A Survey Suggests Most Americans Are Not Keen on Trump's Speech-Based Deportation Initiative
Just a quarter of respondents said they favored deporting students for "expressing pro-Palestine views."

By trying to deport student activists he describes as antisemitic "terrorist sympathizers," you might think, President Donald Trump is cannily choosing unpopular targets who are unlikely to attract much public support. But according to recent polling by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), most Americans are not fans of that speech-chilling initiative.
According to the latest iteration of FIRE's quarterly National Speech Index survey, which was conducted from April 4 through April 11, just 26 percent of Americans "support" or "strongly support" a policy of "deporting foreigners legally in the United States on a student visa for expressing pro-Palestine views," while 52 percent—twice as many— "oppose" or "strongly oppose" that policy. The rest were undecided.
When FIRE asked about "deporting foreigners legally in the United States with a green card for expressing pro-Palestine views," the results were similar. While 23 percent of respondents thought that was a good idea, 53 percent disagreed, and 23 percent took no position.
"Deporting someone simply for disagreeing with the government's foreign policy preferences strikes at the very freedoms the First Amendment was designed to protect," says Sean Stevens, FIRE's chief research adviser. "Americans are right to reject this kind of viewpoint-based punishment."
The results might have been different, of course, if the targeted views had been described as "anti-Israel," which would be a fair characterization of the campus protests inspired by the war that Hamas started on October 7, 2023. The respondents might have been even less inclined to reject "viewpoint-based punishment" if the survey had asked about foreigners with "pro-Hamas," "pro-terrorist," or "anti-Semitic" views, the more tendentious labels that Trump and his underlings prefer.
Still, assuming the respondents were familiar with this controversy and understood the range of opinions covered by the phrase "pro-Palestine views," the results suggest that Americans are more skeptical of speech-based deportation than Trump probably expected. They might be even more worried if they recognized the startling breadth of the statutory authority on which Trump is relying to expel people whose views offend him, based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's unilateral determination that they pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Americans also seem leery of Trump's efforts to peremptorily deport suspected gang members, sometimes based on weakly supported allegations. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they opposed "deporting foreigners legally in the United States for having a soccer tattoo that was interpreted as a gang tattoo."
That specific scenario alludes to Jerce Reyes Barrios, one of the Venezuelans who were deported and consigned to a notorious prison in El Salvador last month, in apparent defiance of a court order. As Reason's Eric Boehm noted, Reyes Barrios, an asylum seeker, seems to have been identified as a member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua largely because of his "tattoo of a soccer ball with a crown and the Spanish word Dios," which his lawyer said signified that he was "a former professional soccer player and a fan of Real Madrid," as opposed to a dangerously violent gangster.
The unchallenged reliance on such evidence, which also has figured in other deportation cases, primarily implicates the Fifth Amendment right to due process. But there is also a First Amendment angle when the government treats body art as proof of criminality, which presumably is why FIRE included this question.
While tattoo-based deportation seems decidedly unpopular, the FIRE survey suggests that Americans are less upset about Trump's financial pressure on universities. Just 37 percent of respondents said they opposed "rescinding federal funding from colleges and universities for not doing enough to combat anti-Semitism on campus." Opposition to "rescinding federal funding from colleges and universities that fail to disband DEI programs" and "rescinding federal funding from colleges and universities that fail to arrest student protesters who express pro-Palestine views" was stronger: 45 percent and 47 percent, respectively.
The survey also found that 50 percent of Americans completely reject the proposition that "the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees." Although that result may strike civil libertarians as disappointing, it is the highest level of support for freedom of speech recorded in response to this question since the first National Speech Index survey in January 2024, when 56 percent of respondents were at least "slightly" inclined to agree that First Amendment protections are too broad. That number has dropped steadily since then.
By contrast, Americans' impression of how free speech is faring in the United States has fluctuated since the first survey. In January 2024, 69 percent of respondents thought "things in America" were "headed in…the wrong direction" when it came to "whether people are able to freely express their views." That number dropped to 63 percent in April 2024, rose to 69 percent in July 2024, and fell in the next two surveys, reaching a low of 59 percent last January. It rose again in the latest survey, in which 62 percent of respondents were pessimistic about free speech trends, which is still lower than the peaks recorded during the Biden administration.
The survey also asked people "how much confidence" they had that "Donald Trump will protect your First Amendment rights." By and large, it turned out, not much: Fifty-one percent had either "no confidence at all" or "very little confidence," while 33 percent quantified their confidence as "full" or "quite a lot" and 16 percent settled on "some." The no/very little confidence rating for Trump is up from 41 percent in January.
If you are inclined toward optimism, you might interpret those results as evidence that Americans are turned off by Trump's various attempts to punish people for speech that irks him, whether through deportation, regulation, litigation, criminal investigations, or executive decrees targeting disfavored lawyers and journalists. But FIRE asked the same question about California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the results were similar: Fifty-three percent of respondents had either "no" or "very little" confidence in Newsom's commitment to First Amendment rights.
The corresponding number for Joe Biden was a bit lower in April 2024: 45 percent, compared to 47 percent for Trump at that point. The gap between Trump and Kamala Harris was slightly bigger last October: 48 percent vs. 42 percent.
In all of these cases, most people were not highly confident that politicians could be trusted to respect freedom of speech, which makes sense. If that were a safe bet, we would not need a constitutional guarantee.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
asked 1,000 American adults
Now we need to make all policies based on 1,000 adults. Likely students and all under 21.
I doubt you can find 1,000 adults among today's students.
And make sure the questions are lies framed to get a specific response.
The sample size would've been 200k people but they tossed out 180,000 people for not knowing who Chase Oliver was and another 19,000 for not knowing he was gay.
I am sure it is a decent enough sampling. The real problem is that Sullum just imputes what these people are expressing in the poll with his own biases.
"Still, assuming the respondents were familiar with this controversy and understood the range of opinions covered by the phrase "pro-Palestine views," the results suggest that Americans are more skeptical of speech-based deportation than Trump probably expected"
No, Sullum, it suggests that people can tell the difference between "Pro-Palestinian speech" and "Anti-Jewish" or "Terrorist Sympathizer" activities.
Again we get an article from Sullum where he takes a quote (in this case a poll) and interprets it in the least charitable way in an attempt to justify his entire narrative. It is tired and poor journalism, and it is time for some editor to put a stop to it.
"journalism"
That's a stretch.
Yellow journalism is still, technically, journalism.
It's not yellow journalism though, it's propaganda.
Wonder why they chose pro Palestinian and not anti western world/America.
Does "pro-palistinian speech" sound like "kill every Jew in the middle east"?
Can Jakey here name a time when a person was deported JUST for making "pro-Jordanians who live in Gaza" speech?
lol, of course not.
How about America stay the fuck out of everyone else's business, stop foreign interventionism and just plain let people take care of their own problems.
But no, Washington has to get involved in as many places it can because of the real problem: Zionism and it's crappy little tiny hatted thugs, Trotskyite neo-Cons like the Kagans, Bill krystol, Vicktoria Nudelman and on and on, all of them have wayyyyy too much influence in Washington and they need to go. I don't care how, maybe just drown the lot of them in the Potomac.
Maybe, just maybe, someday some poor little nation won't be able to enjoy the attention given it by Washington, you know, with bombs, soldiers and jets flying overhead day after day blessing those people with peace keeping bombs.
Stuff your Nazi propaganda up your ass, shit-pile.
How popular is Trump compared to the Dems, Jacob? What’s the matter, cat got your tongue?
Poor Jacob.
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1912862689178644942
Reality is so mean!
I'm all for allowing the Democrats continue to dig themselves deeper into a hole. That's why I support AOC as party leader. She's perfect for the job.
not a single one of you is fooling your readers. most of them anyway some are beyond help
...and the BS inference in this article is ...
All "student activists" = foreigners
OR is all visiting foreigners "student activists"?
Maybe whether one is 'visiting' is the *key* factor. Not the 'activist' part.
Last I checked; 'visitors' shouldn't expect the same leverage as the 'owners'.
From the "latest iteration" link in the first paragraph:
The problem with surveys and the reporting of them is that it is simply disingenuous to extrapolate the responses of 1,000 individuals to reflect the views of almost 340+ million Americans. The sample size is simply too small; not even a rounding error.
So, it doesn't fucking matter what the survey results are. They are meaningless. And trying to paint them an indication of the beliefs of all Americans is simply overt sophistic intellectual dishonesty.
Tell me you know nothing of probability without telling me you know nothing of probability.
If properly sampled, 1000 people is enough.
I took 6 quarters of statistics as an undergrad and actually taught statistics during a brief stint in grad school.
“If properly sampled” is the key, and there is no more proper sampling on opinion surveys anymore due to self-selection of who answers surveys. Not many people have a landline that they will answer without screening after dinner in the evening anymore.
Now, if you want to estimate the mean length of a python in the Everglades or the number of right swipes of seeking female vs seeking male users of dating apps, you can observe a limited number of random subjects to achieve your desired confidence interval and margin of error even if the population size is unknown and quite large.
Opinion polling carries all the hallmarks of being "the solution" to a wicked problem intrinsically.
Even with landlines you are (were) more likely to get more populous areas with larger area codes, people with more free time, households with only one (or two who would only call each other) phone users, etc.
Properly sampled is doing the heavy lifting.
The problem with surveys and the reporting of them is that it is simply disingenuous to extrapolate the responses of 1,000 individuals to reflect the views of almost 340+ million Americans. The sample size is simply too small; not even a rounding error.
And this assumes the best of all the ontological layers underneath. That Agree/Disagree/No Opinion (or S. Agree/Agree/DNR/Disagree/S. Disagree) translates fairly, reasonably, and objectively or directly between people who go out and set Teslas on fire but can't vote because of their felony conviction and law abiding citizens whom the Tesla burners believe to be too stupid to know how to get ID and/or figure out where their polling place is.
1,000 people is plenty for an accurate random sample. The questions are loaded though to get the desired result. If that doesn't work, they can start weighting the random sample so it's not random anymore.
1,000 people is plenty for an accurate random sample.
Presuming the answer is either agree/disagree up front and not something more realistic and in-the-weeds like, "I think we should deport every last person here illegally but not on the basis of soccer tattoos, if that was in fact the only evidence or premise under which the guy was deported and the media isn't baiting, being baited, or lying."
"Do you, like Trump, support cruelty to cute adorable puppies?"
Sorry, that was Fauci.
JS;dr
JS;dr
JS;dr
To the protester in the photo, "What about billionaire immigrants?"
"Party of Socialism and Liberation" ... The sign gets even dumber.
[Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] = Individual Liberty? /s
They will liberate you from your money, and the burden of income inequality.
...like the Venezuelan Nation they destroyed with their Conquer and Consume barbaric mentality. They seem to think once they've eaten their nation to death it's time to move on to the next and play the same 'conquer and consume' political game.
Heaven-forbid they ever have to EARN what they consume instead of Conquering and Consuming with Gov-Guns.
What do polls say about Palestinian terrorist supporters who trespass, block students from going to class, and assault Jews?
And had advance knowledge of Oct 6 and posted rallying cries on dormant social media within minutes of it beginning?
Or attend terrorist funerals overseas and are trying to renter the country?
That was my immediate thought upon reading the headline.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they opposed "deporting foreigners legally in the United States for having a soccer tattoo that was interpreted as a gang tattoo."
Oh, FFS! Obviously the solution is to ban tattoos! 8-(
Now let's ask the question about "deporting foreigners illegally in the US regardless of their excuse".
The results might have been different, of course, if the targeted views had been described as "anti-Israel,"
but if the views were "anti-America" the results are anyone's guess.
According to the latest iteration of FIRE's quarterly National Speech Index survey, which was conducted from April 4 through April 11
...
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they opposed "deporting foreigners legally in the United States for having a soccer tattoo that was interpreted as a gang tattoo."
So, what percentage of people polled thought it was a good idea for a group of lawyers to be intentionally polling people with biased and bad faith question and an affiliated media outlet reporting the results as assumed fact without disclosing any affiliation between Reason, Koch, Cato, and FIRE?
You are become soulless establishment media, you dumb fucks.
Almost every word there is deception. They have no integrity.
So...people are asked a very narrow, marginal question...about a marginal expression...of a marginal policy...and we should care?
Why don't we ask people open-endedly what they want done about Palestinians, or terrorist sympathizers, or foreigners saying things? What are the odds any of their answers would coincide with what's on the table?
CNN Pollster: A majority of Americans want ALL illegal immigrants deported:
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1912862689178644942
I'm all in. Did not read article because....
When CNN - of all narrators - is contradicting FIRE, you don't choose one side over the other. You just delight in the display of cannibalism.
It's a lot more nuanced than that. No one should be deported for saying Palestine has a right to exist, or for criticizing the severity of Israel's well-justified retaliation for the terrorist attack of October 7th.
But cheering on a designated terrorist organization, or threatening and intimidating students, teachers, and staff from going to work or going to class because they share a religion or an ethnicity with Israel is clearly already illegal. And after a decade of lecturing everyone on microaggressions, the leftists should be a lot less okay with actual anti-Semitic aggression.
Well see that's (D)ifferent.
Someone who is here *as our guest* can be shown the door, for any reason.
Being a vocal supporter of our enemies is a fine reason, but really, any will do.
Meanwhile Trump has a 53% approval rating. Now when is ICE going to start rounding up all those thousands of young Chinese males of military age who snuck into the country? You know, the ones who are spying and planning attacks.
As for the rest of the ILLEGAL ALIENS, continue the deportations, especially the ones with tattoos on their faces and necks. The ones with gang affiliations.
Go directly to CECOT do not pass Go and do not collect $200. Enjoy your stay, I know it will be a lot of fun.
I’m for deporting them. Personalize the issue. If someone asked to come in your home, you graciously agree, and then they start calling you and your family thieves and murderers, would YOU let them stay? Of course not. This is the same thing.
But what if you and your family ARE thieves and murderers? You're going to banish them for telling the truth? THIS is what's happening here. The federal government absolutely has been full of thieves and murderers for the last couple centuries, whether directly thieving and murdering, or complicit in other countries' thieving and murdering.
I stopped reading at "a survey suggests".
Before writing articles review the law. Hamas has been a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) since 1996, which means that providing 'material support' is a felony. It's the law, not a Trump initiative. 18 usc 2339b plus case law that defines 'material support', Also check out INA 237 toward the end, and the Enemies Alien Act. Trump is working within laws signed by prior presidents.
Here's the only "survey" that mattered in the last year:
"85.9 million eligible voters skipped the 2024 general election, far surpassing the 76.8 million ballots cast for Donald Trump or the 74.3 million for Kamala Harris." and:
"If "Did Not Vote" had been a presidential candidate, they would have beaten Donald Trump by 9.1 million votes, and they would have won 21 states, earning 265 electoral college votes to Trump's 175 and Harris's 98."
Six months, and you're still producing those delicious liberal tears.