I Read the News Today, Oh Boy
A Day in the Life…Of the First Amendment under Trump
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion…”
— Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (quoting West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette)
That foundational maxim—part of every law student’s education and reaffirmed just last week by U.S. District Judge John Bates in striking down a Trump administration executive order—is starting to feel like a relic from another era. If Monday’s headlines are any guide, it’s not just that the Trump White House rejects the principle. It’s actively working to reverse it.
The Trump administration isn’t just suppressing traditional speech. It is working to establish Trump’s personal views—about DEI programs, or gender identity, or university curricula, or the character of the January 6 insurrectionists, or the names of sports teams and geographical landmarks—as the orthodox views of the entire country.
In the span of a single news cycle, the administration took all of the following actions:
Appealed a decisive First Amendment loss in the Jenner & Block case, which it threatened in the first place because of objections to the firm’s litigation choices;
Threatened to yank federal funding from Harvard over what Trump calls the university’s “discriminatory and anti-American” curriculum—without citing a single unlawful act;
Banished The Wall Street Journal from the press pool covering Trump’s trip to Scotland, an express reprisal for the paper’s reporting in the Jeffrey Epstein case;
And, for good measure, launched a new broadside against the NFL—accusing team owners of “cultural treason” for refusing to discipline players who speak out on political issues.
Call it Trump’s four-pronged assault on dissent. Or maybe just Monday.
Each of these episodes might register, in isolation, as a quirky flashpoint in the endless churn of the Trump news cycle. But taken together, they form a revealing portrait of how a second Trump presidency is weaponizing the machinery of government—not just against political opponents, but against ideas that contradict the President. It’s not censorship in the traditional sense. It’s not book burning or prior restraint. It’s something colder and more insidious: the assertion that the federal government may penalize you—your funding, your press credentials, your contract eligibility—if you decline to adopt the administration’s ideological line.
Case One: The Jenner & Block Appeal
Start with the Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice decision in D.C. federal court. Jenner, the venerable Chicago-based firm, was targeted by a Trump executive order that barred government contracts for firms engaged in what the order termed “hostile litigation” against the United States.
The order, issued in March, was a textbook act of viewpoint discrimination: it didn’t ban all litigation against the U.S.—just litigation the White House considered hostile or “unpatriotic,” such as challenges to Trump immigration policies or inclusion training programs.
Judge Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, didn’t have to break a sweat to reject the administration’s overreach. Bates ruled the order unconstitutional on its face, quoting Barnette and rejecting the notion that “the Executive may condition access to government contracts on conformity to preferred views.” Bates saw the case as elementary, which indeed it was—a textbook reminder that the First Amendment forbids the government from punishing speech based on content.
On Monday, the administration filed a notice of appeal. If they pursue the case in the D.C. Circuit, they will need to come up with an argument that recharacterizes the order in fundamental ways as not targeting speech the administration doesn’t like. Their position will reveal a lot about DOJ’s willingness to coerce institutions like law firms and universities (see below) into toeing the party line—adopting, or at least performing allegiance to, the views preferred by the Maximum Leader.
Case Two: Harvard in the Crosshairs
For reasons that have never been fully explained, Trump has remained singularly focused on trying to cripple Harvard. At a federal hearing Monday in Boston, a government lawyer suggested that the Department of Education may rescind Title IV eligibility—i.e., federal financial aid—for the university based on its allegedly “divisive” and “politically charged” programming.
The government presented no finding of discrimination or misconduct. What it cited, according to multiple accounts, was a “climate of hostility to American values,” as evidenced by guest speakers, course offerings, and faculty statements. In other words, the very kind of expression the First Amendment protects most fiercely: political speech at the heart of the academic mission.
The district judge overseeing the hearing appeared incredulous, asking whether “the Department is truly contemplating financial sanctions against a university for protected expression by faculty.” The DOJ counsel hedged—but notably, did not abandon the prescribed DOJ position.
It’s an old Trump playbook: frame criticism as “un-American,” then seek to suppress it with the levers of executive power. But this latest move opens a new front. We’ve seen Trump threaten federal funds over immigration policies and COVID mandates. Now it’s happening with ideas.
Case Three: Retaliation for Unwelcome Coverage, Scotland Edition
Meanwhile, the press corps traveling with Trump to Scotland woke up to news that The Wall Street Journal—long considered a flagship of the center-right press—had been barred from the official pool rotation. The White House’s explanation was remarkably candid: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that the exclusion was because of the Journal’s Jeffrey Epstein story, which she called “fake and defamatory” and which Trump has now sued over.
The striking part of the exclusion is its naked motivation to punish speech. Trump pulled a similar maneuver with the Associated Press over their refusal to genuflect at Trump’s preferred new name for the Gulf of Mexico.
In the AP case, a district court granted an injunction, but a pro-Trump panel in the D.C. Circuit stayed the injunction on a divided vote. Judges Rao and Katsas opined that the press corps was not open to all comers; it’s more like the President’s coffee klatch—a small cadre of hand-picked favorites selected at his whim. For now, the case is back before the district court, but the Orwellian upshot remains: the President can hand-pick the White House press corps based on viewpoint.
Again, the lesson is clear: parrot Trump’s view of important political issues or wind up in the cold. It’s part of a pattern—revoke credentials, pull access, shout down reporters in the briefing room—all to make clear that critical coverage carries a price. The goal isn’t to silence the press; it’s to bring it to heel, as is a standard feature of totalitarian societies.
Case Four: “Cultural Treason” on the Gridiron
Finally, there’s the NFL. In a post on Truth Social Monday afternoon, Trump called out what he dubbed the “Benedict Arnolds of the NFL”—team owners who, he claims, are “undermining America” by refusing to discipline players for kneeling during the anthem, endorsing Democratic candidates, or “promoting woke garbage” in locker rooms.
It’s not the first time Trump has used the NFL as a political cudgel. But this latest bombardment adds a darker note. The post reportedly came after team owners declined a private White House request to “set standards” for political speech among players. Translation: make the league a platform for pro-Trump orthodoxy—or prepare for battle.
It’s easy to dismiss this episode as trolling. But when the president uses the bully pulpit to brand a major American institution a traitor to the nation, it has ripple effects—on contracts, sponsors, and the social license to speak freely.
None of Monday’s events involved the classic tools of censorship. No one’s going to jail. No newspapers were seized. But the chill is unmistakable. At every turn, the Trump administration is signaling: speak against us, or even contradict the party line, and we’ll make you pay.
And the illegal tactics are having their intended effect. Universities, law firms, and major media outlets are edging toward compromise—sometimes by adopting positions more aligned with Trump’s. Others are keeping quiet to avoid provoking trouble.
Trump’s malign effects are everywhere. CBS has fired Stephen Colbert and canceled his top-rated late-night show. CBS claims it was a purely financial decision, though there’s widespread speculation it was due to Colbert’s harsh criticism of Trump. What message does that send to the next late-night host—or university president, firm chair, or media CEO?
The First Amendment protects not just the right to speak, but the right to disagree—especially with views the government wants to render orthodox. To litigate against the government. To critique the commander-in-chief. To teach controversial ideas. To report uncomfortable truths. To uncover scandals. To kneel, to protest, to dissent.
Judge Bates of course was right: the government can’t prescribe what’s orthodox. But that’s not stopping this White House from trying every day to make Trump the fixed star that the country revolves around. And they’re making inroads, with large institutions and individual members of Congress alike tempering their views so as not to offend the new orthodoxy. It falls to us to refuse to be scared, to call out constitutional rights and abuses, to insist that a lie is a lie, and that as members of a constitutional democracy we get to decide what we believe.
Talk to you later.
The United States has died as world leader and China will claim its place on the world stage as the leader in technology, environment, education and world philanthropy. How crazy is this? The GOP killed the country, aided and abetted by SCOTUS.
Question ... is this Trumps doing? (Because I just don't believe he is that intelligent) or is it the sick f*cks behind him, propping him up like "A Weekend at Bernies" and using him as a stinking, dead, front man?