Trump's Executive Order Against 'Political Violence' Is an Un-American Attack on Free Speech
The order lists "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity" as common threads among "domestic terrorists," though all are protected by the First Amendment.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that purports to address the recent spate of political violence. But the order is remarkably one-sided, taking the apparent position that only leftists can be violent, and it treats speech clearly protected by the First Amendment as evidence of criminal behavior.
"Heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased in recent years," according to the order, titled "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence." It cites multiple recent events as examples—including the murder of Charlie Kirk, the foiled 2022 assassination plot against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and last week's shooting at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility.
"This political violence," it continues, "is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society."
Notably, the order only lists violence against conservatives or targets favored by conservatives; it does not mention the June shooting of two Democratic Minnesota lawmakers, one of whom died. It also elides the fact that in the shooting of an ICE facility, the only victims were migrants in custody.
The order also uses padded statistics, citing "a more than 1,000 percent increase in attacks" on ICE officers "since January 21, 2025, compared to the same period last year." But that represents a starting point of very few alleged assaults last year, and the increase seems largely to be a result of minor scuffles taking place during ICE enforcement actions.
Perhaps most troubling of all, though, the executive order lists First Amendment-protected speech as evidence of criminality that requires federal intervention.
"These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as 'fascist' to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution," the order claims. "This 'anti-fascist' lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties. Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality."
Regardless of one's view on "anti-fascism" in its current usage, this entire paragraph is an assault on the First Amendment. Terms like extremism and hostility are amorphous and mostly exist in the eye of the beholder. "Support for the overthrow of the United States Government" gets closer to an actionable claim, but not that close: The Alien Registration Act of 1940, also known as the Smith Act, made it a crime "to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence."
But the U.S. Supreme Court later narrowed that statute to explicit calls to action, not just abstract expressions of opinion. The court further established in 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio that the government could not criminalize incitements to violence "unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
That leaves the order's contention that "domestic terrorists" are characterized by "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity." One can oppose all of these traits, but they are unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. It is not illegal to criticize America, or capitalism, or Christianity—in fact, so long as it doesn't cross over into "imminent lawless action," it's perfectly legal to criticize anything or anyone.
Most of all, the order is designed to target people Trump and his supporters don't like, lumping them all together as members of an "anti-fascist" movement. It's especially galling, given how conservatives reacted in recent years when they were on the other side.
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security produced a report on the dangers of "rightwing extremism" and how to look out for it. "Rightwing extremism in the United States," the report noted, "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It further added that among other factors, "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
At the time, Republicans denounced the report as offensive and overly broad. The report, as Reason's Jesse Walker wrote at the time, "treated 'extremism' itself as a potential threat, while offering a definition of extremist so broad it seemed it include anyone who opposed abortion or immigration or excessive federal power."
Now that Republicans are in power, they're apparently quite comfortable wielding that exact same sort of power against their political opponents.
It's ironic that Trump's executive order inveighs against "anti-Americanism." By so openly targeting protected speech for reprisal, the order is itself quite un-American.
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
The suspect for killing the Democratic Party lawmaker in Minnesota was a Walz guy.
Speech is speech (unless it involves a woodchipper). Organizing violence online not so much.
Don't lie Chumby. Walz was on the killer's list of targets. He was a Trump supporter, Jesus freak and anti-abortion nut job.
He said Walz told him to kill his prospective rivals for a Senate run. Walz was not on the list. Klobuchar was
Walz did not appoint the killer to the Governor's Workforce Development Board?
Do you have a link to the actual list? I’m seeing references where only Wikipedia includes Walz. For the several others I checked, the guy that appointed him to that board, Walz, was absent.
Thanks.
Lol. A "lawyer" who chooses false narratives over facts.
Soooo... WHEN is Trump going to apologize and take BACK His PervFected Slurpport of political violence, such ass "Hang Mike Pence" and "Execute General Milley"?
WHEN is Trump going to actually BE A GOOD EXAMPLE to us all, the masses of lowly peons, scapegoats, and suspected illegal sub-humans?
The ink is barely dry on his declaration that Antifa is a terrorist organization, and now he's declaring political speech he doesn't like as support for anti-fascists. Saw that one coming. Wonder what's next, indefinite detention for people who say things he doesn't like? But it's ok you know, after all the Federalists did it first in 1798.
Your democrat allies are murderers Sarc. And America has had enough.
Wasn't the guy who shot up the Mormon church a Trumper ?
Was the shooting political?
Early evidence shows deleted social media post with an anti-Trump message from him as well as a Stop Trump sign at his listed residence. Not triple confirmed and 48-hour rule in effect. I haven’t checked Blue Sky so not sure. Apparently there was a forged MyLife profile that kept having its political affiliation changed between D and R.
An LEO contact said early evidence points towards a domestic between him and one or more members of the congregation.
Consider those all rumor and innuendo; that is what is being dropped in the akita media outlets.
There was a photoshopped pic of him in a tshirt with a Trump image added. The original was quickly discovered.
Leftists are pure evil and will lie about everything, mainly because their minions will eat it all up
Just waiting for Jimmy Kimmel to weigh in and set the record straight.
No, he hated Trump
He was an anti-mormon bigot.
The relevant link would be if the MAGA movement was blaming the Mormon church for something. If they are I am not aware of it and given the stakes if it existed we can be sure the left media would be pointing it out. So it seems unlikely.
Rumor is that he was ANTIFA.
Many ex service men have converted to leftist ideology.
Keep defending the murderous leftists. There will be a reckoning.
https://share.google/images/vlrNsX9MMvlHBpnyu
ADL, what a fucking joke.
Not a single footnote. Also includes muslim violence as right wing.
"Also includes muslim violence as right wing."
Bald, naked liar! Pants on fire! A casual glance at the pie-chart shows that You PervFectly LIE!!!! Islamic violence is broken out seperately, and we STILL have 3/4th of the violence being right-wing wrong-nuts!!!
You know, if you click the pretty picture and follow the link to actually READ the article, you will find all the endnotes.
The ADL was created to defend another tribal member from prosecution for raping and murdering a young girl.
The tribe is notorious for pedos.
"Words are murder"
/Idaho and the rest of the Trumpian reactionary retards
Who is saying that? Be specific. Democrats sure call words violence.
Advocated and engaging in violence is free speech.
Just ask any lunatic leftist.
Democrats said that speech is violence first. That makes it ok for Trump to do it.
Sarc celebrates murder when the left does it but complains about speech when the right does it. Got it.
Democrats celebrate actual violence.
Not shocked you cant see the difference.
Do you have a Luigi shirt?
The Democratic Party is a death cult now. Hate and identity politics are all they have.
Dude what? That is nuts. MAGA is the death cult that runs on hate. They are the ones who opposed any effort to slow covid, they are the ones who support efforts to increase mother and infant mortality, they are the ones wanting to ban vaccines. They are the ones who openly and loudly hate immigrants, the LGBT, Jews, Mexicans, and non-Christians.
"They are the ones who opposed any effort to slow covid"
They opposed policies that would not (and, of course, did not) work at all. Keeping gyms open would have been quite helpful. Not shutting down schools would have also been extremely helpful.
You opposed both.
"they are the ones who support efforts to increase mother and infant mortality"
You're the ones sending abortion pills all over the country with zero consultation which had led to severe issues.
"they are the ones wanting to ban vaccines."
Cite?
"They are the ones who openly and loudly hate immigrants"
Nope. Illegals, yes. Legal? Not really.
...meanwhile, your side is now ALL for assassinating people you dislike.
"the LGBT"
Who was the first President to support gay marriage?
We just do not children to ruin their lives before they had a chance to live them. Don't know why you think pumping children full of hormones and then mutilating their bodies is the height of compassion, but you're incorrect.
"Jews"
*snicker*. Hold on to that. Your side is the one on the side of Hamas, who have some QUITE interesting views on LGB. If somebody tried to be "T" in Gaza, they'd be dead before they could once yell "Call me ma'am"!
"Mexicans"
Mexicans here legally, no. Illegally? Yeah, fuck 'em. And their government? Hyper fuck 'em.
"non-Christians."
Cite?
This is weak, even for you Tony.
The murderous leftist yapping about hate. Fuck off monster.
Was it murder when a US GI killed a German Soldier in France in 1944?
MollyGodiva 20 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Was it murder when a US GI killed a German Soldier in France in 1944?
They always have a justification even for murder.
So let me get this straight. Is "culmination of sophisticated, ORGANIZED CAMPAIGNS of TARGETED INTIMIDATION, radicalization, THREATS, and VIOLENCE" now considered protected speech?
Asking for a friend.
Only when the left does it. Ask sarc.
Censorship of true medical information was fine with sarc and jeff.
Censorship of Alex Jones was fine for them.
Mackey in jail was fine for them.
Trump saying he didnt rape carol was liable for defamation according to them.
Trumps lawywrs legal briefs was fine to target under Rico for them.
Steelers Nation hardest hit
I don't remember this level of concern when Biden was performing his nationwide manhunt for protesters to serve them long jail sentences or when they declared parents terrorists for questioning the school board. Wonder what is different this time? Does Joe know antifa terrorists and is trying to protect his terrorist friends?
I now declare the existance of "Reason's Law (drink!)", similar to Godwin's Law. Any comment thread open long enough has the probability of a "Biden Did it First!" comment approaches one".
Not shocked you're too stupid to understand his post. When writing about principles, they aren't principles of you complain only when someone you hate does it. But youre not intelligent enough to get that.
Well, Biden did a TON of illegal shit and you did not care. Nor did Reason.
Yep. All those articles and comments that don't exist.
Yours for sure dont exist. You can't even cite them.
Reason has them few and far between dozens of trump articles.
Well, Biden did a TON of illegal shit and you did not care. Nor did Reason.
Are you sure Reason showed no criticism of Biden during 2020~2024?
Are you familiar with all my writings?
I have to admire how you don't let your preconceptions, much less reality, interfere with your world-view.
Go run the stats. They had for more against trump than Biden despite bidens illegal actions as president.
Cute your defense is "more than zero."
If you criticize Trump in any way then you didn't criticize Biden. We know this because Trump defenders will never criticize Trump. Doesn't matter what he does, they will never criticize it. The then project this retardation onto anyone who criticizes Trump and conclude that they never criticized Biden about anything, just as they would never criticize Trump for anything no matter what. This projection then becomes the mating call of the Trump defender: an appeal to hypocrisy. Otherwise known as tu quoque. Nothing tents up a Trump defender's pants like someone saying whatever Trump does is ok because the other person is a hypocrite who didn't criticize Democrats for doing the same thing. Guaranteed wood. No need for blue pills. Just accusations of hypocrisy and Trump defenders are ready to go! Sha-WING!
Poor stupid sarcbot.
You mean the protesters who did the attempted coup and the parents who phoned in death threats to members of school boards?
Both are laughably false.
You suck at this, Tony. You're so shitty at this, I almost think you're chemjeff. Or SQRSLY.
Hilarious.
Is Trump and the MAGAs now domestic terrorists because of their attempted coup after the 2020 election?
Yes.
Queue MAGAs saying how this EO does not apply to MAGA violence.
Hey, everybody, Tony wants attention!
At this point you guys are the latest Tony. By equating failure to go into mourning with celebrating, you're just as retarded as the guy who says not-taking equals giving and not-giving equals taking. Tony's for Trump is what you are.
sarcasmic 2 days ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Tony is a voice for freedom compared to Trump defenders. Wow.
2022: THE LEFT IS CRIMINALIZING SPEECH!!! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!
2025: If you oppose criminalizing speech then you're celebrating murder!!!
You are celebrating murder. Your whole bloody cult. We know, we watched it.
You fucking clowns were celebrating an arson attack on a church just yesterday.
At least we now know where KAR was from, Rest In Piss
I never celebrated anything you libelous retard.
You've defended babbits death often liar.
I can't believe Trump issued an EO outlawing speech!
Wait, he DIDNT?!?
You mean the EO seeks to target those financing illegal violent activity?
What was this stupid dishonest article about?
I can't find anything in this article which describes what the EO actually does. The only reference is that the EO is to "address" political violence. But how, with more speech? With enhanced penalties? With extra attention from LE? We have no idea.
From this I conclude the EO doesn't do anything objectionable because if it did surely that would be the story.
Here to read what the bots have to say.
So violence is now "free Speech"? The order directs the FBI etc. to investigate groups that perpetrate violence as well as their sources of funds, recruitment, radicalization, doxing, swatting, rioting, and threats of violence. Investigation is now forbidden according to you? If they are found guilty of committing violence in the furtherance of their political aims. That is still criminal.
Free speech is to be defended no matter how ugly or profane.
Violence in the name of free speech is not. It is not free speech when stores are looted, buildings and churches set ablaze, police attacked and innocent people are assaulted and murdered.
Free speech does not involve the amount of violence and destruction during the George fentanyl riots.
Encouraging others to commit acts of violence is not protected by the First Amendment.
The amount of violence and destruction the nation has experienced in the last five years is all due to leftist/Marxist ideology enflamed by MSM talking heads and Marxist university professors.
Shooting people in the throat is also unconstitutional and is not a form of protected speech.