The Executive Order That Was Meant to Protect Free Speech, But Ended Up Gagging It

Orwellian flair with a red, white, and blue twist

In a bold and unmistakably presidential gesture, President Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term, supposedly aimed at protecting free speech in America. The order’s full title is a mouthful: “Executive Order to Prevent the Government from Restricting Free Speech”—because, of course, a more concise title like “Do Not Gag America” might have been a little too on the nose. But before you patriots start printing it out and hanging it on your wall next to the Constitution, let’s delve into the finer points of this monumental action.

The order itself was heralded as a noble step in ensuring that the government would never again meddle with citizens’ right to express themselves freely. It prohibits federal agencies from imposing restrictions on speech that could be seen as “infringing upon citizens’ liberties.” Sounds good, right? A promise to preserve that sacred right, to protect it from the evil forces of censorship. Just one little hiccup: the actual track record of the administration on this matter is, shall we say, less than consistent.

Take, for instance, the whole Twitter spat that followed shortly after the order’s signing. A mere 48 hours after this valiant push for free speech, the administration began pulling the strings behind the scenes to silence certain voices that dared speak out against the president. The same administration that championed this order was found, rather conveniently, censoring media outlets, blocking journalists from press conferences, and even threatening social media companies to limit the dissemination of content they deemed unfavourable. Perhaps the government just wanted to prevent fake news from taking over, but let’s be real—this isn’t about protecting free speech; it’s about controlling the narrative.

One could almost be forgiven for thinking the order had been signed under the impression that the government’s role in free speech is limited to providing you with a platform to speak your mind, but with a very clear and conveniently vague disclaimer that says, “Only if we agree with what you say.”

Let’s not forget the glaring contradiction: after signing the executive order, Trump’s administration doubled down on its efforts to limit access to certain viewpoints, most notably those of the left. A classic example of this is the recent purge of social media accounts belonging to individuals who were critical of the president or his policies. Under the banner of “preserving national security” or “ensuring public safety,” the government exerted its influence, playing the role of speech gatekeeper. It’s almost as though the executive order was less about preserving free speech and more about ensuring it’s only free when it aligns with the president’s vision.

Furthermore, let’s not overlook the minor irony that the very same people signing these orders have, on several occasions, demonstrated a rather peculiar selective stance when it comes to what speech is acceptable. The insistence on creating a climate where only one side of the debate is welcomed while the other is swiftly squashed doesn’t scream “free speech,” does it? It rather resembles a warped version of “speech control.”

If there’s one thing that this executive order has done, it’s highlight the administration’s exceptional knack for doing the exact opposite of what they claim. The irony here is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Not only has your government shown a willingness to use its power to silence critics, but it has done so with the same fervour it purports to fight against. It’s a beautiful example of freedom at its finest: the freedom to silence anyone who disagrees.

But hey, perhaps we’re being too harsh. After all, the order doesn’t actually prevent the government from doing anything. It just makes sure to issue a grand proclamation of intent that sounds nice in theory—until you realise that it’s all about wielding power from behind the curtain while claiming to be on the side of the people. The most beautiful part of this whole farce is that, in theory, the executive order should have been the ultimate safeguard against government overreach. But instead, it’s merely become a clever PR tool, the same way the “Department of Homeland Security” promised to keep Americans safe while scanning their shopping bags at the airport. It’s all smoke and mirrors. And somehow, the only people being silenced are those pointing out the mirrors.

In conclusion, the contradictions of this executive order are glaring, not in the least because, within days of its signing, the same administration seemed to be working overtime to roll back the very freedoms it was meant to protect. This president, in his quest for a narrative to protect his free speech, has inadvertently ensured that only one voice will be heard: his own. And to think, all of this began with an order to preserve free speech. What a stunning display of hypocrisy.