The Trump Administration and the far right have spoken vehemently against the “canceling” of individuals because they claim it silences voices and doles out uneven punishment to conservatives. However, now that they hold the highest-ranking positions in the government, these same figures are leading the charge to crush dissent through both the soft power of their words and by using the levers of the federal government against Americans.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr threatened to deplatform comedian Jimmy Kimmel. Vice President JD Vance rallied supporters to call the employers of people who did not adhere to the White House’s preferred script after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. And President Donald Trump instructed Microsoft to fire former Biden administration official Lisa Monaco, who oversaw the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigations into Trump’s conduct. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicted high-profile enemies of the president, at his direct instruction, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Organizations and individuals who do not want to attract the ire of the Trump administration face an uncomfortable choice of conforming to the ideals of the administration and the far right or risking government-approved cancellation—a dangerous development that threatens Americans’ fundamental right to free speech.
Background
The phenomenon now known as “cancel culture”—essentially a public “cultural boycott” that can carry repercussions such as job loss or ostracization on social media—rose to prominence during an important moment for accountability. Following decades of sexual harassment and buried cases of abuse, the #MeToo movement galvanized individuals, particularly in Hollywood, to come forward publicly with allegations of unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate behavior by powerful men. This movement was a watershed moment for women’s rights and lent long-overdue credibility to many of the women who bravely came forward with their stories. It ultimately brought down influential men who had been abusing their power for decades, such as Hollywood megaproducer Harvey Weinstein. As time passed, the push for consequences evolved into what some believe to be a more dangerous cancel culture that can sometimes produce rushed judgments and harsh penalties without allowance for context or personal growth. There is a thin and blurry line between unjust cancel culture and important values-based decision making. The speed and scale of cancel culture, facilitated by the internet, often lends itself to a mob mentality that seems to revel in shaming others.
Cancel culture continues to be a nebulous and divisive concept, being both political and cultural. Popstar Taylor Swift, for example, was the subject of #TaylorSwiftIsCancelled in the late 2010s following her feuds with other celebrities; yet in 2025, she remains one of Billboard’s top artists of the 21st century. Swift released a song called “CANCELLED!” on her 2025 album, “The Life of a Showgirl,” in which she sings, “good thing I like my friends cancelled,” seemingly reclaiming the term as a badge of honor in an overly critical society that she accuses of canceling people for things as innocuous as “mak[ing] a joke only a man could.” These lyrics reflect a growing frustration with the evolution of cancel culture from an accountability mechanism to a form of public judgement. In 2022, a survey found that 73 percent of respondents had heard the phrase “cancel culture,” and 60 percent of those familiar with the concept saw it as a threat to Americans’ freedom—creating a paradox of cancel culture as both fueled by the public and feared by it.
Far-right politicians speak out against cancel culture
In the early 2020s, the pushback from conservatives against progressive-led cancel culture was fierce, with many concerned about individuals losing their livelihoods. The Heritage Foundation’s list of “victims of cancel culture” includes a teacher fired for disparaging the Black Lives Matter movement and a journalist removed from her post after writing that systemic racism does not exist. A conservative coalition formed the “Unsilenced Majority” to push back against cancel culture, and the theme of the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference was “America Uncanceled.” In his 2020 Fourth of July speech, President Trump decried: “‘Cancel culture’—driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism.”
“‘Cancel culture’—driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism.”
– President Donald Trump in 2020
As President Trump’s quote illustrates, many on the far right believe that cancel culture is the antithesis of free speech. Although canceling by societal, not governmental, pressure may remove an individual’s microphone, free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment are only implicated when a government entity weaponizes its power to silence certain voices. Nevertheless, many prominent figures in the Trump administration continue using forceful words in support of freedom of speech, if only to give the illusion they are against cancel culture:
- In February, Vice President JD Vance told an international audience: “We may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square, agree or disagree.”
- Soon after the 2024 election, the now-Chairman of the FCC Brendan Carr tweeted: “We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.”
- White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently told reporters: “Freedom of speech is arguably the most important issue of our time. It is enshrined in our constitution and the President believes in it strongly.”
- In his 2025 inaugural address, President Trump promised: “Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents.”
However, behind the rhetoric, this administration’s version of free speech has taken a radically different path. As described in the examples below, its approach reveals an alarming push toward conformity, suppression, and compliance to the views of the administration.
The embrace of cancel culture using government powers
In several ways, the administration is trampling the First Amendment by targeting individuals for their views, including by inciting online mobs and threatening dissenters’ livelihoods. Freedom of speech is ensured under the First Amendment as a right to be free from government interference, not to be immune from public reactions or consequences. Therefore, the current administration’s machinations to advance a form of cancel culture are far more dangerous, as they rely in large part on the vast powers and great deference granted to the federal government.
First, the administration is using the soft power of the government to “jawbone” private entities into suppressing speech on its behalf. Jawboning occurs when public officials stifle speech from private entities through threats of consequences. Although government entities may seek to persuade private ones, coercing action through jawboning can be a violation of the First Amendment. Despite repeated allegations that the Biden administration’s engagement with private social media platforms over content removal was criminal jawboning—a claim shot down by the Supreme Court—the Trump administration is now engaging in far more egregious jawboning:
“We may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square, agree or disagree.”
– Vice President JD Vance
Second, the administration is using the direct powers of the federal government to shut down disfavored speech and actions:
Such government coercion is highly dangerous since the administration can pull certain levers, such as through investigative and prosecutorial processes, traditionally balanced with legal and norm-based constraints. Now, many of these actions are indeed facing rebukes from the legal system for running afoul of the First Amendment. In four separate cases, for example, lower court judges blocked the executive orders targeting law firms from going into effect, ruling them unconstitutional. And in a lower court case won by Harvard University, a judge ruled that the administration illegally infringed upon the university’s academic freedom by freezing billions in research funding, calling the administration’s reasoning a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault.”
If someone is breaking the law or using speech that does not have First Amendment protections, such as defaming someone or inciting imminent violence, it is expected that the government will enforce the law. However, the breadth of the administration’s attack on free speech and the dearth of evidence to support some prosecutions raises alarming concerns about the weaponization of the federal government. Although the judicial system remains an avenue for people to pursue legal remedies when the government unlawfully tries to infringe on their constitutional rights, the government should not be taking such steps in the first place.
In a healthy democracy, the government represents “we the people” and defends their right to voice their views freely, even when that means criticizing the government.
In a healthy democracy, the government represents “we the people” and defends their right to voice their views freely, even when that means criticizing the government. The American people must reject attacks on freedom of speech and recognize that their cherished rights require a collective defense, regardless of disagreements with each other or the government.
Conclusion
The Trump administration has seemingly taken up the mantle of stoking a new right-wing-driven cancel culture, which President Trump once called “the very definition of totalitarianism.” Political dissidents and critics of the administration who do not espouse the exact same beliefs as the administration—regardless of party or relative anonymity—risk cancellation. After years of ringing alarm bells about people losing their livelihoods over comments on social media, the administration is using this very tactic to punish its opponents. This administration’s use of cancel culture is an affront to the First Amendment protections guaranteed to Americans for their right to speak without interference from the government and a chilling abuse of power that puts the nation on a dangerous path.
The author would like to thank Ben Verdi and Adam Conner for their generous contributions to this column.