The Dictatorship

The new free speech crisis hiding in plain sight

Published

1 year ago

January 29, 2025

The new free speech crisis hiding in plain sight

The essence of free speech isn’t just that you will find the text of the First Amendment in copies of the Constitution. It requires living up to the principle in practice: for freedom of religion, speech, press and association to be exercised freely without fear of ruinous retaliation and the abuse of state power. Today, a vicious campaign against these freedoms is being waged by the new right under President Donald Trump Elon Musk and their allies.

There has been much discussion of the “information environment” and how it ultimately affects the behavior of voters in the exercise of our democratic self-governance. A crisis has been quietly brewing, fueled by the misuse of defamation law in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and outright abuses of state power. What was once a slow boil has now erupted into full view, as political actors and powerful figures weaponize institutional risk aversion to suppress speech they don’t like.

The fear of litigation has become deeply ingrained in professional journalism, distorting the ability to report the truth. This underscores a chilling reality for journalists, commentators and political opponents alike. Free speech in the United States is under attack through a diffuse, deliberate effort to undermine our core constitutional freedoms.

The fear of litigation has become deeply ingrained in professional journalism, distorting the ability to report the truth.

As Mike Masnick, editor of Techdirt and online free speech expert, aptly noted“Defamation law has been so widely abused to chill speech and so few people know it.” The use of SLAPPs — lawsuits designed to intimidate and financially exhaust critics, even when they are legally meritless — has become a primary weapon in this war on speech. And when private lawsuits are not enough, state power is increasingly being mobilized to achieve the same ends, turning free expression into a high-stakes gamble for anyone daring to speak truth to power.

Defamation law, ostensibly meant to protect reputations against malicious falsehoods, is being twisted into a bludgeon to silence criticism and accountability — where even the threat of a defamation suit can serve to chill free speech. And in some cases, SLAPPs abuse other areas of law to target speech in order to evade the high First Amendment bar for defamation under Supreme Court precedents.

Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters, for example, epitomizes this trend. Media Matters reported on ads for major brands running next to neo-Nazi content on Musk’s X platform, formerly Twitter. Instead of addressing the substance of the report, Musk retaliated with a lawsuit, in this case based not on defamation as such but an even more outlandish “consumer fraud” theory. By allegedly presenting misleading examples, even though they were undeniably real and similar ones are easy to come by, the theory is this somehow falls under defrauding people into not using or buying ads on X. And as Musk frequently does, the case was filed in the Northern District of Texas to engage in blatant “judge shopping.” It paid off, with Judge Reed O’Connor, long known for his solicitousness toward conservative political efforts, allowing the case to proceed to trial despite its flawed premise.

The message was unmistakable: Critics calling out extremist content on his platform could come at a steep personal cost. It is not unrelated that Media Matters, faced with massive legal fees in fighting the wealthiest man in the world, was recently forced to resort to mass layoffs.

Donald Trump’s lawsuits provide further examples of this deeply disturbing strategy. He sued pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for publishing a poll showing Kamala Harris ahead of him in Iowa — a lawsuit so baseless that its sole plausible purpose was to punish and deter unfavorable coverage. Similarly, Trump sued CBS over an interview with Harris, absurdly alleging unfair editing of the interview amounted to “deceptive practices” under Texas business fraud law, demonstrating how the rich and powerful are increasingly using litigation to control narratives. CBS is reportedly considering a settlement in part because of their regulatory interests at stake under the new administration.

These private SLAPPs are now being supplemented by direct state action, amplifying the chilling effect on speech. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE Act” targets private employers for expressing disfavored views, while his retaliation against Disney for criticizing his policies exemplifies the use of government power to punish speech. Attorneys general in Texas and Missouri have launched criminal investigations into Media Matters. A federal judge enjoined these investigations as obviously retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment, but once again, the process of even having to litigate the matter is the real punishment.

Instead of addressing the substance of the report, Musk retaliated with a lawsuit.

Even the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under its new Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr, has revived previously dismissed complaints against media outlets seen as liberal-leaning, bringing the agency into politicized editorial disputes. Carr has made no secret of his desire to use the FCC to punish media outlets and corporations that he believes have contributed to the “erosion in public trust.”

In some cases, the courts do eventually step in and repudiate these assaults on the First Amendment, but the deliberate chilling effect remains all the same, an ongoing threat hanging over every major institution.

Consider, too, how U.S. media hesitated to report on Elon Musk’s apparent Nazi salute at a post-inauguration rally for Trump. German and Israeli outlets did not shy away from describing the incident as it appeared, yet many of their American counterparts tread more carefully. No matter how baseless, a lawsuit from Musk can cost millions of dollars to defend. The culture of risk aversion, compounded by legal threats and official intimidation, has narrowed the bounds of permissible discourse here, in the nation that is supposed to have the strongest free speech protections in the world.

What makes these actions particularly perverse is how they are often cloaked in the language of defending free speech. Musk’s rhetoric about combating the “woke mind virus” and DeSantis’ attacks on so-called woke corporations both claim to champion free expression while doing the opposite. This weaponization of free speech rhetoric is both cynical and dangerous, undermining the very principle it purports to defend, while seeking to rob their opponents of the language needed to accurately describe it.

This war on free speech is not primarily about silencing individual critics directly. There is no secret police hauling people off for mean tweets about Trump, Musk and their unified control over the federal government. It’s about leveraging institutional risk aversion to create a chilling effect. Journalists, pollsters and watchdog organizations may still criticize powerful figures like Musk or Trump, but they do so under the constant threat of financial ruin. The goal is to make accountability so costly that fewer people are willing to try.

What’s urgently needed are robust anti-SLAPP lawsboth at the federal level and in states where protections are still weak or nonexistent. Anti-SLAPP laws allow defendants to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are filed with the primary intent of suppressing speech, with legal fees automatically awarded (often with some multiplier) to the defendants. Crucially, they shift the burden of costs onto the plaintiff, deterring frivolous lawsuits and protecting critics from devastating expenses.

The free speech crisis hiding in plain sight is about whether institutions can withstand the pressure to self-censor in the face of legal and political intimidation.

The broader legal context also underscores the stakes. Some figures, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have expressed interest in revisiting New York Times Co. v. Sullivanthe landmark Supreme Court case that established strong protections for speech about public figures. Undermining Sullivan would open the floodgates to even more defamation claims, further chilling speech. Anti-SLAPP laws are a critical counterweight to these trends, ensuring that free expression remains protected even as legal challenges multiply.

But legal reforms alone are not enough. We must also recognize and call out these attacks for what they are: a coordinated censorship campaign. Whether through SLAPPs, state retaliation or regulatory threats, these actions aim to undermine the First Amendment by making the cost of speaking out intolerably high. They are not isolated incidents but part of a broader war on free speech, waged in the name of consolidating unchallenged political power.

The free speech crisis hiding in plain sight isn’t about whether individuals can ever criticize powerful figures — it’s about whether institutions can withstand the pressure to self-censor in the face of legal and political intimidation. Without robust protections like anti-SLAPP laws and a renewed cultural commitment to defending open discourse, the chilling effect will only grow stronger, leaving what’s left of American democracy poorer for it.

Free speech has always been a contested principle, but its survival depends on our ability to see through the hypocrisy of those who claim to defend it while working to suppress it. The fight against censorship is not just a legal battle. It’s a fight to preserve the foundation of a free and open society.

Andy Craig

Andy Craig is a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies.

The Dictatorship

Democrats say White House offer on ICE is ‘insufficient’ as Homeland Security funding set to expire

Published

40 minutes ago

February 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats say White House offer on ICE is ‘insufficient’ as Homeland Security funding set to expire

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional leaders said Tuesday that a deal was still possible with the White House on Homeland Security Department funding before it expires this weekend. But the two sides were still far apart as Democrats demanded new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

After federal agents fatally shot two protesters in Minneapolis last month, Democrats say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to be “dramatically” reined in and are prepared to let Homeland Security shut down if their demands aren’t met. On Tuesday, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said they had rejected a White House counteroffer that “included neither details nor legislative text” and does not address “the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.”

“We simply want ICE to follow the same standards that most law enforcement agencies across America already follow,” Schumer said Tuesday. “Democrats await the next answer from our Republican counterparts.”

The Democrats’ rejection of the Republican counteroffer comes as time is running short, with a shutdown of the Homeland Security Department threatening to begin Saturday. Among the Democrats’ demands are a requirement for judicial warrants, better identification of DHS officers, new use-of-force standards and a stop to racial profiling.

Finding agreement on the charged, partisan issue of immigration enforcement will be exceedingly difficult. But even as lawmakers in both parties were skepticala White House official said that the administration was having constructive talks with both Republicans and Democrats. The official, granted anonymity to speak about ongoing deliberations, stressed that Trump wanted the government to remain open and for Homeland Security services to be funded.

Senate leaders also expressed some optimism.

“There’s no reason we can’t do this” by the end of the week, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said after meeting with his caucus on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said there have been “some really productive conversations.”

Democratic demands

Schumer and Jeffries have said they want immigration officers to remove their masksto show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

Among other asks, Democrats say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests, “improve warrant procedures and standards,” ensure the law is clear that officers cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant and require that before a person can be detained, it’s verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

Democrats made the demands for new restrictions on ICE and other federal law enforcement after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, and some Republicans suggested that new restrictions were necessary. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

Many Democrats said they won’t vote for another penny of Homeland Security funding until enforcement is radically scaled back.

“Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward,” Jeffries said. “Period. Full stop.”

Republican counterproposal

Jeffries said Tuesday that the White House’s offer “walked away from” their proposals for better identification of ICE agents, for more judicial warrants and for a prohibition on excessive use of force. Republicans also rejected their demand for an end to racial or ethnic profiling, Jeffries said.

“The White House is not serious at this moment in dramatically reforming ICE,” Jeffries said.

Republican lawmakers have also pushed back on the requests. Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a close ally of Trump, said Tuesday that he’s willing to discuss more body cameras and better training — both of which are already in the Homeland spending bill — but that he would reject the Democrats’ most central demands.

“They start talking about judicial warrants? No. They start talking about demasking them? No, not doing that. They want them to have a photo ID with their name on it? Absolutely not,” Mullin said.

Republicans have said ICE agents should be allowed to wear masks because they are more frequently targeted than other law enforcement officials.

“People are doxing them and targeting them,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday. “We’ve got to talk about things that are reasonable and achievable.”

Some Republicans also have demands of their own, including the addition of legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote and restrictions on cities that they say do not do enough to crack down on illegal immigration.

At a House hearing on Tuesdaythe acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, said his agency is “only getting started” and would not be intimidated as his officers carry out Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Trump deals with Democrats

Congress is trying to renegotiate the DHS spending bill after Trump agreed to a Democratic request that it be separated out from a larger spending measure that became law last week and congressional Republicans followed his lead. That package extended Homeland Security funding at current levels only through Feb. 13, creating a brief window for action as the two parties discuss new restrictions on ICE and other federal officers.

But even as he agreed to separate the funding, Trump has not publicly responded to the Democrats’ specific asks or suggested any areas of potential compromise.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said late last week that the Trump administration is willing to discuss some items on the Democrats’ list, but “others don’t seem like they are grounded in any common sense, and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Thune said Tuesday that “there are certain red lines that I think both sides have, things they are not going to negotiate on, but there are some things they are going to negotiate on, and that’s where I think the potential deal space is here.”

It was, so far, unclear what those issues were.

“We are very committed to making sure that federal law enforcement officers are able to do their jobs and to be safe doing them,” Thune said of Republicans.

Consequences of a shutdown

In addition to ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the homeland security bill includes funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration, among other agencies. If DHS shuts down, Thune said last week, “there’s a very good chance we could see more travel problems” similar to the 43-day government closure last year.

Thune has said Republicans will try to pass a two- to four-week extension of the Homeland Security funding while negotiations continue.

Many Democrats are unlikely to vote for another extension. But Republicans could potentially win enough votes in both chambers from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.

“The ball is in the Republicans’ court,” Jeffries said Monday.

___

Associated Press writers Matt Brown, Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

Trump threatens new bridge between Detroit and Canada

Published

40 minutes ago

February 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump threatens new bridge between Detroit and Canada

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to block the opening of a new Canadian-built bridge across the Detroit River, demanding that Canada turn over at least half of the ownership of the bridge and agree to other unspecified demands in his latest salvo over cross-border trade issues.

“We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset,” Trump said in a lengthy social media post, complaining that the United States would get nothing from the bridge and that Canada did not use U.S. steel to built it.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, named after a Canadian hockey star who played for the Detroit Red Wings for 25 seasons, had been expected to open in early 2026, according to information on the project’s website. The project was negotiated by former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder — a Republican — and paid for by the Canadian government to help ease congestion over the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor tunnel. Work has been underway since 2018.

It’s unclear how Trump would seek to block the bridge from being opened, and the White House did not immediately return a request for comment on more details. The Canadian Embassy in Washington also did not immediately return a request for comment.

Trump’s threat comes as the relationship between the U.S. and Canada increasingly sours during the U.S. president’s second term. The United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is up for review this year, and Trump has been taking a hard-line position ahead of those talks, including by issuing new tariff threats.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, has spoken out on the world stage against economic coercion by the United States.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said the Canadian-funded project is a “huge boon” to her state and its economic future. “You’ll be able to move cargo from Montreal to Miami without ever stopping at a street light,” Slotkin told The Associated Press.

“So to shoot yourself in the foot and threaten the Gordie Howe Bridge means that this guy has completely lost the plot on what’s good for us versus just what’s spite against the Canadians,” Slotkin said.

Michigan, a swing state that Trump carried in both 2016 and 2024, has so far largely avoided the brunt of his second-term crackdown, which has targeted blue states with aggressive immigration raids and cuts to federal funding for major infrastructure projects.

Trump and Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have also maintained an unusually cordial relationship, with the president publicly praising her during an Oval Office appearance last April. The two also shared a hug last year ahead of Trump’s announcement of a new fighter jet mission for an Air National Guard base in Michigan.

While Canada paid for the project, the bridge will be operated under a joint ownership agreement between Michigan and Canada, said Stacey LaRouche, press secretary to Whitmer.

“This is the busiest trade crossing in North America,” LaRouche said, saying the bridge was “good for Michigan workers and it’s good for Michigan’s auto industry” as well as being a good example of bipartisan and international cooperation.

“It’s going to open one way or another, and the governor looks forward to attending the ribbon-cutting,” LaRouche said.

Rep. Shri Thanedar, the Democratic House representative of Detroit, said blocking the bridge would be “crazy” and said Trump’s attacks on Canada weren’t good for business or jobs. “The bridge is going to help Michigan’s economy. There’s so much commerce between Michigan and Canada. They’re one of our biggest partners,” Thanedar said.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Ann Arbor brushed aside the president’s threat, saying she’s looking forward to the bridge’s opening later in the spring. “And I’ll be there,” Dingell said.

“That bridge is the biggest crossing in this country on the northern border. It’s jobs. It’s about protecting our economy. It was built with union jobs on both sides,” said Dingell. “It’s going to open. Canada is our ally.”

___

AP writer Ed White contributed from Detroit.