Talking Points Won’t Cut It

How to respond to a massive campaign of censorship and oppression

Donald Trump has never opted to conceal his dictatorial ambitions. He has declared war on liberals and ordered the federal government to attack organizations espousing views he does not like.

The New York Times reported: “Mr. Trump, who has downplayed violence from right-wing or other supporters, said that he would like to designate a range of groups, including the loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, known as ‘antifa,’ as domestic terrorists and bring racketeering cases against people funding protests.” There is no longer any patina of legitimacy; this is censorship and political repression, plain and simple:

The goal, they said, was to categorize as domestic terrorism left-wing activity that they said led to violence, a continuation of existing efforts by federal agencies to try to punish liberal groups they have accused of funding or otherwise supporting violent protests. One tactic has been to target the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that are critical of Mr. Trump or conservatives.

Coupled with this, Trump has filed another baseless lawsuit against the New York Times. With a preposterous demand for $15B in damages and peppered with self-serving praise, Trump’s complaint has strung together a list of complaints that amount to attacking factual reporting that casts him in a negative light. The Times responded with appropriate defiance. “It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting. The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics,” it issued in a written statement. “We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists’ First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.” This is what cowering settlements to bogus suits against CBS and ABC/Disney have wrought.

The response to Trump’s dictatorial crusade to crush political opponents cannot be defensive or timid. Indignant talking points or monologues on MSNBC are not without value, but will not be sufficient. The imbalance between micro-responses liberals too often confuse for effective political action and the enormity of the threat of government repression is deeply disturbing.

Instead, there are at least 7 concrete steps the anti-censorship forces must take.

First, this is not about Charlie Kirk. It is about a massive assault on the First Amendment. The response needs a name, a catch phrase (“Censorship is un-American”?), and a recognizable logo. This might seem trite or trivial, but this is the essence of effective political leadership and messaging. (Liberals scoffed at “MAGA” until they lost two elections.) The conversation must be reframed from Kirk’s deplorable murder to the egregious use of a murder as the pretext for political retribution.

Second, Democratic governors and legislatures should take a page from the California state constitution and labor code, which prohibit public and private employers from firing employees for off-duty free speech. Every state should have such protections. Even in red states, Democrats should take the opportunity to force votes and/or vetoes: Are Republicans for or against free speech?

Third, Democrats—as a condition of voting to the keep the government open—need to include a measure prohibiting any government investigation or action against groups on the basis of their beliefs. In the “whereas” portions of such a measure, Congress must make an affirmative statement that non-profit groups have no responsibility for the criminal behavior of independent actors with whom they have no connection. Once again, forcing Republicans to vote down an emphatic reaffirmation of the First Amendment would be clarifying.

Fourth, every government employee fired for First Amendment-protected activity should have access to pro bono legal representation. First Amendment advocates should publicly solicit whistleblowers and offer legal representation to those protected under the relevant federal law. Lawyers in government must understand that baseless investigations and lawsuits can result in disciplinary action and loss of their law licenses.

Fifth, every American’s consumer dollars can encourage free speech or punish suppression. If a newspaper fires an opinion columnist for expressing perfectly reasonable perspectives in the public square, cancel your subscription and support a news outlet that unabashedly defends free speech and does not curry favor with the Trump regime. If a retail outlet crushes employees’ exercise of free speech, do not patronize it or find friends to go picket outside their doors. Labor unions can negotiate contractual provisions that expressly prohibit punishment for off duty free speech activities.

Sixth, form a grassroots movement with local chapters exclusively to support the First Amendment. It is essential to file lawsuits, put out statements, and testify before Congress in defense of free speech—though let’s not kid ourselves that such action reaches down to the average American. For that, you need college-campus and adult groups, civic events, local signage and billboards, city and state politicians who ascribe to a “no censorship” message, and K-12 school curriculum that explains fundamental free speech principles. It sure would be helpful to have at least former Republican office holders join the fight (don’t hold your breath).

Seventh, Democrats need to put aside intraparty sniping between so-called centrists and so-called progressives. They must all identify as First Amendment champions dedicated to ending rule by repressive MAGA autocrats. Now is not the time for recrimination concerning whether Joe Biden should have run for re-election (or whether former vice president Kamala Harris was wronged), or nit-picking about whether Democrats should adjust their messaging on social issues, or fussing over whether Zohran Mamdani meets the approval of “moderates” outside New York. MAGA Republicans have essentially outed themselves as dictatorial bullies. Now is the time to make sure Americans understand the fundamental difference between the parties.

In sum, not since the McCarthy era or the Red Scare has the government launched such a mammoth campaign of oppression and censorship. This un-American, anti-democratic crusade is fundamental at odds with our Constitutional system. As formidable as it may be, the response must be just as formidable.