\u201cCongress 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.\u201d -U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.<\/em><\/p>\n Image: Shutterstock, zimmytws.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In an address to Congress this month, President Trump<\/strong> claimed he had \u201cbrought free speech back to America.\u201d But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges.<\/p>\n This story explores a slew of recent actions by the Trump administration that threaten to undermine all five pillars of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedoms concerning speech, religion, the media, the right to assembly, and the right to petition the government and seek redress for wrongs.<\/p>\n The right to petition allows citizens to communicate with the government, whether to complain, request action, or share viewpoints \u2014 without fear of reprisal. But that right is being assaulted by this administration on multiple levels. For starters, many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership\u2019s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituents affected by the administration\u2019s many federal budget and workforce cuts.<\/p>\n Another example: President Trump recently fired most of the people<\/a> involved in processing Freedom of Information Act<\/strong> (FOIA) requests for government agencies. FOIA is an indispensable tool used by journalists and the public to request government records, and to hold leaders accountable.<\/p>\n The biggest story by far this week was the bombshell from The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg<\/strong>, who recounted how he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat<\/a> with National Security Advisor Michael Waltz<\/strong> and 16 other Trump administration officials discussing plans for an upcoming attack on Yemen.<\/p>\n One overlooked aspect of Goldberg\u2019s incredible account is that by planning and coordinating the attack on Signal \u2014 which features messages that can auto-delete after a short time \u2014 administration officials were evidently seeking a way to avoid creating a lasting (and potentially FOIA-able) record of their deliberations.<\/p>\n \u201cIntentional or not, use of Signal in this context was an act of erasure\u2014because without Jeffrey Goldberg being accidentally added to the list, the general public would never have any record of these communications or any way to know they even occurred,\u201d Tony Bradley<\/strong> wrote this week at Forbes<\/a>.<\/p>\n Petitioning the government, particularly when it ignores your requests, often requires challenging federal agencies in court. But that becomes far more difficult if the most competent law firms start to shy away from cases that may involve crossing the president and his administration.<\/p>\n On March 22, the president issued a memorandum<\/a> that directs heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to \u201cseek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States,\u201d or in matters that come before federal agencies.<\/p>\n The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced<\/a> that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom<\/strong> had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.<\/p>\n Trump issued another order<\/a> naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison<\/strong>, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president\u2019s causes.<\/p>\n Other Trump executive orders targeted law firms Jenner & Block<\/strong> and WilmerHale<\/strong>, both of which have attorneys that worked with special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But this week, two federal judges in separate rulings froze parts of those orders<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, and that is qualified as a constitutional harm,\u201d wrote Judge Richard Leon<\/strong>, who ruled against the executive order targeting WilmerHale.<\/p>\n President Trump recently took the extraordinary step of calling for the impeachment of federal judges who rule against the administration. Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg<\/strong> a \u201cRadical Left Lunatic\u201d<\/a> and urged he be removed from office for blocking deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members under a rarely invoked wartime legal authority.<\/p>\n In a rare public rebuke to a sitting president, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts<\/strong> issued a statement on March 18<\/a> pointing out that \u201cFor more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.\u201d<\/p>\n The U.S. Constitution provides that judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The Constitution also states that judges\u2019 salaries cannot be reduced while they are in office.<\/p>\n Undeterred, House Speaker Mike Johnson <\/strong>this week suggested the administration could still use the power of its purse to keep courts in line, and even floated the idea of wholesale eliminating federal courts<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe do have authority over the federal courts as you know,\u201d Johnson said. \u201cWe can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act, so stay tuned for that.\u201d<\/p>\n President Trump has taken a number of actions to discourage lawful demonstrations at universities and colleges across the country, threatening to cut federal funding<\/a> for any college that supports protests he deems \u201cillegal.\u201d<\/p>\n A Trump executive order in January<\/a> outlined a broad federal crackdown on what he called \u201cthe explosion of antisemitism\u201d on U.S. college campuses. This administration has asserted that foreign students who are lawfully in the United States on visas do not enjoy the same free speech or due process rights as citizens.<\/p>\n Reuters<\/strong> reports that the acting civil rights director at the Department of Education<\/strong> (DOE) on March 10 sent letters to 60 educational institutions<\/a> warning they could lose federal funding if they don\u2019t do more to combat anti-semitism. On March 20, Trump issued an order calling for the closure of the DOE<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement<\/strong> (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport<\/a> pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel\u2019s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio<\/strong> told reporters Thursday<\/a> that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.<\/p>\n In his first term, Trump threatened to use the national guard or the U.S. military to deal with protesters, and in campaigning for re-election he promised to revisit the idea.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,\u201d Trump told Fox News<\/strong> in October 2024. \u201cWe have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they\u2019re the big \u2014 and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can\u2019t let that happen.\u201d<\/p>\n This term, Trump acted swiftly to remove the top judicial advocates in the armed forces who would almost certainly push back on any request by the president to use U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell public protests, or to arrest and detain immigrants. In late February, the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth<\/strong> fired the top legal officers for the military services \u2014 those responsible for ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice is followed by commanders.<\/p>\n Military.com warns<\/a> that the purge \u201csets an alarming precedent for a crucial job in the military, as President Donald Trump has mused about using the military in unorthodox and potentially illegal ways.\u201d Hegseth told reporters the removals were necessary because he didn\u2019t want them to pose any \u201croadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes<\/strong>, CNN<\/strong>, The Washington Post<\/strong>, The New York Times<\/strong> and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage.<\/p>\n In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount<\/strong>, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris<\/strong> prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement<\/a> to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration\u2019s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.<\/p>\n The president sued The Des Moines Register<\/a> and its parent company, Gannett<\/strong>, for publishing a poll showing Trump trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential election in Iowa (a state that went for Trump). The POTUS also is suing the Pulitzer Prize board<\/a> over 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of purported Russian interference in the 2016 election.<\/p>\n Whether or not any of the president\u2019s lawsuits against news organizations have merit or succeed is almost beside the point. The strategy behind suing the media is to make reporters and newsrooms think twice about criticizing or challenging the president and his administration. The president also knows some media outlets will find it more expedient to settle.<\/p>\n Trump also sued ABC News<\/strong> and George Stephanopoulos<\/strong> for stating that the president had been found liable for \u201crape\u201d in a civil case [Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll]. ABC parent Disney<\/strong> settled that claim by agreeing to donate $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library.<\/p>\n Following the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Facebook<\/strong> blocked President Trump\u2019s account. Trump sued Meta<\/strong>, and after the president\u2019s victory in 2024 Meta settled<\/a> and agreed to pay Trump $25 million: $22 million would go to his presidential library, and the rest to legal fees. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg<\/strong> also announced Facebook and Instagram would get rid of fact-checkers<\/a> and rely instead on reader-submitted \u201ccommunity notes\u201d to debunk disinformation on the social media platform.<\/p>\n Brendan Carr<\/strong>, the president\u2019s pick to run the Federal Communications Commission<\/strong> (FCC), has pledged to \u201cdismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.\u201d But on January 22, 2025, the FCC reopened complaints against ABC, CBS<\/strong> and NBC<\/strong> over their coverage of the 2024 election. The previous FCC chair had dismissed the complaints as attacks on the First Amendment and an attempt to weaponize the agency for political purposes.<\/p>\n According to Reuters, the complaints call for an investigation into how ABC News moderated the pre-election TV debate between Trump and Biden, and appearances of then-Vice President Harris on 60 Minutes and on NBC\u2019s \u201cSaturday Night Live.\u201d<\/p>\n Since then, the FCC has opened investigations into NPR<\/strong> and PBS<\/strong>, alleging<\/a> that they are breaking sponsorship rules. The Center for Democracy & Technology <\/strong>(CDT), a think tank based in Washington, D.C., noted<\/a> that the FCC is also investigating KCBS<\/strong> in San Francisco for reporting on the location of federal immigration authorities.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if these investigations are ultimately closed without action, the mere fact of opening them \u2013 and the implicit threat to the news stations\u2019 license to operate \u2013 can have the effect of deterring the press from news coverage that the Administration dislikes,\u201d the CDT\u2019s Kate Ruane<\/strong> observed.<\/p>\n Trump has repeatedly threatened to \u201copen up\u201d libel laws, with the goal of making it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. But this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge<\/a> brought by Trump donor and Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn to overturn the landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em>, which insulates the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures.<\/p>\n The president also has insisted on picking which reporters and news outlets should be allowed to cover White House events and participate in the press pool that trails the president. He barred the Associated Press<\/strong> from the White House and Air Force One over their refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by another name.<\/p>\n And the Defense Department has ordered a number of top media outlets to vacate their spots at the Pentagon<\/a>, including CNN, The Hill, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Politico and National Public Radio.<\/p>\n \u201cIncoming media outlets include the New York Post, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, the Free Press, the Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Huffington Post and One America News Network, most of whom are seen as conservative or favoring Republican President Donald Trump,\u201d Reuters reported.<\/p>\n Shortly after Trump took office again in January 2025, the administration began circulating lists of hundreds of words<\/a> that government staff and agencies shall not use in their reports and communications.<\/p>\n The Brookings Institution notes<\/a> that in moving to comply with this anti-speech directive, federal agencies have purged countless taxpayer-funded data sets from a swathe of government websites, including data on crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development.<\/p>\n The New York Times<\/strong> reports that in the past two months, hundreds of terabytes of digital resources analyzing data have been taken off government websites.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile in many cases the underlying data still exists, the tools that make it possible for the public and researchers to use that data have been removed,\u201d The Times wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Jan. 27, Trump issued a memo<\/a> (PDF) that paused all federally funded programs pending a review of those programs for alignment with the administration\u2019s priorities. Among those was ensuring that no funding goes toward advancing \u201cMarxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the CDT, this order is a blatant attempt to force government grantees to cease engaging in speech that the current administration dislikes, including speech about the benefits of diversity, climate change, and LGBTQ issues.<\/p>\n \u201cThe First Amendment does not permit the government to discriminate against grantees because it does not like some of the viewpoints they espouse,\u201d the CDT\u2019s Ruane wrote. \u201cIndeed, those groups that are challenging the constitutionality of the order argued as much in their complaint, and have won an injunction blocking its implementation.\u201d<\/p>\n On January 20, the same day Trump issued an executive order on free speech, the president also issued an executive order titled \u201cReevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid<\/a>,\u201d which froze funding for programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development<\/strong> (USAID). Among those were programs designed to empower civil society and human rights groups, journalists and others responding to digital repression and Internet shutdowns.<\/p>\n According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/strong> (EFF), this includes many freedom technologies that use cryptography, fight censorship, protect freedom of speech, privacy and anonymity for millions of people around the world.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the State Department has issued some limited waivers, so far those waivers do not seem to cover the open source internet freedom technologies,\u201d the EFF wrote<\/a> about the USAID disruptions. \u201cAs a result, many of these projects have to stop or severely curtail their work, lay off talented workers, and stop or slow further development.\u201d<\/p>\n On March 14, the president signed another executive order<\/a> that effectively gutted the U.S. Agency for Global Media<\/strong> (USAGM), which oversees or funds media outlets including Radio Free Europe\/Radio Liberty<\/strong> and Voice of America<\/strong> (VOA). The USAGM also oversees Radio Free Asia<\/strong>, which supporters say has been one of the most reliable tools used by the government to combat Chinese propaganda.<\/p>\n But this week, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth<\/strong>, a Reagan appointee, temporarily blocked USAGM\u2019s closure<\/a> by the administration.<\/p>\n \u201cRFE\/RL has, for decades, operated as one of the organizations that Congress has statutorily designated to carry out this policy,\u201d Lamberth\u00a0wrote in a 10-page opinion<\/a>. \u201cThe leadership of USAGM cannot, with one sentence of reasoning offering virtually no explanation, force RFE\/RL to shut down \u2014 even if the President has told them to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n The Trump administration rescinded a decades-old policy<\/a> that instructed officers not to take immigration enforcement actions in or near \u201csensitive\u201d or \u201cprotected\u201d places, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.<\/p>\n That directive was immediately challenged in a case brought by a group of Quakers, Baptists and Sikhs, who argued the policy reversal was keeping people from attending services for fear of being arrested on civil immigration violations. On Feb. 24, a federal judge agreed and blocked<\/a> ICE agents from entering churches or targeting migrants nearby.<\/p>\n The president\u2019s executive order allegedly addressing antisemitism came with a fact sheet<\/a> that described college campuses as \u201cinfested\u201d with \u201cterrorists\u201d and \u201cjihadists.\u201d Multiple faith groups expressed alarm over the order, saying it attempts to weaponize antisemitism<\/a> and promote \u201cdehumanizing anti-immigrant policies.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n The president also announced<\/a> the creation of a \u201cTask Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,\u201d to be led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Never mind that Christianity is easily the largest faith in America and that Christians are well-represented in Congress.<\/p>\n The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush<\/strong>, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance<\/strong>, issued a statement accusing Trump of hypocrisy in claiming to champion religion by creating the task force.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom allowing immigration raids in churches, to targeting faith-based charities, to suppressing religious diversity, the Trump Administration\u2019s aggressive government overreach is infringing on religious freedom in a way we haven\u2019t seen for generations,\u201d Raushenbush said.<\/p>\n A statement<\/a> from Americans United for Separation of Church and State<\/strong> said the task force could lead to religious persecution of those with other faiths.<\/p>\n \u201cRather than protecting religious beliefs, this task force will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws,\u201d said Rachel Laser, the group\u2019s president and CEO.<\/p>\n Where is President Trump going with all these blatant attacks on the First Amendment? The president has made no secret of his affection for autocratic leaders and \u201cstrongmen\u201d around the world, and he is particularly enamored with Hungary\u2019s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orb\u00e1n<\/strong>, who has visited Trump\u2019s Mar-a-Lago resort twice in the past year.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/krebsonsecurity.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/1stamendment.png?resize=747%2C508&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nTHE RIGHT TO PETITION<\/h2>\n
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY<\/h2>\n
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS<\/h2>\n
FREEDOM OF SPEECH<\/h2>\n
FREEDOM OF RELIGION<\/h2>\n