The Slippery Slope of Censorship: Trump’s Word Ban and its’ Political Implications

Introduction

On the day of his inauguration on the 20th of January 2025, President Trump launched an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” (The White House 2025) as a means of “[increasing] protections for legal speech and [reducing] the number of circumstances in which federal government seeks the suppression of viewpoints it dislikes” (Ruane 2025). Its Section 2b specifies that it ensures no federal government officer, employee or agent engages in any conduct that curtails the free speech of any American citizen. Despite this, President Trump, as the leader of the federal government (USA Gov) and thereby a federal government employee - has since authorised a new list of banned words, with a few examples below.

The White House’s new A-Z (Daniel et. al. 2025).

Its aim: to eliminate discourse at odds with what the Trump administration perceives as ‘merit’, and prevent the ‘elevation of unqualified or undeserving people’ (Daniel et. al. 2025). Its effects are already noticeable, with websites such as the key topics page of the State Department’s Office of Global Change, the Federal Aviation Administration’s job page, and the 2021 Headstart Memo being rephrased and reangled (Daniel et. al. 2025).

This article aims to uncover the legal legitimacy of his actions; whether bans on such terms in government memos, un/official agency guidance, public-facing websites and school curricula is constitutional or a direct infringement on the First Amendment.

Right to free speech under US constitution

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Legal Information Institute) This foundational principle enshrines the right of American citizens to express themselves without unwarranted government interference. This freedom of expression is not absolute, however, and its boundaries have been shaped by numerous Supreme Court cases. For instance, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court held that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War engaged in “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment, emphasizing that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Bill of Rights Institute). The Court found the school’s ban unconstitutional because it failed to demonstrate that the armbands caused a “material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline” and instead acted to suppress an unpopular viewpoint. Similarly, Texas v. Johnson (1989) affirmed that flag burning constitutes “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment (United States Courts). The majority opinion noted that freedom of speech protects even actions that society may find offensive, and societal outrage alone is not a justification for suppressing free speech. The Court specifically pointed out that the Texas law discriminated based on viewpoint by punishing flag burning that might arouse anger while exempting respectful actions towards venerated objects. Furthermore, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) established a crucial precedent for speech concerning public officials, ruling that to prove libel, a public official must show that the statement was made with “actual malice – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth” (United States Courts).

These cases highlight the broad protection afforded to various forms of expression under the First Amendment. However, the government, acting in specific capacities, particularly as an employer, has been granted some leeway in restricting employee speech. Cases like Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) illustrate this balance. In Pickering, the Court recognized that while public employees retain their First Amendment rights as citizens to comment on matters of public concern, this must be balanced against the state’s interest in promoting the efficiency of public services. The Court held that a teacher’s letter criticizing the school board’s funding allocation was protected because the statements were substantially correct, concerned a matter of public interest, and did not disrupt school operations or the teacher's duties (Justitia). Conversely, Garcetti v. Ceballos established that “when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline” (Justitia). The Court reasoned that restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what it has commissioned or created. Even with these allowances for government as employer, all restrictions must adhere to constitutional principles, a check ultimately overseen by the judiciary through the power of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, ensuring that government actions do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.

Government speech vs. Corporate free speech

The distinction between the public sector’s ability to restrict speech and private companies’ rights to regulate speech stems from the fundamental nature of constitutional limitations. The First Amendment directly limits the actions of the government, preventing it from abridging freedom of speech. Private companies, however, are generally not bound by the same constitutional constraints. They often operate under a “corporate model of speech control” where speech is regulated to protect their brand, reputation, and organizational objectives. For example, a company might have policies regarding employee conduct on social media to prevent negative statements that could harm its image. This is a form of internal governance aimed at maintaining a cohesive and productive environment, akin to the executive branch establishing a “government communication” policy. In this sense, communication originating from the White House or other government agencies can be viewed as an extension of executive decision-making and operational control, similar to internal memos or corporate statements in the private sector. The executive branch needs to ensure that its employees’ official communications are accurate, demonstrate sound judgment, and promote the government’s mission. This perspective aligns with the reasoning in Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the Court emphasized the government’s need for control over its employees’ speech made within their official duties to ensure efficient public service. However, even when the government acts in this “corporate” capacity, its policies and restrictions must still ultimately adhere to the Constitution. While a private company can likely ban employees from wearing political attire, the government, as seen in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, faces a higher bar when restricting even symbolic speech in a school setting. Furthermore, the government attempts to suppress speech based on viewpoint, even under the guise of internal communication policy, risking violating the First Amendment. The executive branch’s communication policy, therefore, while serving operational needs, cannot become a tool for unconstitutional censorship. The judiciary, as the final arbiter of constitutional matters (Marbury v. Madison (1801)), retains the authority to review such policies and actions to ensure they do not infringe upon the fundamental right to free speech. Recent concerns have been raised regarding government actions that appear to contradict the principles of free speech, such as alleged pressure on social media companies to moderate content and the circulation of lists of “banned words” for government staff, highlighting the ongoing tension between governmental authority and individual liberties in the realm of communication.

Analysis and possible implications on corporate law

Arguably, the Trump Administration's actions are not violating the First Amendment because this ‘ban on words’ is not an explicit order within any White House memo and these unofficial minor tweaks to wording may not have intensive political repercussions. This was seen during Trump’s last Presidency in 2019, where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were allegedly prohibited to use words such as ‘transgender’ and ‘fetus’ (Fox News 2017). If true, this strikingly similar incident is proof that in today’s circumstance, its consequence will likely be similar: that it will not result in serious infringements on individual private American citizens’ rights. This argument can be further supported by the Government Speech Doctrine, which establishes that although government regulation of private speech is limited by the First Amendment, it does not restrict it when expressing its own opinion (Legal Information Institute) to support the administration’s political agenda and national security. Therefore, if the government is not actively engaging in censorship of private individuals’ speech and is only restricting content of its own websites or within its administration, it could argue that it does not harm protections afforded to private citizens.

On the other hand, historically, the only instances in which similar federal-instigated censorship was permitted were in situations of national security concern. Examples include the Red Scare and consequent McCarthyism in the 1940-50s - where The House un-American Committee (HUAC) investigated, interrogated and blacklisted Americans; and the USA Patriot act after the 9/11 terrorist acts in 2001. In Schenck v United States (1919) and Dennis v United States (1951), it was explicitly established that the government can only restrict speech if it posed a ‘clear and present danger’ to the nation’s security. Since Trump’s culture war on ‘wokeness’ (Wünsch 2025) is not nearly a national emergency, it is hard to justify the administration's actions from a legal perspective and it seems like the executive branch is testing the boundaries of the constitution.

Public opinion on the matter tends toward criticism of the constitutionality of the jurisdictions actions, with free-speech experts such as Jacob Mchangama expressing concerns that even if the Supreme Court eventually stands up to the administration, the culture that the administration has supported it may affect public discourse as the self-censorship of these phrases takes hold (Legal Information Institute). This slippery slope argument postulates that because the phrases are so intertwined with the discussion of the protection of vulnerable minority communities, their removal from political discourse (at least for the next four years) will trickle down, resulting in some terms even completely disappearing from public political discourse - a vital pillar of American democratic culture. This effect can also be perpetuated by the tech companies X and Meta, whose increasing involvement in the Trump Administration could mean a similar adoption of these guidelines within their corporate policies, ultimately perpetuating the effect and further entering the grey area between government regulation and infringement upon the First Amendment right within public discourse.

Ultimately, however, the risk of a First Amendment violation would ring serious alarm bells only if the ban is explicitly implemented and officialised through an executive order. This does not take away from the fact that such reports should be taken seriously to spark renewed debate over the scope of the First Amendment right and what can and cannot illicit its restriction by a federal power. Additionally, due to this amendment’s sacrosanctity, it is unlikely that these actions could have widespread impacts on extra-governmental corporations’ guidelines and internal policies.

Bibliography

Amon, Joseph J. “Trump’s Banned Words and Disastrous Health Policies”. Health and Human Rights Journal. 03.02.2025. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/02/04/trumps-banned-words-and-disastrous-health-policies/

Bill of Rights Institute. “Tinket v Des Moines, 1969”. Bill of Rights Institute. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/tinker-v-des-moines-1969gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7dmBhCoARIsALFk4v_W36Y2iH9nD64OHTtrTwR4H6WUesGJI_Q6qqvWCzR9nc9QkB15DlgaAsV3EALw_wcB

Daniel, Annie; Saurabh Datar; Lazaro Gamio; Isaac White; Karen Yourish. “These words are disappearing in the New Trump Administration”. New York Times. 07.03.2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html

Fox News. “Trump Administration Reportedly prohibits CDC from using words like ‘transgender’, ‘fetus’”. Fox News. 16.12.2017. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-reportedly-prohibits-cdc-from-using-words-like-t ransgender-fetus

Justitia. “Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968)”. Justitia U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/563/

Justitia. “Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)”. Justitia U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/

Legal Information Institute. “First Amendment”. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Legal Information Institute. “Government Speech”. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech

Ruane, Kate. “When it comes to free speech, the Trump Administration should follow its own order”. Center for Democracy and Technology. 10.02.2025. https://cdt.org/insights/when-it-comes-to-free-speech-the-trump-administration-should-follow-its-own-ord er/

The Economist. “Donald Trump is setting new boundaries for political speech”. The Economist. 15.03.2025. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/03/13/donald-trump-is-setting-new-boundaries-for-politic al-speech

The White House. “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”. The White House. 20.01.2025.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federa l-censorship/

United States Courts. “Facts and Case Summary - Texas v Johnson”. United States Courts https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendme nt-activities/texas-v-johnson/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson

United States Courts. “New York Times v Sullivan Podcast”. United States Courts https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/new-york -times-v-sullivan

USA Gov. “Branches of the US Government”.

https://www.usa.gov/branches-ofgovernment#:~:text=President%20%2D%20The%20president%20is%2 0the,the%20United%20States%20armed%20forces.

Wünsch, Silke. “The culture war on ‘wokeness’, from US to Germany”. Deutsche Welle. 03.12.2025. https://www.dw.com/en/the-culture-war-on-wokeness-from-the-us-to-germany/a-71892359