The Dictatorship
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 TrumpElon 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 Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination, a spokesperson said late Wednesday, as two retiring Republicans on the panel dug in over President Donald Trump’s personal “anti-weaponization” deal with the government he runs.
Sen. Chuck Grassley’s decision to delay the committee vote that had been set for Thursday marks a setback for one of Trump’s highest-profile Cabinet nominees, at the hands of Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a pair of Republicans set to leave the chamber next year.
“Chairman Grassley works to set President Trump’s nominees up for success in committee, not failure. Senators Cornyn and Tillis want written assurances from the Department of Justice regarding the Trump-IRS settlement,” the committee spokesperson said.
Blanche’s nomination to permanently head the Department of Justice needs the support of either Cornyn or Tillis to make it out of the committee to a vote by the full Senate, assuming all Democrats remain opposed.
“Why don’t you call over the Department of Justice and tell them they have one hour and 50 minutes to get me what I asked for,” Cornyn told reporters Wednesday afternoon amid the hardening standoff over his demand that Blanche and the DOJ put in writing a commitment never to pursue the president’s prized “anti-weaponization” fund, and to clarify the terms of Trump’s personal deal with the Internal Revenue Service.
Tillis told MS NOW that the conversations were complicated by the need for the Justice Department to get “several parties” to agree on the language of the statement Cornyn and Tillis are seeking.
“What I’ve advised the chair, and I would assume Senator Cornyn said something similar, is that we’re not prepared to vote yes yet,” he added.
“The Department has been in regular communication with Committee members for weeks, and we look forward to continuing to work productively with Senators to address any concerns,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to the decision to postpone the committee vote.
Cornyn was set to meet with Blanche on Wednesday morning, but the meeting was called off after Blanche failed to meet the senator’s demand for written proposals to modify the controversial settlement agreement he brokered between Trump and the IRS. The Republican senator is set to leave Congress when his term ends in January after a bruising May primary loss to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Trump’s chosen candidate.
“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him,” Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon in the Oval Office. “I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem. I heard (Blanche) is going through quite nicely.”
Cornyn made clear to Blanche during his confirmation hearing that he will not get his support until he agrees to reopen and modify the settlement. Due to the committee’s narrow Republican majority, one GOP “no” vote is enough to sink Blanche’s nomination.
The senator has asked Blanche to provide proof that the proposed nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund established as part of the deal between Trump and the IRS is formally dead, and he has also demanded Blanche narrow the tax audit immunity provisions the settlement afforded to Trump and his family.
Blanche has publicly stated that his department has dropped the fund, but he and the DOJ have dodged requests from Cornyn and a federal judge to put that in writing.
After announcing his meeting with Blanche would not take place Wednesday morning, Cornyn told reporters that changes from Blanche “in a modified release form” would be acceptable, but that “for some reason … they simply refuse to do it,” referring to the DOJ.
Shortly after the meeting was called off, a Justice Department official told MS NOW that the department “provided a written proposal to Senator Cornyn’s staff yesterday following ongoing discussion with both the Committee and the Senator’s office.”
Cornyn said that proposal was “not responsive” to his demands because it did not address the tax audit immunity provisions in the settlement, one of his key demands.
In May, Blanche signed an addendum as part of the deal that granted Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from pending IRS tax audits. That agreement, which has been decried by former IRS officials and legal experts as unlawful self-dealing, is being contested in federal court.
Cornyn noted that Blanche testified under oath that he could meet the request during his confirmation hearing.
“Maybe they think I’m just going to give up or you know, go along, but they’re mistaken,” Cornyn said when asked why he thinks the DOJ could be slow-walking his request.
Kevin Frey contributed to this report.
Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived this week for his tour of Washington, he may have had a mission in mind.
Netanyahu needed to overcome his newly diminished stature and waning influence over his once close friend President Donald Trump as both leaders grapple with the unpopularity of a war they started together and is escaping their control.
His meeting at the White House with Trump on Tuesday, which was closed to the press, was the first face-to-face encounter between the two allies since the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack against Iran on Feb. 28.
Trump gave him a muted welcome and afterwards simply described the meeting as “very good.” “Obviously, many important subjects were discussed,” the president wrote on Truth Social.
Rather than an intimate one-on-one setting, the Oval Office was full of top U.S. officials — Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and special envoy Steve Witkoff.
But Netanyahu continued the full court press on the Trump administration.
Over the course of two days, in addition to seeing Trump and attending Sen. Lindsey Graham’s funeral at the Capitol, Netanyahu also met separately with Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio, White House and Israeli officials confirmed to MS NOW.
The Israeli prime minister’s slate of meetings with key U.S. national security officials comes at a pivotal moment in the Iran conflict as tensions escalate in the region and Americans increasingly sour on the war. A recent Quinnipiac poll shows 60% of American voters opposing U.S. military action against Iran and 74% against sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
Not only does Trump face pressure as Republicans face an uphill battle to retain congressional control in this fall’s midterms, Netanyahu’s fate as prime minister is at stake in Israel’s upcoming September elections – and he can’t afford to lose Trump’s favor.
The talks largely focused on what to do next as Iran continues to menace shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and retaliate against American bases in the region and launch attacks on Gulf allies.
According to a senior Israeli official who was granted anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not come to a final decision after discussing three paths forward: get a “good deal” focused on Iran’s nuclear program and enriched material, have no deal and instead continue the blockade and economic pressure, or take escalated military action.
But Netanyahu did not tell Trump what he should do – nor did he express a preference.
The senior Israeli official noted Netanyahu has not ruled out diplomacy – as long as it is coupled with “very strong pressures,” calling the push to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program “a contest of will and a contest of force.”
“There are ways of squeezing them and squeezing them and squeezing them and negotiating at the same time,” the official said.
Netanyahu did not present President Trump with new intelligence regarding the underground Iranian nuclear facility Pickaxe Mountain, per the senior Israeli official, noting the U.S. and Israel already are constantly sharing intelligence – and know where Iran’s highly enriched material is. “We don’t think it’s moved, and I think we have a pretty good grasp on that,” the official said.
During their meeting on Tuesday, Trump and Netanyahu discussed ways Israel and the U.S. can work together to stop Iran’s nuclear program and get the Strait of Hormuz open to maritime trade, the senior Israeli official said.
The two leaders also discussed a third goal: to continue to undermine the Iranian regime and “possibly create future conditions for a change in that area.” U.S. officials have backed away from pursuing paths that would overthrow the current leadership, but Netanyahu still believes that could happen.
“The chasm that has been created between the people and the regime is not about to be closed,” the senior Israeli official said of Netanyahu’s thinking.
Netanyahu advised Trump in February that Israeli intelligence indicated launching strikes against Iran would lead to the toppling of the Islamic Republic’s regime – and five months later, the slain ayatollah’s son retains power with a close circle of hardliners, calling into question the accuracy of Israel’s intelligence apparatus.
But the senior Israeli official said at the time, Netanyahu did not promise the Iranian people would take fate into their own hands following a coordinated attack. Rather, he chose his words carefully and said that an attack could create conditions to “advance the probability or the possibility that that would happen.”
The conditions needed for the Iranian regime to fall, “did not materialize,” the official told MS NOW, adding, “not for lack of insight, but for either operational failure or decisions that were made.”
Despite Netanyahu insisting Israel and the U.S. are on the same page, differences still remain: the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and the Saudi nuclear arrangement did not come up during Wednesday’s White House meeting, according to a second Israeli official granted anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
Meanwhile, the conflict continues to spread, with an Iranian drone attacking a U.S. gas storage tanker off the coast of Egypt on Wednesday.
Trump indicated he would not let Iran’s latest action slide, telling reporters on Wednesday that the U.S. would retaliate against Iran even as he leaves room for diplomatic talks to resume.
“It’s our turn, and we’ll see if we get there with an agreement at some point,” Trump said. “But we’re going to hit them very hard.”
As for what it would take for Israel to join the U.S. strikes, the senior Israeli official said that if Israel is attacked by Iran, “We will respond very, very forcefully and very quickly. And I think Iran would make a great mistake.”
Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.
International rage over FIFA’s close ties to President Donald Trump has reached a fever pitch after soccer’s governing body announced a plan to sell a significant stake to an investor group led by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law.
The president and his family have all but turned the White House into their personal piggy bank. And FIFA — which has its own sordid history of corruption — seems to have made itself a party to Trump’s self-enrichment under Gianni Infantino’s leadership, such as by paying for space inside Trump Tower in New York. (The organization has defended the office rental as a World Cup outpost.)
Soccer is seen by many as a unifying game. But Trump’s incorporation of FIFA into his political dynasty is threatening that idea.
FIFA has announced plans to sell a large minority stake in a new company that will run its main events, including the World Cup and Club World Cup, as part of a plan to triple the amount of development money it dishes out to its 211 member associations.
Under the proposals — which are subject to approval by a majority of those national associations and FIFA’s 37-member council — a new entity called FIFA Forward Enterprises (FFE) will take over all commercial operations, while FIFA remains the game’s global governing body and retains a majority stake in FFE.
A press release from FIFA confirmed the plans and said Thrive Eternal, which was launched by Joshua Kushner, is expected to lead the investment group that would control FIFA Forward Enterprise. FIFA did not clarify why Thrive Eternal was selected, and Kushner was already dabbling in sports.
But Trump basically has already given son-in-law Jared Kushner carte blanche to dictate U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East while simultaneously hatching business plans in the region. (Jared Kushner has denied any conflicts of interest.)
Joshua Kushner reportedly has been a major donor to Democrats. But, predictably, the idea of another Kushner becoming financially entwined with the World Cup — the world’s most popular sporting event — and basically being dropped into a position of global significance isn’t going over well. Several other soccer governing bodies have expressed concerns, including Europe’s UEFA.
“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said in a statement about The Athletic’s report, adding: “The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade — especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also rebuked the plan, writing on X: “Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough — now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a multibillion-dollar deal with Jared Kushner’s brother to sell ownership stakes in the World Cup to private investors.”
FIFA, Donald Trump’s favorite corrupt racketeering enterprise in world sports, is now going directly into business with the Trump family!
Apparently the fake Peace Prize and giant lease with Trump Tower weren’t enough—now Infantino performs a kickback hat trick by pursuing a… https://t.co/knSZibuMea
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) July 28, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., has already launched an investigation into the FIFA leader’s relationship with the Trump administration, while dozens of European lawmakers — citing concerns about “potential breaches of political neutrality” — have called for the FIFA Ethics Committee to investigate Infantino. This new proposal seems unlikely to assuage those concerns.
But what it does seem likely to do is fuel global anger toward the U.S. — the kind that has been growing since Trump retook office.
And when you consider that, it’s truly remarkable how the same MAGA movement whose members whined for years about politics mixing with sports is now in lockstep with a president who seems dead-set on casting his shadow over every sports event he can.
This post on X basically sums up the foul stench around FIFA’s latest proposal.
Sepp Blatter was Infantino’s predecessor as FIFA president and oversaw the organization amid some of its many scandals. When heof all people, is warning about how Trump and Infantino’s relationship is “deeply damaging” soccer, it’s a sign of how far FIFA has descended into the gutter.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words