Americans Push Back as Trump’s Free Speech Assault Meets Defiance

What you will learn when you read this article:

• How journalists compare Trump’s media attacks to Nixon’s Watergate-era battles

• Why public pressure and consumer boycotts remain powerful tools to defend free speech

• What media fragmentation means for truth, misinformation, and public resilience

In the face of an unprecedented attack by President Donald Trump on the principle of free speech as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, as well as his relentless assaults on media outlets that criticize him, several journalists told CommPRO they remain optimistic that democracy will survive.

“The fact that pressure from the American public convinced ABC that they had to bring back Jimmy Kimmel, a frequent Trump critic, was a very positive step in the preservation of free speech,” said Richard Greb, a longtime reporter with Reuters, The Associated Press and the Chicago Tribune.

Greb said Kimmel’s comments after returning to the air struck the right tone by showing empathy for the family of assassinated political activist Charlie Kirk while at the same time remaining steadfast in his constitutional right to criticize Trump or any other American leader.

“Kimmel handled it very responsibly,” he said.

Greb added that the decision by right-leaning Sinclair and Nextstar Broadcasting to lift their ban on Kimmel’s show on the ABC affiliates they own was a further demonstration of the power of free speech advocates, as well as the majority of Americans.

“In addition, shows like ‘South Park’ and ‘The View,’ which often satirize and criticize the president, continue to thrive,” he said.

Greb emphasized that companies producing these programs are driven by the bottom line, and when Americans threaten to boycott their services or cancel subscriptions, they listen, providing a counterweight to any censorship actions Trump can take.

Asked about similarities between Trump and his Republican predecessor, Richard Nixon, who also battled the press and had his infamous “enemies list,” Greb, who reported during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, maintained that Trump’s attacks on the media are far worse than Nixon’s, who was forced to resign in the face of certain impeachment.

“President Nixon lost the support of his own Republican Party, who told him he had to leave,” Greb said, adding that the U.S. Supreme Court, including all of Nixon’s appointees, ordered him to release the damaging Watergate tapes.

“Compare this to today when congressional Republicans are unwilling to push back on Trump, while the Supreme Court not only gave the president immunity but often sides with him in major challenges.”

Still, Greb believes that the ability of Americans to stand up and fight to protect and preserve free speech, which he calls the “cornerstone of our democracy,” will ultimately carry the day.

“The public can stand up and fight Trump,” he said. “After all, the right of the law is on their side.”

Sharing that view is Ernest L. Wiggins, an independent scholar and professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina’s journalism school.

Though he acknowledges the road ahead will be rocky with many serious threats to free speech under the Trump administration, Wiggins believes Trump’s actions against the media and those who disagree with him are part of a bigger plan to dismantle confidence and trust in information sources and the power of evidence.

“They are filling news space with threats and bluster and not facts,” he said. “They are offering a spectacle when the public needs facts to make decisions about their lives.”

Another difference between the Watergate period and today, Wiggins said, is the dilution of mass media into many disparate parts with their own conflicting agendas.

In the 1970s, there were three major television networks and authoritative news figures such as Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley, who were committed to presenting the truth. Now those figures are gone, replaced by a proliferation of media platforms and personalities who often shape their news coverage to their own point of view.

As a result, Wiggins said, the average media consumer, often more concerned with daily life than with Washington politics, does not give full consideration to implications but relies on clickbait capsules and summaries, many of which lean politically one way or another.

“Without a more comprehensive and balanced understanding of events and implications, they are not fully able to stand against the propagandizing from the administration,” he said.

According to Wiggins, the expression “the math isn’t mathing” has become a way for influencers and others to say what is being offered does not add up. Informed readers should be able to “do the math” themselves, but they need all the pieces to make that work.

“I think insisting at every turn that assertions be supported is key,” Wiggins said. “Some news organizations have crafted the line ‘said without evidence’ to signal when assertions are not supported, but I think the better action would be to say the unsupported would not be reported because it only causes confusion.”

Looking ahead, Wiggins, like Greb, believes free speech is such a fundamental tenet of American life that Trump’s attempt to stifle it will ultimately fail.

He also feels that the president will be bogged down by the growing unpopularity of his domestic and foreign policies and, as a result, will be weakened politically.

Ellen Ferrera, a contributing writer to the Moultrie County (Illinois) News-Progress who previously served as founder and president of the Illinois Association of Non-Profits, said she sees hope when millions of Americans participate in protests against Trump across the country.

She added that the president’s attempt to silence his critics is fundamentally un-American and goes against the U.S. Constitution.

Citing the Founding Fathers, she emphasized that power really resides with the people.

“I came across a comment by Patrick Henry, who famously said that the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument to restrain the government,” Ferrera said, pointing out that Henry’s comments are even more relevant today.

Ferrera said part of the problem is that many Americans, especially young people, don’t fully understand their history.

“We really need to do a much better job teaching history and civics,” she said, noting that next year will mark the 250th anniversary of Americans winning their independence.

“Hopefully, that very special occasion will give a big boost to learning our history,” Ferrera said.

In the wake of challenges to free speech and democracy itself, all three journalists insist Americans must remain optimistic.

“It’s up to us, and we’re in this together.”