The First Amendment embodies the ideal that democracy requires the free exchange of ideas, even those deemed offensive or unpopular. In practice, the principle of free speech becomes dangerous when leaders weaponize it to silence dissent while excusing rhetoric that incites hatred.
This paradox has been shoved in the forefront of the MAGA movement, where free speech is invoked as a partisan shield even as critics, journalists, and marginalized groups are targeted for vilification. This long-winded post is going to examine the distinctions between hate speech and free speech in the US, the unique dangers posed when presidents deploy hate speech against their own citizens, and strategies for resisting the authoritarian drift enabled by this rhetoric.
The US Supreme Court ruled that even speech advocating violence is protected unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.” R.A.V v. City of St. Paul (1992) struck down a hate-speech ordinance as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
By contrast, many liberal democracies (ex. Germany, Canada, and the UK) criminalize hate speech, Holocaust denial, and incitement to racial hatred.
The American approach reflects a principled skepticism of government power to regulate speech. But this framework inadequately addresses the social harm caused by hate speech, which undermines the dignity and equal standing of marginalized groups (Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, 2012).
The US’s commitment to unfettered speech protects liberty in theory, but in practice allows forms of expression that corrode the conditions necessary for democratic participation.
Hate speech differs from ordinary expression not merely in content but in function. It dehumanizes, stigmatizes, and marks entire communities as unworthy of equal rights. Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), describes how sustained propaganda against targeted groups prepares the ground for systemic violence by first eroding their place in the political community.
Sound familiar? It should. We’re currently heavily villainizing immigrants, the homeless, people of color, and members of the LGBTQIA+, particularly trans people.
MAGA politics exemplifies this pattern. Trump’s repeated references to immigrants as “rapists” and “animals,” his vilification of Muslims with the proposal for a “total and complete shutdown” of their entry into the US, and his disparagement of Black Lives Matter protesters as “thugs” fit the archetype of political hate speech.
These insults are strategies that normalize the exclusion of whole categories of citizens from the protections of democracy.
It’s interesting to note that Trump’s relationship to free speech reveals a paradox. He claims absolute protection for his own speech while undermining the right of dissenters to criticize the state. Several dynamics illustrate this authoritarian drift:
Delegitimizing the Press: Trump’s description of the press as the “enemy of the people” echoes historical authoritarian tactics. Research on authoritarian regimes (Levitsky & Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, 2018) shows that undermining independent media is a critical step in consolidating illiberal power.
While Trump did not abolish press freedom, his delegitimization campaigns have continued to chip away at public trust, especially among MAGA supporters, creating an environment where criticism of the government is recast as treasonous.
Weaponizing Harassment: Trump’s habit of singling out journalists, legislators, and even private citizens on social media has led to harassment, doxxing, and credible death threats. While legally framed as “speech,” this practice effectively silences critics by unleashing mob intimidation.
Dissent: Trump’s threats to “open up libel laws” or revoke FCC licenses from critical outlets, though not enacted, served as authoritarian signals. The chilling effect of these threats aligns with “expressive law,” which argues that even unenforced threats shape behavior by signaling the scope of permissible discourse.
Redefining Free Speech as Partisan Privilege: Within MAGA rhetoric, “free speech” is framed as the right of conservatives to speak without consequence, while dissenting voices are derided as “woke censorship” or “anti-American.” This empties free speech of its universal character, transforming it into a partisan privilege that destroys democratic norms.
The harm of Trump’s speech is compounded by social media platforms. Algorithms optimized for engagement amplify sensational and divisive content, which create echo chambers that radicalize users.
Empirical studies demonstrate that exposure to opposing views on social media can increase polarization rather than decrease it, particularly when framed antagonistically. Trump’s use of social media shows how a president can bypass traditional media filters and directly mobilize hate speech at scale. This blurs the boundary between “speech” and coordinated harassment.
The MAGA movement’s approach to free speech reflects the conception of “negative liberty,” which is the absence of external constraint without regard for the positive conditions that make liberty meaningful. True free speech requires that all citizens can participate in public discourse without fear of repression or violence.
When the president himself uses hate speech to delegitimize citizens, minorities, and critics, he creates conditions of domination in which only some voices are heard.
Here, Trump’s rhetoric demonstrates repressive tolerance: that the tolerance of hate speech not only permits but amplifies oppressive structures, silencing the very groups who need free expression to contest injustice. In this sense, MAGA politics corrodes the foundation of free speech by weaponizing liberty against equality.
Since US law provides no categorical ban on hate speech, combating its harms requires a complex approach.
Civil society must actively contest hate speech through narrative framing, coalition building, and collective visibility of marginalized voices. Silence is complicity.
Tech companies have to recognize their role as amplifiers and enforce moderation policies that reduce algorithmic incentives for hate speech virality (but this will never happen).
Citizens need to be equipped with historical and media literacy to recognize the authoritarian dangers of presidential hate speech and propaganda. Always remember: Who does this narrative benefit?
Leaders who employ hate speech should face electoral, legislative, and social sanctions. The Constitution may protect their right to speak, but democracy requires holding them responsible for how their words damage the civic fabric.
Free speech in the US was designed to empower citizens against government tyranny. Under Trump and the MAGA movement, that principle has become inverted. Free speech is claimed as a right for the powerful to dehumanize and silence, while critics of the government face delegitimization and harassment. This is not a neutral exercise of liberty. This is a systemic erosion of democratic discourse.
When presidents weaponize hate speech against their own civilians, the issue is not whether speech is legal, but whether democracy can survive when its own leaders attack the public sphere.