Free speech is currently facing significant challenges in the US.
Among the various constitutional issues raised by the Trump administration, this one could notably alter American society. Civil Rights Leader Frederick Douglass once said, “There was no right deemed sacred above the right to speech by the founding fathers. It’s the terror of all rights. It’s the right they targeted first because they understand its power.”
But it seems that many Americans might not truly grasp the importance of free speech. It’s not just about expressing oneself; it’s also about the freedom to think. When we lose that, we essentially strip away what makes us human.
The Supreme Court has highlighted that the First Amendment ensures “all people can think and speak freely as they desire,” placing limits on government authorities. With few exceptions, the government cannot minimize or retaliate against individuals for their political beliefs or communications, especially not when those communications carry a political message. The Amendment forbids federal authorities from using their extensive financial and enforcement powers to punish or suppress dissenting voices.
However, many of these foundational concepts of the First Amendment started to erode on January 20, 2025.
Trump’s hostility towards the First Amendment has been apparent through countless executive orders that delineate what his administration considers acceptable speech. This includes implicit support for policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion; environmental justice; and other contentious issues. The administration has actively responded against institutions and individuals that express opposing views, punishing them through various means, like withholding federal funding or removing security clearances to ensure compliance with the administration’s perspective.
In recent directives, Trump has personally targeted individuals who engaged in speech he disapproves of. For instance, he criticized Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security staffer, for revealing the existence of a so-called “resistance” within the federal government. Additionally, Trump called out Chris Krebs, who affirmed the 2020 election’s integrity, prompting backlash from the administration.
Such rhetoric is chilling; it aims to deter others from voicing dissenting opinions.
While the Constitution may not explicitly mention freedom of thought, landmark cases in history have suggested its critical role in safeguarding other freedoms. In a 2002 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that First Amendment freedoms become perilous when governments attempt to control thoughts or justify their actions with questionable motives.
Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault illustrated the implications of enforced thought control through the idea of the “Panopticon,” a structure where prisoners unknowingly self-regulate their behavior due to the possibility of observation. Bentham believed that the awareness of being watched led to compliance, while Foucault emphasized that such power dynamics extend beyond prisons into society at large. If individuals think the government is monitoring them, they start policing their own behavior.
This concept remains relevant today, especially in discussions about digital surveillance. The climate of fear that has emerged under Trump’s administration can cause individuals to hesitate before sharing opinions publicly or online, questioning whether it may provoke a government response.
If this pattern continues, the repercussions could extend far beyond legal frameworks in the US; it threatens the very fabric of freedom. Without freedom of thought, as Benjamin Franklin pointed out in 1722, there is no true wisdom or public liberty without free speech.
Kimberly Wehle is the author of the book “The Power of Amnesty: How the Amnesty System Works – and Why.”
