18 Feb 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States
In the blizzard of announcements, statements and threats made by President Donald Trump’s administration over the past few weeks, those concerning public broadcasters should have a particular resonance for readers of Index on Censorship.
On 9 February, Richard Grenell, the U.S. presidential envoy for special missions, wrote on X that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America are “state-owned media” and “are a relic of the past.”
The billionaire Elon Musk, appointed by Trump to oversee the new advisory body, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), agreed: “Yes, shut them down. Europe is free now (not counting stifling bureaucracy). Nobody listens to them anymore. It’s just radical left crazy people talking to themselves while torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.”
These Cold War institutions have been symbolic of American soft power since their inception. Each, in its way, was designed to counter authoritarian propaganda: Voice of America was founded in 1942 to counter Nazi ideology and Radio Free Europe in 1950 as a response to the Soviet equivalent. Radio Liberty had the specific task of broadcasting inside Russia.
These barely-veiled threats to foreign-facing broadcasters mirror similar announcements on the defunding of American broadcasters, including National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). DOGE subcommittee chair Majorie Taylor Greene has called on executives from the two organisations to give evidence to DOGE, which has accused them of “systemically biased news coverage”.
This may seem like small beer compared to the geopolitical earthquake represented by the US administration’s proclamations on the Ukraine war and the Gaza conflict, or its sabre-rattling on Greenland or Canada. But these moves are part of the same epochal shift in American foreign policy. There is much to criticise about America’s record in the post-war period. But even the worst abuses were driven, at least rhetorically, by an opposition to authoritarianism. It is no exaggeration to say that Trump and Musk are now increasingly aligned with the authoritarian heir to Stalin in the shape of Vladimir Putin, and the heirs of Hitler in the AfD (Alternative for Germany).
The irony of Musk categorising Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America as the “radical left” will not be lost on those of the European left who traditionally saw these outlets as the ideological wing of the American government or even the CIA. Indeed, they are often credited with playing a key role in providing the propaganda underpinnings that led to the dismantling of the Iron Curtain and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Index has always felt a close affinity with Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty due to its origins fighting for dissidents in the former Soviet Union. The role of these twin broadcasters took on a renewed significance after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, something we covered in summer 2022. At the time Patrick Boehler, head of digital strategy for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty told me: “We have 23 news rooms. They are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, up to Hungary… We have fantastic teams serving Russia. And I think it’s really one of those moments where you see our journalists living up to the task and the challenge that they face. And it’s really inspiring.” His words have a sombre resonance today.
An added poignancy to the attacks on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America is given by the fact that Musk and other American authoritarians seem to be learning from the so-called “hybrid democracies” of central Europe. As we reported in November, state broadcasters were one of the first targets of the ultra-right governments of Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Robert Fico in Slovakia.
In 2017, my colleague Sally Gimson also looked at attacks on Radio Free Europe from the government in Georgia and asked what role it would have in the future.
She remarked that as a young actor, future US President Ronald Reagan was proud to promote the work of the broadcaster in the early 1950s, fronting up an advertisement for it. “This station daily pierces the Iron Curtain with the truth, answering the lies of the Kremlin and bringing a message of hope to millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain,” he said.
The position the present US government takes towards such a venerated institution is a sign of how far it has drifted from what was once considered patriotic. That old cold warrior Ronald Reagan will be turning in his grave.
13 Feb 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States
The second Donald Trump administration isn’t even a month old, and yet it seems as though the divisive president has already produced enough headlines to get us to the next election. With sweeping executive orders, massive cuts to federal departments and sights set on the contentious purchase of foreign lands, it’s hard to currently decipher the impact of his decisions and statements on the American people, and globally.
This is particularly true when it comes to one of the foundations of the USA’s Bill of Rights – the right to free speech.
Since his inauguration, there have been accusations of censorship and free speech violations levelled at Trump and his office. His threat to deport students with VISAs who display pro-Palestine views has rung alarm bells, and after the 47th President was credited with the reinstatement of social media platform TikTok in the USA, there were user reports of censorship around criticism of Trump, or pro-Palestine sentiment. There have also been major causes for concern among the LGBTQ+ community as one of Trump’s new executive orders threatens the self determination and self expression of trans people.
But is it all bad news when it comes to free speech? The USA-based non-profit organisation Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) keeps a close watch on how each president upholds freedom of speech according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Speaking to Index, members of FIRE’s legislative team explained how Trump’s first few weeks in office have impacted free speech in the USA, for better and worse.
Tyler Coward, lead counsel in higher education related government affairs at FIRE, has concerns about Trump’s threat against pro-Palestine foreign students. “There are mixed signals from some courts about what speech rights people have when they’re here on a temporary status, such as [on] visas, but FIRE’s position is that it’s a bad idea to create two classes of students on campus, some that can participate fully in campus advocacy or campus protests, and those who risk fear of deportation,” he said.
“There are students that can or have engaged in actual unlawful activity, including violence against other students, engaging in sanctionable civil disobedience, actual discrimination or intimidation, things that are generally not protected by the First Amendment,” he continued. “But we think it’s a bad idea to create a system where speech that would be protected for an American student, wouldn’t be for a student on a student visa.”
However, Coward believes that if Trump abides by the precedent set in his first term, the impact on free speech could be varied. “His (first) administration did some things on the campus side, some which were helpful, some which were not. First off, on the helpful side is that we in the United States have an anti-discrimination statute called Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, in education, in any entity that receives federal education dollars.
“The Federal Department of Education was interpreting that statute in ways that threatened free expression, particularly free speech, on sex and gender issues, and the first Trump administration passed rules that were very speech protective to allow for broader discussion and debate about these issues on campus… the Obama administration and the Biden administration both adopted rules that were harmful to free speech on those issues.”
But other executive orders implemented during Trump’s first term, and being continued into this administration, could have stretching powers that impact people’s right to protest and express views freely, Coward added.
For instance, Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – which bans discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in organisations that receive federal funding, such as universities – has now been extended to include anti-Semitism. While hate speech should rightly be tackled, the concern is that the order could be expanded beyond hate speech and used in such a way that stifles the free speech of those who oppose Israel’s policies.
“I suspect we’ll see a lot more enforcement and a lot of speech that is protected by the First Amendment, including criticisms of Israel, that will pressure educational institutions that receive federal dollars,” said Coward. “The institutions will be cracking down on this speech in ways that threaten free expression, and then the education department itself will start investigating institutions for failure to censor that speech.”
Carolyn Iodice, legislative and policy director at FIRE, also told Index about the threats that journalism in the USA could face as a result of Trump’s attitude to the media. The president has sued several media outlets and social media firms because of the way they have reported news about him, represented his opponents or moderated his speech, Iodice said.
“We would have normally expected that the entities – like CBS News, Facebook and ABC News – would fight that kind of lawsuit; because for one [Facebook], there’s no legal claim to be had against them, and two, with CBS and ABC, if you don’t defend your journalists it creates this chill about what they can and can’t say about the president.”
Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, is due to pay $25 million to Trump in a settlement, after Trump sued the Big Tech firm and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2021 over the suspension of his accounts following the 6 January 2021 Capitol riots. ABC has settled its defamation case for $16 million. CBS is also reportedly considering settling over a case involving an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris, where Trump alleged that CBS had edited the show to unfairly cast Harris in a more favourable light.
“The concern there is that you now have, by virtue of these lawsuits, a multi-billion dollar incentive for companies to have their journalists shape their coverage in ways that won’t get them brought back to court by the president again and again,” Iodice said.
Regarding social media, despite anecdotal user reports of censorship on TikTok when it was first reintroduced in the USA, FIRE are generally positive about the steps Trump has taken towards reducing censorship on these platforms.
“The most promising thing so far,” Iodice said, “is that he issued an executive order that talked about, and was critical of, the practice of the government leaning on social media companies to coerce them to [censor] speech in ways the government couldn’t directly require them to do, because of the First Amendment. And we think that’s a very good thing, regardless of who does it.”
The second Trump Administration outwardly champions free speech for Americans, but the first weeks of government have not always represented this ethos. Those of us working against censorship around the world have looked on with trepidation at this new government, which looks set to overturn the applecart in all facets of government. One can only hope that the First Amendment isn’t flung to the wayside.
3 Feb 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States, Volume 53.04 Winter 2024
This article first appeared in Volume 53, Issue 4 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Unsung Heroes: How musicians are raising their voices against oppression. Read more about the issue here. The issue was published on 12 December 2024.
Big technology companies have enormous and outsized power. They control what information we can share and how, and demonstrate little transparency or accountability to users about what they are doing. They are too often permitted to set their own arbitrary standards, governing what we can and can’t say on social media, and how and to whom these ever-shifting rules apply. In no area is this more evident than in the battle between those who want to seek out and criminalise women for having an abortion and those who want to protect women’s right to choose.
In recent years, technology has dramatically altered the abortion landscape for women in the USA. It is now possible to order safe and effective abortion pills online and find accurate information about how to use those pills. This represents an unprecedented and world-changing expansion of women’s privacy and freedom. Thanks to improved access to medication, far fewer women will die or be traumatised, despite the US Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to strip the country’s women of federally guaranteed abortion rights. But women’s new-found abortion freedoms are under threat from powerful people who oppose privacy, freedom and safety for women, and corporatists who put business interests above human rights.
With President Donald Trump’s re-election things may be about to become a whole lot worse.
In March 2024, eight months before the election, I attended Visions for a Digital Future: Combating Online Suppression of Abortion Information, a panel discussion hosted by a coalition of rights and safe abortion access organisations including Amnesty International USA, Plan C, the Universal Access Project and Women on Web, along with experts from Le Centre ODAS and Fòs Feminista.
The panellists warned that tech companies were already suppressing information about reproductive health, either deliberately and as a matter of policy, or accidentally, such as when posts containing legitimate medical information trigger filters meant to block other kinds of content. Remedies have been piecemeal. Some organisations have been able to get accounts reinstated after meeting with contacts at Meta, but there is no democratic and transparent way of determining who gets access to vital medical information.
In one very recent case, Meta temporarily shut down the advertising account of Plan C, a group that provides up-to-date information on how US residents access abortion pills online, days before the US election, over claims of “inauthentic behaviour”.
European lawmakers have already taken steps to bring Big Tech companies to heel. They have done so via laws like the EU’s Digital Markets Act, a 2022 law which, among other things, requires large tech companies to get users’ consent before tracking them for advertising purposes; and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which went into effect earlier this year, preventing large online platforms such as Facebook, X and Instagram from arbitrarily restricting or deleting independent media content.
Despite growing pressure from large parts of civil society, the USA has yet to pass federal legislation to meaningfully regulate Big Tech. Under a Trump presidency, the federal government is likely to go one step further and ask tech companies to use the data they hold to assist state and local law enforcement in tracking, prosecuting and jailing women for seeking abortions.
Some of the president-elect’s most prominent supporters are anti-feminist tech executives like Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and an ardent foe of government regulation (of corporations); venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who has questioned the wisdom of ever allowing women to vote; and Blake Masters, failed congressional candidate and chief operations officer of Thiel Capital (Thiel’s venture capital investment firm). All three have either previously expressed personal support for at least some level of abortion restriction or given large sums of money to politicians committed to restricting it.
Knowing it was a liability for him, Trump made confusing and contradictory statements about abortion on the campaign trail: once pro-choice, he bragged about having appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v Wade.
By contrast, Vice President-elect JD Vance is an open theocrat who has pressured federal regulators to rescind a Biden administration rule that prevents police from accessing the private medical records of women who cross state lines to get reproductive health care, according to investigative news outlet The Lever.
Project 2025, the 900-plus-page handbook assembled by the right- wing Heritage Foundation and drafted in part by dozens of former Trump administration officials, indicates that a second Trump administration will seek to increase federal surveillance of pregnant people nationwide. They will most likely do this partly by requiring states to report abortion data and cutting federal funding to those that don’t comply. That data could put women and health care providers in serious danger of prosecution and/ or jail time. State law enforcement officials could pressure or compel tech companies to collect and share it.
This has already happened in the USA under a Democratic administration. Facebook’s 2022 decision to comply with a Nebraska police officer’s request for private data enabled the state to try, as an adult, a 17-year-old girl facing criminal charges for ending a pregnancy. Facebook handed over private messages the girl and her mother had exchanged in which the two discussed obtaining abortion pills, according to The Guardian.
The extent of the data Facebook handed over is unclear, but it’s apparent that companies like Facebook’s parent company Meta cannot be trusted to safeguard users’ privacy. Many of the largest tech companies in the world have refused to clarify how they will handle law enforcement requests for abortion-related data. While Meta does not allow users to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform, it does, in theory, allow them to share information about how to access abortion pills, although enforcement of that policy has been inconsistent and non-transparent.
One ray of hope is that there’s a small chance that Trump will retain Lina Khan, Biden’s pick for chair of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Khan has advocated for restraining the tech industry’s power and is seen as a threat. Days before the election, Musk wrote on X that Khan “will be fired soon.” Yet Vance has defended Khan, saying in a recent television interview that “she’s been very smart about trying to go after some of these big tech companies that monopolise what we’re allowed to say in our own country.”
Best known as an anti-monopolist, Khan has brought lawsuits against data brokers trafficking in geolocation data, a crucial bulwark against efforts by anti-abortion prosecutors to obtain women’s private medical data. This is important because in 2023, 19 Republican attorneys general in states that criminalised abortion demanded access to women’s private medical records in order to determine whether they had travelled out of state for care.
Under Khan, the FTC also cracked down on companies that extracted and misused customers’ private data. Browsing and location data of the kind these companies were gathering can provide intimate details of a person’s life, from their religious and political affiliations and sexual proclivities to their private medical decisions. Companies, knowing that most people would object to having this kind of data collected and shared, often hide what they are doing or mislead users about the extent of it.
It’s not yet clear what Trump’s top priorities will be as president, or who will have his ear. On the question of Khan, it seems likelier that he’ll take his cues from an oligarch like Musk than from his own vice president. As Politico recently noted Vance will have “little agenda-setting power of his own” in the new administration. Occasional anti-Big Tech rhetoric notwithstanding, neither Trump nor Vance cares about protecting women’s privacy. If Khan is fired, it’s extremely unlikely that any member of the Trump administration will take measures to safeguard medical data. State and local authorities will have to do everything in their power to pressure or require these companies to clarify why they are suppressing abortion-related content, and push them to fight requests that violate users’ privacy in court.
Authorities should also push or force tech companies to take measures – such as not collecting certain data in the first place or making it more secure – that would make it difficult or impossible to comply with law enforcement requests designed to punish women for exercising a right recognised by most Americans and international law. Failure to do so will jeopardise women’s lives, health and freedom.
22 Jan 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States
The start of Donald Trump’s second term of office as US president was marked with a flurry of executive orders – directives given by the president directly to the federal government without the need for approval by Congress.
Ever since George Washington, US presidents have had the power to issue such orders as stated within Article 2 of the Constitution (“the executive power shall be vested in a president”). This article justifies presidents’ interventions, and allows them to enact their own policy vision or agenda.
Washington issued eight. Of the more than 14,000 executive orders issued since, Franklin D Roosevelt has been their biggest user, issuing 3,721 during his more than 12 years in office. Joe Biden issued 162 orders during his time in office.
While in principle they seem to allow the president to change the law on a whim, executive orders are subject to judicial review and can be overturned if they conflict with the law or the constitution. Indeed, many believe that Trump’s new orders could be “tied up in courts or legislatures for years”.
As an example, the American Civil Liberties Union has announced it is challenging a new order that seeks to end birthright citizenship of all children born in the United States regardless of race, colour, or ancestry.
The flurry of new orders marks a turnaround for Trump. In March 2016, he criticised Barack Obama for their use:
“Executive orders sort of came about more recently. Nobody ever heard of an executive order, then all of a sudden Obama — because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him — he starts signing them like they’re butter, so I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”
Trump’s enthusiasm for new executive orders, plus the revocation of many of those issued by his predecessor, have implications for freedom of expression.
Revocation of Biden executive orders
One of Trump’s first tasks was to revoke 78 of President Biden’s orders and Presidential Memoranda, including several measures supporting diversity and tackling discrimination.
Explaining this decision, President Trump wrote: “The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government.
“The injection of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ into our institutions has corrupted them by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy. Orders to open the borders have endangered the American people and dissolved Federal, State, and local resources that should be used to benefit the American people. Climate extremism has exploded inflation and overburdened businesses with regulation.”
The orders that Trump has proposed to revoke include those which: prevent discrimination towards transgender and gay people; support educational opportunities for people from ethnic minority backgrounds; promote access to cultural and learning services, such as libraries; and encourage regulation around the use of AI (artificial intelligence).
New executive orders
Trump has introduced a raft of new executive orders.
Free speech
For Index, one of Trump’s most eye-catching orders is one for “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”.
President Trump acknowledges “the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without government interference”, as enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. He then says that “the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the federal government did not approve”.
He adds: “Under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’ ‘disinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ the federal government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”
The order requires the US Attorney to investigate the government’s activities over the past four years to decide whether any remedial actions need to be taken.
Trump fails to address some of the nuances when it comes to online content moderation. We outlined these when we responded to the changes at Meta earlier this month. Whilst we have reservations about moderation, we also have reservations about a complete lack of moderation. An unfiltered world of lies and hate speech can, and does, impact many people’s freedom of expression. A delicate balance must be sought but the new president doesn’t appear interested in striking this balance.
His move to “protect” free speech has also drawn much criticism and allegations of hypocrisy, given his penchant for threatening and suing journalists and political opponents. He famously referred to journalists as the “enemy of the people” and has sued five media companies, with some lawsuits still ongoing. His lawsuit against former political opponent Hillary Clinton was also dismissed as “frivolous, both factually and legally” by a federal judge, and Trump and his attorney were ordered to pay nearly $1 million in penalties.
Gender identity
As well as revoking a number of Biden-era orders, President Trump has made a new order aimed at “defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth”.
In the order, he says: “Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and wellbeing. The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.”
At Index, we have charted how discussions around gender have become toxic and how voices on both sides have been silenced. But once again Trump fails to acknowledge any nuance here and his own personal prejudices come out. This is not about allowing a plurality of voices and opinions – it is about prioritising one voice over another.
The order has drawn serious concerns for the free expression of transgender people, as it attempts to erase non-binary and transgender identities. For example, the order directs that passports, visas and other government documents must reflect male and female as the only two sexes, and government agencies will be banned from promoting gender transition. “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,” said Trump during his inaugural speech on Monday.
Stopping diversity, equity and inclusion
In an order titled Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, Trump vowed to halt diversity, equity and inclusion programmes within the federal government, which he described as generating “immense public waste and shameful discrimination”.
This is an incredibly knotty issue. Susie Linfield, professor of journalism at New York University, raised her concerns about DEI programmes in this thoughtful piece for Index when she talked about a culture of coercion that has been created on US campuses.
But to end these programmes rather than improve them could see fewer opportunities for, and the further discrimination and silencing of, ethnic minority voices and people of colour in government bodies and agencies. The private sector also appears to be following suit. According to Forbes, several high-profile companies appear to be either ending or altering their US DEI programmes, including Amazon, Meta and McDonald’s.
Pardons for 6 January rioters
As expected, President Trump has pardoned or commuted the sentences of all those involved in the US Capitol riots of 6 January 2021, saying it puts an end to “a grave national injustice”. The move involves more than 1,500 people, including 14 members of the far-right groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. More than 600 were charged with assaulting, resisting or obstructing law enforcement, using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to a police officer.
Such an order muddies the waters legally of what constitutes “peaceful protest”, confusing the right to object to political decisions with the right to be violent. It also potentially emboldens those looking to enact the latter. It’s also worth noting that this violence was a response to an election that was won fairly. What could happen in four years time if people decide they don’t like the election outcome?
U-turns on social media bans
Having previously backed a TikTok ban during his first term in office, Trump has since changed his position on this.
Last year, a law was passed in Congress under Biden, which required the Chinese technology company that owns TikTok – Bytedance – to either find a US buyer for the US version of the app, or face a complete ban in the USA. The law gave ByteDance until 19 January 2025 to sell in order to avoid a ban. But Trump has just signed an executive order which suspends the sale or ban by granting the company a 75-day extension.
National security concerns have been cited for the need to ban the platform, by both Biden’s and Trump’s former governments, including that the Chinese government could use TikTok for potential spying or data collection on American citizens. But there seems to be little-to-no evidence that supports these concerns. This is not to say that it isn’t happening, but that currently the threshold for a ban has not been met. The ban therefore posed concerns for free speech and access to information, given that more than 170 million Americans use TikTok, many of whom (particularly younger people) use it for news.
However, this u-turn seems less about Trump being a guardian of free expression, and more about pursuing his own marketing agenda. The president has gained huge popularity on the platform, with 15 million followers, and some of his videos have amassed more than 60 million views. He used it extensively during last year’s presidential campaign.
Risks to impartial information and journalism
On top of Trump’s disparaging remarks made about journalists, several executive orders have been signed which are cause for concern for citizens’ access to impartial and truthful information. This includes the creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, which will be headed up by X owner Elon Musk. The new advisory body will aim to cut government spending.
With Musk at its helm, critics are concerned about the implications for a free press, given the tech giant’s attitudes towards the media, having previously called for the defunding of American public broadcasters such as NPR. Policy decisions taken at X also indicate that Musk would not be a purveyor of a free press – a recent change to the social media platform’s blocking policy means that accounts can now view who has blocked them, which is expected to increase the rate of harassment towards journalists, particularly women and people of colour.
The president’s attitude towards the spread of false information online also indicates that it may become harder for Americans to discern between truth and falsehood. Trump has previously referred to efforts to tackle political mis- and disinformation as “the censorship cartel”, and several new executive orders imply a worrying approach to authoritative, and expert-led, global perspectives on issues such as climate change and pandemics. This includes an order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization, and another withdrawing it from the Paris Climate Agreement, showing even more movement away from the general consensus on public health and climate crises.
