One of the 204 executive orders signed upon his return to office, President Trump’s directive concerning censorship raised eyebrows among legal scholars like UC Irvine’s David Kaye, over allegations that outgoing president Joe Biden’s administration had been colluding with university researchers and social media companies against conservative interests.
According to executive order 14149, Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship, it states, “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference. Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”
Among the tech companies accused of anti-conservative bias is Twitter, the blogging and social media application. Twitter, now known as “X,” had been accused, along with Facebook, of covering up the scandal involving the laptop of President Biden’s son, Hunter.
Mutual charges of ideological bias
Civil rights attorney and media commentator, Areva Martin, spoke to Our Weekly to shed light on the implications of the executive order and how it impacts current happenings. “Despite President Trump’s executive order promising a return to free speech and an end to what he called ‘censorship’ under the previous administration, the reality nine months into his second term has been far more concerning,” said Martin.
Rather than championing the bedrock ideal upon which the country was founded, however, evidence indicates that MAGA loyalists are intent on persecuting anyone with alternative viewpoints on the political forum, a position held by California State University-Dominguez Hills academic and political scientist Dr. Anthony Asadullah Samad.
“The events of the day have evidenced that dissenters and others with differing world views are being targeted,” said Samad.
Meanwhile, other officially nonpartisan groups like the ACLU have accused Trump’s administration of using its power to undermine anyone whose opinions differ from those of the Republican mandate. Trump personally has pressured the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke the broadcasting licenses of TV networks whose programming selections run afoul of the dictates of the GOP.
The debate ratcheted up a notch with the September 10 murder of activist-media personality Charlie Kirk. In short order, a flood of reactions to his death flooded the print, social media, and airways, along with outrage from his patrons on the far right over comments they deemed offensive by their opposites on the left.
The rise of Kirk and Trump, who paved the way for his emergence, may be a rebuttal to the political strides made by progressives earlier.
Paying the price for past glory
“A decade ago, it was Obama backlash and distrust of career politicians, particularly the Clintons,” Samad remembers.
“Also, there was an ideological shift towards nationalism (driven by the Tea Party) that was anti-race and anti-gender (the period of the Angry White Male) that worked against Hillary Clinton’s candidacy,” said Samad.
Martin is quick to agree, suggesting this backlash goes far beyond the realm of media influence.
“…the current political climate is clearly a backlash to the progress made by African Americans, women, and other marginalized groups. Gains in civil rights, representation, and equity have triggered resistance from those who feel threatened by this shift. Efforts to dismantle DEI programs, restrict voting rights, and silence conversations about race and gender are not isolated—they’re part of a broader attempt to roll back the inclusion and visibility these communities have fought for,” said Martin.
This majority resentment and efforts to reverse the progress of the marginalized were sown as far back as the 1980s, as a phrase called “reverse discrimination” emerged in the wake of affirmative action. From here through the rest of the century into the millennium, resentment festered and bloomed into the conservative solidarity of today.
“Diversity and equity always drive public sentiment, that’s because others are finally getting access to rights denied in the past; white people have to be losing something,” Samad said, using the narrative of American history.
This makes the impressionable masses of the grassroots susceptible to the charismatic overtures of the right people. “They only know what they’ve been told, and anti-intellectualism is driving the discussion in a way that’s fear-mongering,” Samad explains.
Past atrocities and the necessity of a free press
“Without public scrutiny, accountability disappears. The repression of the press creates a climate where violence can continue unchecked and where victims—particularly Black victims—are more easily ignored, misrepresented, or forgotten. A free and vigilant press isn’t a threat to public safety—it’s a safeguard for justice.”
— Areva Martin
The American government operates a principle of separation of powers, with the primary branches of legislative, executive, and judicial departments separated to maintain the integrity of each and ensure that power is not consolidated into one entity. Theoretically this distribution of power provides the “checks and balances” to maintain a democratic form of government.
Trump has been accused of politicizing individual government departments to conform to his own agenda by cherry-picking those at the head of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Supreme Court, entities that are meant to run independently and impartially.
In the private sector, individuals and groups are able to distribute information without the control or oversight of the government as a sort of watchdog to keep tabs on the above government departments and provide accountability to the citizens they are meant to represent. Concerned citizens outside the government are fearful that this current administration is oppositional to this.
“Rather than protecting First Amendment rights, the Trump administration has used the rhetoric of “free speech” to consolidate ideological control and target dissenting voices, particularly in media, education, and the federal workforce,” Martin said.
This is especially concerning to people of color who historically have been mistreated, often by minions of the government under color of authority. The horrors of physical violence did not end with the Confederate surrender in the Civil War. Newspapers owned by White supremacists actually promoted the brutalization of Blacks, documented by separate incidents in Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, and especially the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, which was instigated in part by front-page impartially headlines in the Tulsa Tribune. This grim side of journalism is chronicled on the website Printing Hate at https://lynching.cnsmaryland.org/.
Isolated episodes of hate crimes remain a fixture in American media for traditionally targeted groups, along with LGBTQ victims in Southern California. Samad believes that the possibility of these events remains a threat to traditionally marginalized groups, particularly African Americans.
“…there is no other group that’s more systemically impacted (than Blacks). You can follow the data on that,” he declares.
Martin expounds further.
“African Americans remain one of the most marginalized groups in the U.S., not just because of current inequalities, but because of the compounding weight of centuries of systemic racism,” said Martin.
She continued, “From slavery to mass incarceration, from voter suppression to wealth gaps, the legacy of exclusion is ongoing and deeply rooted.”
This makes the maintenance and protection of a free press all the more important. Samad uses this situation as a time to call for unity among different factions of the community.
“Disunity makes progress more challenging. The dysfunction is just not infighting; it’s the scarcity of resources that are being demanded that can’t be fulfilled. It’s not just a difference of ideas; it’s a difference in emotional maturity coming into play by differing factors: racial competing agendas, generational differences, and a new nationalist movement that impacts communities differently,” said Samad.
He continued, “The factions are more complicated than they used to be, which makes it harder for people to listen to each other and thus, come together,” he says in closing.