Syril, 25, carries a large banner of the US constitution with a number of other demonstrators during a protest marking US President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office, in Washington, DC, US, 30 April 2025. REUTERS/Allison Bailey

The Trump administration has executed a wide-ranging crackdown on freedom of speech by targeting student protestors, lawyers and the press. Global Insight assesses the threat to the rule of law and what is being done to protect it.

On 8 March, recent Colombia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil was returning home from dinner with his eight-month pregnant wife when he was arrested and forced into an unmarked car by four agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Khalil, a legal resident in the US, had been a leader of the pro-Palestine protests on Colombia’s campus last spring. He is being held in a detention facility in Louisiana awaiting deportation and has not been charged with a crime.

‘They are targeting the most vulnerable people who are standing up for Palestinian rights,’ says Justin Mazzola, Deputy Director of Research at Amnesty International USA, which is working closely with the lawyers on Khalil’s case. ‘The idea is to basically get people to stop protesting what’s happening in Gaza.’

In the short time that US president Donald Trump has held power, his administration has weaponised the federal government to suppress speech and punish his adversaries. In what many experts have challenged as a violation of First Amendment rights, a cornerstone of US democracy, President Trump has threatened protestors, banned news outlets from covering White House events and used executive orders to sanction law firms who he believes attacked him unfairly in the past. Subsequent court cases will test America’s most fundamental checks and balances on executive power.

‘We are seeing the gravest assault on freedom of speech at least since the McCarthy era, and I think in many respects the nation’s history,’ says Jonathan Hafetz, a professor of law at Seton Hall Law School and Membership Officer of the IBA Human Rights Law Committee.

The high-profile arrest of Khalil is part of a series of actions taken by the Trump administration against foreign students who have expressed support for Palestinians. Students and faculty members at US universities across the country have been detained by federal agents and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that his department has revoked at least 300 foreign students’ visas. Following arrests, government lawyers have cited a provision of a rarely used 1952 immigration law that allows the Secretary of State to revoke visas or permanent residency from anyone judged to be undermining US foreign policy. Jameel Jaffer, the inaugural director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, an independent organisation founded by Colombia University, believes that the arrests and detentions of foreign students are ‘impossible to reconcile’ with the First Amendment, and predicts that the courts will eventually make clear that it protects non-citizens from deportation. ‘At the most basic level if the First Amendment means anything it means that the government can’t arrest you or imprison you for political speech,’ he says. ‘That is the core protection of the First Amendment.’

In March, the national American Association of University Professors (AAUP), AAUP chapters at Havard, NYU and Rutgers, and the Middle East Studies Association, represented by the Knight Institute, filed a lawsuit in Boston seeking to block the arrests, detentions and deportations of international students and staff ‘who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other protected First Amendment activities.’

Jaffer adds, however, that the question of whether the Trump administration will comply with any court rulings remains. ‘Both the court’s willingness to enforce their orders and the Trump administration’s decisions about how to respond to the court orders will be influenced by perceptions of public opinion,’ he says.

Alongside visa revocations in recent months the US government commenced a widespread termination of Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records from a national database. A visa revocation, while significant, only impacts a person’s ability to return to the country, whereas eliminating a student’s SEVIS status puts them at risk of deportation. The government has since reversed the policy and reactivated most records following hundreds of lawsuits filed by students who said their records had been terminated based on charges that had been dismissed or minor offences that would not warrant a cancellation. NAFSA, an educational non-profit, found that some SEVIS record terminations referenced ‘potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.’

Adam Cohen, an immigration lawyer and partner at Siskind Susser in Tennessee, is concerned by the lack of due process and transparency related to the SEVIS terminations, which he says could resume at any time. ‘The problem is when they’re terminating the SEVIS record, they’re making people believe that they need to leave immediately and they’re not even getting to that hearing in an immigration court,’ he says. ‘It’s not even clear what the issue was right? What was the adverse foreign policy? In certain cases, did they repost something on social media?’

In addition to the crackdown on international students the White House has threatened to withdraw millions of dollars in federal funding from at least 60 universities unless they agree to a set of demands to address alleged failures to comply with federal civil rights laws related to antisemitism and drop diversity, equity and inclusion policies. In response, elite US university Havard has filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing the funding freeze violates procedural requirements and its First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech. To restore its funding, Colombia University agreed to many of the administration’s demands including allowing security officers to remove or arrest individuals and taking control of its Middle East department from faculty.

In response to the action against Colombia, of the country’s top constitutional professors, both liberal and conservatives, wrote an open letter critical of the Trump administration’s use of funding cuts ‘as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First-Amendment protected speech,' which can extend to viewpoints ‘many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive.’ The First Amendment offers broad protections and guarantees freedom of the press, speech, religion, the right to assemble and the right to petition the government.

Jaffer says the damage being done while students and universities wait for court judgments is significant. ‘It has created a climate of fear and repression on campuses across the country,’ he says. ‘It’s caused an intense chilling effect and really changed the character of American universities quite dramatically.’

The sanctioning of the lawyers

In certain cases, the question of whether the executive branch would defy a ruling by a federal judge has already been answered. In February the chief judge of the US Court for the District of Colombia ordered the US government to halt deportation flights carrying immigrants alleged to be Venezuelan gang members. But officials chose to ignore the order. ‘This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!’ President Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social. In April, the FBI arrested a judge in Wisconsin for allegedly helping an undocumented migrant evade arrest.

Following the Trump administration’s refusal to turn the planes around, many commentators have declared the US in a constitutional crisis. Steven Richman is Chair of the IBA’s Bar Issue Commission and a member at Clark Hill. He says while Trump undermining judges is concerning, the fears about him transforming the US into an authoritarian state should be placed in context. ‘Since Marbury v Madison established the primacy of judicial review in 1803, by which the federal courts could declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions as unconstitutional, presidents of various parties from time to time have been alleged to have defied the Supreme Court. The facts of each situation and specific rulings of the Court remain important to evaluate the executive’s conduct. What is significant is that there remains an acknowledgement that the rule of law governs, and Marbury v Madison remains in place.’ Some of the most aggressive escalations of the Trump administration’s assaults on the legal system have manifested in a barrage of executive orders punishing large commercial law firms who have represented his political opponents or been involved in causes against him. The orders, which allege wrongdoing by individual lawyers and civil rights law violations by affirmative action schemes, terminate the firms from government contracts and restrict their employees from access to federal buildings. To avoid the sanctions, multiple law firms have cut deals with President Trump and collectively agreed to provide $940m in pro bono work for causes his administration supports. Others have decided to stand firm.

‘The order is a plain violation of the First Amendment,’ Jenner & Block said, which, alongside Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, successfully obtained preliminary court rulings to block the executive orders. ‘Our constitution forbids attempts by the government to retaliate against citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice and the people with whom they associate.’

Richman says the government using executive power to take revenge on lawyers is problematic and a direct challenge to the independence of the legal profession. ‘If someone feels that a law firm has brought a frivolous or legally unjustified claim, there are remedies at law for pursuing such claims. The end can never justify the means. The means – due process, fairness, respect for the social contract and political will that underlies a system – must be respected.’

In response to the executive orders more than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief, accusing the Trump administration of a campaign of ‘draconian punishment’ against lawyers who have acted for clients it disapproves of. ‘Whatever short-term advantage the administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot endure in the climate of fear that such actions create.’

Some lawyers at firms who are unhappy with their employer’s decision to negotiate a deal with President Trump have quit their jobs in protest. One such former associate, Rachel Cohen, gave up her role at a prestigious white shoe law firm because of its decision not to challenge the Trump administration’s sanctioning of the legal profession. ‘I sent what I considered a conditional resignation that either we need to do something about this real infringement on the legal system, on democracy, on traditional impartiality, or I can’t work here anymore.’

Cohen, who has now joined recently launched firm Lowell and Associates, which is dedicated to representing those facing legal actions from the Trump administration, believes that the agreements law firms are reaching with Trump are shortsighted, especially in the cases where they have proactively made a deal with Trump to avoid an executive order being issued in the first place. ‘I don’t know why anyone would think that a president who has a history of not respecting people who he has entered into deals with would respect the terms of a terrible deal when people have shown them what their weak spots are,’ she says.

Lower courts have been strong in opposing President Trump’s efforts to undermine the legal system and suppress freedom of speech. A federal judge in Washington, DC temporarily blocked Trump’s executive order against Susman Godfrey, which helped Dominion (a manufacturer of voting machines that lawyers for Trump falsely accused of deleting votes for him in the 2020 election) secure a $700m settlement to resolve a defamation case against Fox News. The judge called the executive order ‘a shocking abuse of power’, which stemmed from a ‘personal vendetta.'

‘It was a clear attempt to retaliate against the law firm for representing a client that was seeking to hold Fox News to account for spreading lies and misinformation about the 2020 election,’ says Hafetz. ‘This is why it is so surprising and disappointing that some law firms have sought to cut deals with the Trump administration because those firms that have fought back have been vindicated and received relief.’

In its statement after the settlement, Fox acknowledged that the court found some of its statements about Dominion to be false, but said its settlement ‘reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.’

Threats against the media

Alongside law firms, major media organisations have chosen to negotiate with Trump rather than challenge his attacks. In the run up to President Trump’s inauguration ABC News quickly settled a defamation lawsuit filed by Trump and Meta agreed to pay $25m to resolve a lawsuit over its decision to suspend Trump from its social media platforms following the January 6 attack on the US capital. In another notable move, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times pulled their presidential endorsements.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken an aggressive approach to news organisations it disfavours. The Federal Communications Commission has opened investigations into ABC, CBS and NBC News. In February, the White House announced that it had banned the Associated Press from accessing certain press events because of its refusal to rename a body of water the Gulf of America. The White House said it would also exert greater control over which news outlets would get access to the president.

Governments favouring certain news organisations over others ‘is part of the authoritarian playbook,’ says Mark Stephens, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute. ‘Banning the Associated Press essentially covering Trump in the way you would normally expect is designed to interfere with the free flow of information.’

Mel Bunce, a professor of international journalism and politics at City St George’s, University of London, says that the seriousness of the ban is underscored by the vital role of the Associated Press as a conduit for information. ‘The Associated Press is an incredibly important news organisation that is relied on by hundreds of news outlets around the world. Alongside Reuters and AFP, it is one of the most important building blocks of the international news system,’ she says. ‘It is one of the most rigorous and fact-based news organisations, and their news is shared globally – to millions of people in audiences around the world. And that’s why this is such a red flag.’

While targeting the mainstream media, the Trump administration has branded itself as the ultimate defender of free speech. Trump officials backed up by billionaire social media owners have become fervent critics of ‘censorship’ coming from ‘woke’ progressivism that, they argue, would like to constrain the First Amendment.

In April a federal judge in a preliminary injunction ordered the White House to restore the access of The Associated Press access to cover presidential events, affirming on First Amendment grounds that the government cannot punish the news organisation for the content of its speech. Trump administration lawyers argued in court filings that the Associated Press does not have a constitutional right to specific presidential events.

In a show of solidarity against the ban, 40 news organisations signed a letter urging the White House to reverse the restrictions on the Associated Press. The signatories included outlets like Fox News and Newsmax, where many of the broadcasters and audience members are Trump supporters.

Amy Brouillette is Director of Advocacy at the International Press Institute, an organisation that works to defend press freedom and independent journalism. ‘Limiting access to media pool events because of the news agency’s editorial decisions stifles freedom of speech,’ she says. ‘News organisations should be allowed to make editorial decisions without fear of retaliation from government officials.’

In another setback to the Trump administration a federal judge temporarily blocked its dismantling of state-funded broadcaster Voice of America, following an executive order accusing it of being ‘anti-Trump’ and ‘radical’. The director of Voice of America, Mike Abramowitz announced that almost his entire staff of 1,300 people had been placed on administrative leave.

The Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the 90-day freeze on foreign development assistance funding, is also impacting independent journalism internationally. ‘The recent freezing of USAID is having a very serious impact on the media and civil society organisations that play a role in ensuring accountability and transparency,’ says Brouillette. ‘The role that the media and civil society play is not only important for democracy but it’s also important for peace and security.’

Alice Johnson is the IBA Multimedia Journalist and can be contacted at alice.johnson@int-bar.org