Carson Bonner, Campus Carrier editor-in-chief
The First Amendment is often treated like a permanent fixture of American life, something immovable, untouchable, guaranteed. It isn’t. It survives because people insist on it.
Right now, that insistence is being tested. As President Donald Trump is almost halfway through another term, a pattern is emerging that should concern anyone who values free expression: the increasing use of government power to discourage, punish or suppress dissent.
Take the recent protests at the U.S. Capitol, where veteran demonstrators occupied a congressional building to oppose administration policies and involvement in the Iran War. According to reporting from The Hill, protesters were removed and arrested, serving as a reminder that even peaceful civil disobedience is often met with force when it challenges authority. But that moment doesn’t exist in isolation. It fits into a broader and more troubling pattern.
Across the country, protest movements opposing the Trump administration have drawn millions.
The 2025 “Hands Off” protests and the recent “No Kings” demonstrations mobilized millions of Americans in cities nationwide, making them some of the largest modern mass protests.
Mass protest is not a threat to democracy. It is a function of it. What is a threat is how power responds.
In recent months, the administration has signaled a willingness to blur the line between public safety and political suppression. During protests in Los Angeles, Trump openly suggested using military force against demonstrators and warned that protesters could face severe consequences, including jail time for acts historically protected as symbolic speech.
That matters. Because the Supreme Court has already ruled decades ago that even controversial acts like flag burning fall under First Amendment protections. When a president threatens punishment for protected expression, the message is clear: some speech is acceptable, and some speech will cost you.
We are also seeing pressure applied in less visible but equally dangerous ways. A federal judge recently ruled that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring tech companies to remove content related to ICE tracking.
That kind of coercion doesn’t look like censorship in the traditional sense. There’s no official ban, no law passed. But when the government leans on private platforms to silence certain viewpoints, speech disappears. And sometimes, it’s not just speech that disappears, it’s the people behind it.
Even rhetoric plays a role. Protesters have repeatedly been labeled “agitators,” “troublemakers” or even threats to national security. That framing has consequences, justifies crackdowns, normalizes surveillance and makes the public more comfortable with repression.
The First Amendment was not written to protect popular speech. It was written to protect uncomfortable speech. It exists precisely for moments like this. And yet, it does nothing on its own. It does not enforce itself in courtrooms. It does not march in the streets. It does not speak up when speech is threatened. People do.
That means speaking when it would be easier to stay quiet. Defend the rights of people you disagree with. Recognize that the erosion of someone else’s speech is the beginning of the erosion of your own.
Because suppression rarely announces itself outright. It starts gradually. And then one day, the boundaries have shifted so far that what once felt unthinkable becomes normal. We are not there yet. But we are closer than we should be.
Because if history has shown us anything, it’s this: Free speech doesn’t disappear all at once. It disappears when people stop fighting for it.