Free Speech in the US Faces 'Grim' Challenges, Expert Warns

The state of free speech in the United States is in peril, according to Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Lukianoff, who has specialized in First Amendment law for 25 years, described the current environment as "as bad as I’ve ever seen it."

Lukianoff's concerns span both public discourse and academic settings. He pointed to recent actions by the Trump administration, despite an executive order signed on its first day in office in January 2025, aimed at "restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship." For instance, Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr reportedly urged broadcasters to take action against comedian Jimmy Kimmel over his remarks following Charlie Kirk’s death. Kimmel later stated that the FCC intervened again to prevent the airing of an interview with James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate.

Furthermore, three news outlets—CNN, MS NOW, and Politico—were temporarily barred from the White House by the Trump administration last month over their coverage. While a federal judge quickly blocked this ban, CNN and Politico have since been excluded from traveling with the press pool on Trump's trips.

Campus Speech Restrictions

The challenges to free speech extend to college campuses, where 15 states enacted laws in 2025 that restrict curriculum or weaken protections for free expression. In states like Texas, Republican lawmakers have limited student protest rights and granted more authority to governor-appointed university boards over academic content.

Lukianoff noted a shift in the political landscape, observing that the traditional alliance between the civil libertarian left and libertarian right on free speech issues has eroded. He stated, "I think we’ve become all culture war all the time, and we have more of a progressive left and more of a populist right." This polarization, he explained, means that support for free speech is often contingent on agreement with the message, rather than a fundamental belief in the principle itself.

"The only way that you show you believe in freedom of speech is by saying, ‘I hate that guy, but I think you should have freedom of speech,’" Lukianoff said. "If you’re saying, ‘I think my side should have freedom of speech,’ that’s just self-interest. That doesn’t even count."

Authoritarian Instincts

Lukianoff contrasted the administration's actions with its stated promises to restore free speech. He suggested that President Trump's "instincts are very authoritarian" and "very top-down," leading to actions that contradict the administration's public stance. The exclusion of the press pool, which the White House reportedly struggled to constitutionally justify, exemplifies this tension.

Despite the current challenges, Lukianoff expressed hope for the long-term future of free speech, citing the effectiveness of open discourse and the resilience of the U.S. Constitution. "Societies that actually have freedom of speech are always going to have advantages, real and serious advantages, over ones that don’t," he stated. However, he cautioned that in the short term, "I’m worried."