Trump gambles on a 'free speech' defense strategy
With his legal challenges mounting, the former president is betting big on the First Amendment


If Donald Trump is anything, he is a man comfortable speaking aloud any and every thought that crosses his mind — whether or not it's in his best interest. He peppers his speeches with extended ad-libbed asides and non-sequitur riffs, often to the delight of his adoring audiences; his social media is rife with ruminations on everything from Hollywood romances to matters of national security; and now, facing perhaps the most significant criminal peril of his personal and professional life, Trump is betting that the very loquaciousness which contributed to his historic slate of criminal indictments may also be a winning legal strategy to keep him out of prison, and back into the White House.
This week, attorneys representing the former president against charges stemming from his alleged 2020 election interference argued that a request from prosecutors to limit the amount of evidence Trump could access and publicly disclose was a violation of his right to free speech. The request, made by Special Counsel Jack Smith's team, came after Trump posted "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" on his Truth Social platform — a message prosecutors claimed was a sign that Trump was planning to "litigate this case in the media." Not so, claimed Trump's attorneys, who wrote that "the government seeks to restrict First Amendment rights" by asking to limit what evidence presented during the trial's discovery phase can be accessed and made public by Trump beyond "only genuinely sensitive materials."
Particulars of the debate over the requested "protective order" aside, the filing by Trump's attorneys is notable for offering a glimpse at their larger legal strategy: framing the former president's alleged election subversion as fundamentally a "trial about First Amendment rights."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
"A showdown between two opposing assertions of principle"
The actions for which Trump has been charged were simply an example of the former president "exercising his right to talk about the issues and advocate politically for his belief that the election was stolen and was improperly run," attorney John Lauro told NPR recently, calling Smith's prosecution "the first time in the history of the United States where a sitting administration is criminalizing speech against a prior administration." Trump's legal team is essentially claiming that the former president had "every right to express views about election fraud that they say he believed, and still believes, to be true," The New York Times said, contrasting the strategy to prosecutors' focus on Trump's "pervasive and destabilizing lies" existing not simply as an expression of free speech, but in service of a larger criminal act. The charges against Trump, and his legal team's subsequent maneuvering are themselves a preview of a "showdown between those two opposing assertions of principle."
"Even assuming Trump knew his claims were false, there would still remain the controversial effort to link his false claims to the actions of others in challenging the election," attorney Jonathan Turley, who previously rejected the constitutional grounds for Trump's two impeachment trials, wrote in The Hill. "Even then," Turley added, "there remains the constitutional problem of criminalizing political lies."
Already a number of prominent conservative lawmakers and pundits have signed on to the Trump legal team's "free speech" framing. "President Trump had every right under the First Amendment to correctly raise concerns about election integrity in 2020," House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik said in a statement after Smith's indictment was made public. Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani similarly claimed in an interview that Jack Smith's legacy will ultimately be one of "violating the right of free speech of an American citizen." Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Al.) claimed in a statement that "President Trump's statements are protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, especially political speech," and that the indictment "raises serious concerns about the public's right to speak openly in opposition to policies they oppose."
"The First Amendment doesn't shield fraud"
While the former president's free speech argument "might sound exciting to Trump's base," it's "likely to fall flat in court because speech in service of criminal conduct is not protected," MSNBC commentator Zeeshan Aleem wrote, highlighting the indictment's focus on Trump's having used "information he knew was false as part of a campaign to subvert the electoral process."
"There is no First Amendment privilege to commit crimes just because you did it by speaking," Duke University Law Professor and former federal prosecutor Samuel Buell concurred in the New York Times. "Tony Soprano can't invoke the First Amendment for telling his crew he wants someone whacked."
There is, in fact, Supreme Court precedent to that effect, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, professor at Stetson Unversity law school, explained to NPR. Allowing that "the Supreme Court has been very lenient with liars" in general, Torres-Spelliscy pointed to the recent United States v. Hansen ruling, which made "really clear that the First Amendment doesn't shield fraud." No matter if Trump believed the lies about election fraud or not, he "simply did not have the legal authority to do what he is accused of doing, and he thus violated federal criminal law."
Ultimately there is legal precedent to placing limits on a president's First Amendment protections — made against Trump in regards to civil lawsuits stemming from the speech he made on Jan. 6 which allegedly incited the attack on the U.S. Capitol complex.
"Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a president's speech," Washington Federal District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in 2022. "But the court believes this is that case. Even presidents cannot avoid liability for speech that falls outside the expansive reach of the First Amendment. The court finds that in this one-of-a-kind case the First Amendment does not shield the president from liability."
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Rafi Schwartz has worked as a politics writer at The Week since 2022, where he covers elections, Congress and the White House. He was previously a contributing writer with Mic focusing largely on politics, a senior writer with Splinter News, a staff writer for Fusion's news lab, and the managing editor of Heeb Magazine, a Jewish life and culture publication. Rafi's work has appeared in Rolling Stone, GOOD and The Forward, among others.
-
El Salvador's CECOT prison becomes Washington's go-to destination
IN THE SPOTLIGHT Republicans and Democrats alike are clamoring for access to the Trump administration's extrajudicial deportation camp — for very different reasons
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US
-
Supreme Court takes up Trump birthright appeal
Speed Read The New Jersey Attorney General said a constitutional right like birthright citizenship 'cannot be turned on or off at the whims of a single man'
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US
-
Court slams Trump, senator visits Ábrego García
Speed Read The case 'should be shocking not only to judges' but all Americans with an 'intuitive sense of liberty'
By Peter Weber, The Week US
-
The anger fueling the Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez barnstorming tour
Talking Points The duo is drawing big anti-Trump crowds in red states
By Joel Mathis, The Week US
-
Judge threatens Trump team with criminal contempt
Speed Read James Boasberg attempts to hold the White House accountable for disregarding court orders over El Salvador deportation flights
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US
-
Why the GOP is nervous about Ken Paxton's Senate run
Today's Big Question A MAGA-establishment battle with John Cornyn will be costly
By Joel Mathis, The Week US
-
UK-US trade deal: can Keir Starmer trust Donald Trump?
Today's Big Question White House insiders say an agreement is 'two weeks' away but can Britain believe it?
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK
-
A running list of Trump's second-term national security controversies
In Depth Several scandals surrounding national security have rocked the Trump administration
By Justin Klawans, The Week US