During a demonstration in New York in support of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a protester was seen chanting on Monday. The event was captured by Yuki Iwamura/AP.
President Donald Trump’s social media posts have garnered attention, specifically his mention of “illegal protests.” In a Truth Social post on March 4, he stated that federal funding would cease for any educational institution allowing illegal protests, with agitators facing imprisonment or deportation.
The administration’s stance on protests was further clarified by the new education secretary, Linda McMahon, who emphasized that it is not solely a freedom of speech issue but also a matter of safety and civil rights.
While the right to protest is a fundamental aspect of American history, it is not without limitations. Trump’s definition of “illegal protest” remains unclear, leading to concerns about potential restrictions on freedom of speech.
Critics argue that the broad nature of the threat could have a chilling effect on protests. Gloria J. Browne-Marshall, a constitutional law professor, expressed these concerns, highlighting the importance of protecting the right to protest.
Protest has been integral to American history, dating back to colonial times. The First Amendment safeguards various personal liberties, including the right to protest peacefully. However, the application of these freedoms has not always been consistent throughout history.
Instances like the violent suppression of civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama in 1965 underscore the fragility of the right to protest. Despite past challenges, activists have continued to fight for their right to protest, as emphasized by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
Understanding the history and significance of the right to protest is crucial in upholding this essential aspect of democracy.
Courts have recognized that law enforcement can intervene to stop a protest that becomes violent or destructive. However, judges are hesitant to prevent even offensive demonstrations before they occur, as the right to peaceably assemble is a strong constitutional protection. The notion of an “illegal protest” is legally unclear. In a landmark 1977 case, the US Supreme Court overturned a state court ruling that tried to ban neo-Nazis from marching in Skokie, Illinois, a community with many Holocaust survivors. The ACLU defended the group, and the court ruled that strict procedural safeguards must be provided if a state seeks to restrain such activity.
Decades later, a neo-Nazi protest in Columbus, Ohio faced criticism for alleged pepper spray use, but no charges were filed by the police, who cited the protection of First Amendment activities. Chief Elaine R. Bryant emphasized that even hateful speech is protected by the Constitution. Protests can take various forms beyond traditional marches, as seen with historical figures like Rosa Parks and contemporary figures like Colin Kaepernick.
Former President Trump has been known for his antagonistic stance towards protesters, at times suggesting violent actions should be taken against them. His use of terms like “agitators” to describe protesters has raised concerns among critics, who see it as an attempt to demonize political dissent. Trump’s 2025 comments about cracking down on protesters have sparked debate about their implications for free speech rights.
While Trump’s warnings about “illegal protests” and investigations into alleged discrimination on college campuses have raised questions about the limits of free speech, legal experts suggest that their impact is still uncertain and untested. It remains to be seen how these developments will play out in the realm of constitutional law.
The military response in Gaza is being closely monitored. “I believe the federal government can use these court cases as a basis to withhold funding,” remarked Blackman. “Many schools may have thought they could act with impunity last year, but now they are beginning to see that there could be consequences.”
At the same time, the president’s threat to deport what he labels as “agitators” is facing legal challenges, with a federal judge delaying the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate and a pro-Gaza protest organizer.
Speaking to the media outside Columbia University on April 30, Mahmoud Khalil’s case is seen as the first of many to follow, as indicated by a post from President Trump on Monday.
Despite the Department of Homeland Security’s assertion that Khalil’s activities are linked to Hamas, federal authorities have not charged him with a crime. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the move to revoke Khalil’s green card, alongside a policy to cancel student visas of alleged Hamas supporters, emphasizing that this is not a matter of free speech but a question of legal status in the country.
Critics, such as New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman, argue that the Trump administration is targeting Khalil for his dissenting views, which poses a dangerous precedent.
The crackdown on protests is not limited to college campuses. Democratic Rep. Al Green was removed and censured by House Republicans and some members of his own party after disrupting Trump’s joint address to Congress. The conservative House Freedom Caucus has called for stripping Green of his committee assignments, highlighting a push for consequences for those who disrupt official proceedings.
Defending unpopular speech is a challenging task, with incidents of left-wing groups suppressing conservative speakers on campus. Despite this, a significant majority of Americans value the right to assemble peacefully, according to a poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
Steven Levitsky, a professor at Harvard University, hopes that the shifting landscape around free speech will galvanize people to defend the First Amendment, regardless of political affiliations.
“Political polarization has led many to diminish opposing viewpoints in recent years, but a growing number of Americans are recognizing the dangers of this approach,” stated Levitsky. “There is a renewed understanding that we must safeguard all forms of speech or risk losing it.” To access additional CNN news and newsletters, sign up for an account on CNN.com.
