblowers that try to shed light on government malfeasance.   

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

3. Protecting speech on campus  

College campuses have long been central to debates about free speech. Conservatives have raised alarms, often correctly, about their voices being sidelined. But now, Trump seems poised to silence campus speech under the guise of combating antisemitism.   

Efforts to address antisemitism and hate are critical – every student must be able to access education free from identity-based harassment. But Trump’s executive order, "Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism," adopts an overbroad definition of antisemitism that threatens protected political speech. Under this definition, speech about the actions of the Israeli government can be investigated and punished as antisemitic harassment.  

But if the president wants to make good on his promises to end censorship, we at the ACLU have a few ideas about where to start. 

In a fact sheet accompanying the executive order, Trump indicated that he would deport "resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests." But the First Amendment doesn’t permit the government to use immigration law to punish or censor political debate in America. With these orders, the White House is punishing peaceful protesters for supporting a side that Trump doesn’t agree with.   

Trump must right the course and stop threatening immigration consequences on the basis of protected speech. He can also instruct agencies to recognize the difference between harassment of Jewish students – which is not protected and which must be stopped – and constitutionally protected speech. He can also work with Congress to halt the passage of the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a bipartisan effort that similarly threatens speech in the name of safety.  

By protecting speech online, supporting the free press, and allowing for campus debate, this administration can start to make good on their promises to keep speech free. And the ACLU will be ready if they don’t.   

Jenna Leventoff is a senior policy counsel at the ACLU, where she develops and advocates for policies related to protecting free speech and promoting robust access to communications tools.