Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to restore what he called “free speech” and end government censorship. Yet, less than two years into his second term, federal courts across the United States have delivered a series of rulings concluding that his administration itself crossed constitutional boundaries protecting expression, religion and the press.
An examination of court records shows that judges ruled against the administration in 75 out of 93 cases that involved First Amendment arguments. The decisions touched on a broad range of issues, from campus protests and immigration policies to funding cuts, media access restrictions and labour rights.
Several judges found that government actions had effectively silenced critics or penalised individuals and organisations whose views clashed with the administration’s political agenda. In one notable ruling, a federal judge in Boston concluded that authorities unlawfully detained, deported and revoked visas of foreign students and academics because of their support for pro-Palestinian causes.
The same decision carried a sharp warning, with the court observing that the government cannot use its power to retaliate against speech simply because those in authority dislike it.
The administration has faced setbacks in other disputes as well. Courts have blocked attempts to terminate grants awarded to universities that resisted federal directives, criticised measures aimed at law firms linked to Trump’s political opponents, and questioned the use of force during public demonstrations.
White House officials, however, have dismissed many of the judgments as examples of judicial overreach. Administration representatives have repeatedly accused federal judges of interfering with executive authority and frustrating the will of voters who elected Trump for a second term.
Most of the adverse rulings came from judges appointed by Democratic presidents, although Republican-appointed judges also sided against the administration in ten cases.
The contrast with former President Joe Biden’s tenure is striking. During Biden’s presidency, lower courts examined far fewer First Amendment challenges, and only a fraction resulted in rulings against the administration. Many of those cases revolved around religious objections to vaccine mandates.
The Trump administration has not accepted many of the decisions quietly. Appeals have been filed in roughly two-thirds of the cases, and in some instances appellate courts have reversed or suspended lower-court orders.
Among the administration’s notable victories were appeals involving pro-Palestinian student activists Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, whose release orders were overturned on procedural grounds. In another significant ruling, a federal appeals court lifted restrictions that had prevented the administration from limiting collective bargaining rights for large numbers of federal employees.
Still, higher courts have not always sided with the White House. In May, an appeals court agreed that the cancellation of research grants linked to diversity, equity and inclusion programmes amounted to unconstitutional discrimination based on viewpoint.
The tension between Trump’s rhetoric and the court rulings has become one of the defining legal battles of his second presidency.
On his first day back in office in 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” directing federal agencies to avoid infringing upon constitutional protections.
Critics argue that the promise was quickly overshadowed by a series of executive actions targeting policies related to diversity initiatives and gender identity—subjects that later became central to numerous lawsuits alleging First Amendment violations.
Legal scholars say the scale of the confrontation is unlike anything seen in modern American politics. Some academics have compared the current legal battles to the early twentieth century, when government crackdowns during periods of political unrest tested the limits of constitutional freedoms.
Another major front in the dispute involves Trump’s campaign against prominent law firms. In one high-profile case, a federal judge struck down an executive order aimed at the law firm Perkins Coie, which had previously represented Trump’s political rivals.
The court condemned the move, stating that government power cannot be used to settle personal scores or punish individuals and businesses for their political associations.
As appeals continue to move through the judicial system, the question at the centre of the controversy remains unresolved: whether a presidency built on promises of protecting free expression has, in practice, undermined the very freedoms it pledged to defend.
