Censorship Part 1.1: JD Vance in Munich
Does the Trump Administration Speak Out of Both Sides of Its Mouth on Censorship?
Introduction: Castigating European Leaders
On February 14th, Vice President JD Vance delivered an address to the Munich Security Conference in which he castigated European leaders for failing to safeguard their citizens' right to free speech. He laid out specific instances where citizens were prosecuted for speech or actions that would be protecting under the United States Constitution. Vance singled out attempts by European governments to regulate misinformation and disinformation, at one point suggesting that the winners of the cold war had reverted to acting like the Soviet Union:
To many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old, entrenched interests hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation, who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion, or, God forbid, vote a different way—or even worse, win an election.
The Vice President was careful to point out that the Biden administration had encouraged social media companies to censor anything deemed to be misinformation, disinformation, or hate speech:
And in the interest of comity, my friends, but also in the interest of truth, I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe, but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation.
Regulating False Information
The goal of this post is not to answer the question of whether misinformation, disinformation, and any other forms of speech should be regulated, online or otherwise. It seems reasonable to conclude that any attempts by the U.S. Government and media to regulate what people post online or say in public are going to be problematic from a constitutional standpoint, especially if the dissemination of false information can't be directly linked to harm done to an individual or individuals (or to national security). Also, the people most likely to believe and spread misinformation are people whose personal views prime them to believe what is posted, no matter what the source.
On the other hand, an argument could be made that since significant accounts of news and information posted on social media come from foreign actors or political operatives attempting to influence popular opinion or voting habits, regulation of some sources might be justifiable. My personal opinion is that even the regulation of disinformation posted by nefarious sources would need to be done with great care to avoid trampling on the rights of individuals to express themselves. Teaching people to better be able to recognize misinformation and disinformation before they spread it might be a more reasonable approach.
The question that needs to be asked is: does the Trump administration practice what they preach? From a constitutional standpoint, Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch of the government, so he can determine what is acceptable speech for federal employees in the prosecution of their duties. According to findlaw.com:
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that employees do not actually have free speech rights when they are performing their job duties. This is true for both public and private employees, with few exceptions...If an employee is paid to write, speak, tweet, post, blog, or create content on behalf of an employer, then that is not protected free speech. Aside from college professors, there are very few exceptions to this. Basically, if a person is a mouthpiece of any type for their employer, even government employers, they cannot go rogue and rely on the First Amendment.
So, the administration can legally regulate the speech of its own employees. Is there a point, though, where their actions become hypocritical in light of JD Vance's Munich address? Maybe.
Executive Orders
Executive Order 14168
Executive Order 14168, titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government", was issued by Donald Trump on January 20th. The order requires the government to recognize only two sexes and ends the promotion of gender ideology by any federal agency, saying
...my Administration will defend women's rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.
After the order was signed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention required the retraction of any unpublished research containing words such as gender, transgender, LGBT, nonbinary, and many other terms. At the National Institute of Health, all grants containing these or similar keywords were cancelled. In a more dubious move, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, terminated employees who discussed subjects such as preferred pronouns in group chats. Other actions affected employees and policies at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the EEOC, the National science foundation, and multiple other government agencies.
Executive Order 14149
This executive order, also signed on January 20th, prohibits federal employees, agencies, or officers from infringing on any American's right to free speech. It will, by definition, prevent the government or social media companies from regulating speech by claiming to be combating misinformation or disinformation. This, on the surface, would seem like a positive thing, but there are some who argue that the language is very vague and could potentially restrict the government's ability to target illegal content like CSAM or terrorist activity.
It isn't clear whether these executive orders (and others such as Executive Order 14151, which led to large amounts of material being removed from government web sites) violate the constitution, although there will certainly be challenges to them in the courts. Do they rise to the level of "censorship"? They certainly limit what the government and its employees can say and publish. As noted above, though, they would seem to be legal, and the answer will almost certainly depend on your political views.
Speaking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths?
Another aspect to consider is Donald Trump’s personal behavior and the administration’s approach to dissent. He routinely denigrates anyone he disagrees with, and his White House has banned media outlets for absurd reasons such as refusing to use the term "Gulf of America", leading many to question whether the Trump administration wants to silence any media outlets that don't agree with administration policies. Also, the administration's attempts to "muzzle", as the LA Times says, "people it disagrees with, including journalists, federal health officials, teachers, diplomats, climate scientists and the LGBTQ+ community", seem glaring after the Vice President’s speech. All of this could certainly have a chilling effect on free speech and expression. So, the Trump administration's actions may be legal, but are they hypocritical? Maybe.
Sources
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2024.2362484#d1e252
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14168
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14149
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-01-26/trump-free-speech-executive-order-critics-respond