“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.

In an address to Congress this month, President Trump claimed he had “brought free speech back to America.” But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges.

This story explores a slew of recent actions by the Trump administration that threaten to undermine all five pillars of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedoms concerning speech, religion, the media, the right to assembly, and the right to petition the government and seek redress for wrongs.

THE RIGHT TO PETITION

The right to petition allows citizens to communicate with the government, whether to complain, request action, or share viewpoints — without fear of reprisal. But that right is being assaulted by this administration on multiple levels. For starters, many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituents affected by the administration’s many federal budget and workforce cuts.

Another example: President Trump recently fired most of the people involved in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government agencies. FOIA is an indispensable tool used by journalists and the public to request government records, and to hold leaders accountable.

The biggest story by far this week was the bombshell from The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who recounted how he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat with National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and 16 other Trump administration officials discussing plans for an upcoming attack on Yemen.

One overlooked aspect of Goldberg’s incredible account is that by planning and coordinating the attack on Signal — which features messages that can auto-delete after a short time — administration officials were evidently seeking a way to avoid creating a lasting (and potentially FOIA-able) record of their deliberations.

“Intentional or not, use of Signal in this context was an act of erasure—because without Jeffrey Goldberg being accidentally added to the list, the general public would never have any record of these communications or any way to know they even occurred,” Tony Bradley wrote this week at Forbes.

Petitioning the government, particularly when it ignores your requests, often requires challenging federal agencies in court. But that becomes far more difficult if the most competent law firms start to shy away from cases that may involve crossing the president and his administration.

On March 22, the president issued a memorandum that directs heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States,” or in matters that come before federal agencies.

The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.

Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.

Other Trump executive orders targeted law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both of which have attorneys that worked with special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But this week, two federal judges in separate rulings froze parts of those orders.

“There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, and that is qualified as a constitutional harm,” wrote Judge Richard Leon, who ruled against the executive order targeting WilmerHale.

President Trump recently took the extraordinary step of calling for the impeachment of federal judges who rule against the administration. Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and urged he be removed from office for blocking deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members under a rarely invoked wartime legal authority.

In a rare public rebuke to a sitting president, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a statement on March 18 pointing out that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

The U.S. Constitution provides that judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The Constitution also states that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced while they are in office.

Undeterred, House Speaker Mike Johnson this week suggested the administration could still use the power of its purse to keep courts in line, and even floated the idea of wholesale eliminating federal courts.

“We do have authority over the federal courts as you know,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act, so stay tuned for that.”

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

President Trump has taken a number of actions to discourage lawful demonstrations at universities and colleges across the country, threatening to cut federal funding for any college that supports protests he deems “illegal.”

A Trump executive order in January outlined a broad federal crackdown on what he called “the explosion of antisemitism” on U.S. college campuses. This administration has asserted that foreign students who are lawfully in the United States on visas do not enjoy the same free speech or due process rights as citizens.

Reuters reports that the acting civil rights director at the Department of Education on March 10 sent letters to 60 educational institutions warning they could lose federal funding if they don’t do more to combat anti-semitism. On March 20, Trump issued an order calling for the closure of the Education Department.

Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.

In his first term, Trump threatened to use the national guard or the U.S. military to deal with protesters, and in campaigning for re-election he promised to revisit the idea.

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump told Fox News in October 2024. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

This term, Trump acted swiftly to remove the top judicial advocates in the armed forces who would almost certainly push back on any request by the president to use U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell public protests, or to arrest and detain immigrants. In late February, the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top legal officers for the military services — those responsible for ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice is followed by commanders.

Military.com warns that the purge “sets an alarming precedent for a crucial job in the military, as President Donald Trump has mused about using the military in unorthodox and potentially illegal ways.” Hegseth told reporters the removals were necessary because he didn’t want them to pose any “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage.

In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.

The president sued The Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett, for publishing a poll showing Trump trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential election in Iowa (a state that went for Trump). The POTUS also is suing the Pulitzer Prize board over 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of purported Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Whether or not any of the president’s lawsuits against news organizations have merit or succeed is almost beside the point. The strategy behind suing the media is to make reporters and newsrooms think twice about criticizing or challenging the president and his administration. The president also knows some media outlets will find it more expedient to settle.

Trump also sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for stating that the president had been found liable for “rape” in a civil case [Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll]. ABC parent Disney settled that claim by agreeing to donate $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library.

Following the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Facebook blocked President Trump’s account. Trump sued Meta, and after the president’s victory in 2024 Meta settled and agreed to pay Trump $25 million: $22 million would go to his presidential library, and the rest to legal fees. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also announced Facebook and Instagram would get rid of fact-checkers and rely instead on reader-submitted “community notes” to debunk disinformation on the social media platform.

Brendan Carr, the president’s pick to run the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has pledged to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” But on January 22, 2025, the FCC reopened complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC over their coverage of the 2024 election. The previous FCC chair had dismissed the complaints as attacks on the First Amendment and an attempt to weaponize the agency for political purposes.

According to Reuters, the complaints call for an investigation into how ABC News moderated the pre-election TV debate between Trump and Biden, and appearances of then-Vice President Harris on 60 Minutes and on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”

Since then, the FCC has opened investigations into NPR and PBS, alleging that they are breaking sponsorship rules. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a think tank based in Washington, D.C., noted that the FCC is also investigating KCBS in San Francisco for reporting on the location of federal immigration authorities.

“Even if these investigations are ultimately closed without action, the mere fact of opening them – and the implicit threat to the news stations’ license to operate – can have the effect of deterring the press from news coverage that the Administration dislikes,” the CDT’s Kate Ruane observed.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to “open up” libel laws, with the goal of making it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. But this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by Trump donor and Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn to overturn the landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which insulates the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures.

The president also has insisted on picking which reporters and news outlets should be allowed to cover White House events and participate in the press pool that trails the president. He barred the Associated Press from the White House and Air Force One over their refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by another name.

And the Defense Department has ordered a number of top media outlets to vacate their spots at the Pentagon, including CNN, The Hill, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Politico and National Public Radio.

“Incoming media outlets include the New York Post, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, the Free Press, the Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Huffington Post and One America News Network, most of whom are seen as conservative or favoring Republican President Donald Trump,” Reuters reported.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Shortly after Trump took office again in January 2025, the administration began circulating lists of hundreds of words that government staff and agencies shall not use in their reports and communications.

The Brookings Institution notes that in moving to comply with this anti-speech directive, federal agencies have purged countless taxpayer-funded data sets from a swathe of government websites, including data on crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development.

The New York Times reports that in the past two months, hundreds of terabytes of digital resources analyzing data have been taken off government websites.

“While in many cases the underlying data still exists, the tools that make it possible for the public and researchers to use that data have been removed,” The Times wrote.

On Jan. 27, Trump issued a memo (PDF) that paused all federally funded programs pending a review of those programs for alignment with the administration’s priorities. Among those was ensuring that no funding goes toward advancing “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”

According to the CDT, this order is a blatant attempt to force government grantees to cease engaging in speech that the current administration dislikes, including speech about the benefits of diversity, climate change, and LGBTQ issues.

“The First Amendment does not permit the government to discriminate against grantees because it does not like some of the viewpoints they espouse,” the CDT’s Ruane wrote. “Indeed, those groups that are challenging the constitutionality of the order argued as much in their complaint, and have won an injunction blocking its implementation.”

On January 20, the same day Trump issued an executive order on free speech, the president also issued an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which froze funding for programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Among those were programs designed to empower civil society and human rights groups, journalists and others responding to digital repression and Internet shutdowns.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this includes many freedom technologies that use cryptography, fight censorship, protect freedom of speech, privacy and anonymity for millions of people around the world.

“While the State Department has issued some limited waivers, so far those waivers do not seem to cover the open source internet freedom technologies,” the EFF wrote about the USAID disruptions. “As a result, many of these projects have to stop or severely curtail their work, lay off talented workers, and stop or slow further development.”

On March 14, the president signed another executive order that effectively gutted the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees or funds media outlets including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America (VOA). The USAGM also oversees Radio Free Asia, which supporters say has been one of the most reliable tools used by the government to combat Chinese propaganda.

But this week, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, temporarily blocked USAGM’s closure by the administration.

“RFE/RL has, for decades, operated as one of the organizations that Congress has statutorily designated to carry out this policy,” Lamberth wrote in a 10-page opinion. “The leadership of USAGM cannot, with one sentence of reasoning offering virtually no explanation, force RFE/RL to shut down — even if the President has told them to do so.”

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

The Trump administration rescinded a decades-old policy that instructed officers not to take immigration enforcement actions in or near “sensitive” or “protected” places, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.

That directive was immediately challenged in a case brought by a group of Quakers, Baptists and Sikhs, who argued the policy reversal was keeping people from attending services for fear of being arrested on civil immigration violations. On Feb. 24, a federal judge agreed and blocked ICE agents from entering churches or targeting migrants nearby.

The president’s executive order allegedly addressing antisemitism came with a fact sheet that described college campuses as “infested” with “terrorists” and “jihadists.” Multiple faith groups expressed alarm over the order, saying it attempts to weaponize antisemitism and promote “dehumanizing anti-immigrant policies.”

The president also announced the creation of a “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” to be led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Never mind that Christianity is easily the largest faith in America and that Christians are well-represented in Congress.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, issued a statement accusing Trump of hypocrisy in claiming to champion religion by creating the task force.

“From allowing immigration raids in churches, to targeting faith-based charities, to suppressing religious diversity, the Trump Administration’s aggressive government overreach is infringing on religious freedom in a way we haven’t seen for generations,” Raushenbush said.

A statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the task force could lead to religious persecution of those with other faiths.

“Rather than protecting religious beliefs, this task force will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws,” said Rachel Laser, the group’s president and CEO.

Where is President Trump going with all these blatant attacks on the First Amendment? The president has made no secret of his affection for autocratic leaders and “strongmen” around the world, and he is particularly enamored with Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort twice in the past year.

A March 15 essay in The Atlantic by Hungarian investigative journalist András Pethő recounts how Orbán rose to power by consolidating control over the courts, and by building his own media universe while simultaneously placing a stranglehold on the independent press.

“As I watch from afar what’s happening to the free press in the United States during the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency — the verbal bullying, the legal harassment, the buckling by media owners in the face of threats — it all looks very familiar,” Pethő wrote. “The MAGA authorities have learned Orbán’s lessons well.”

A reader asked the New York Times Magazine’s "The Ethicist" advice column whether a "straight White dude" can date "women of color" to "combat racism."

The anonymous reader explained his "controversial" preference for dating non-White women to columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah on Valentine’s Day.

"I want to prioritize dating women of color," the reader wrote. "I’m after a cross-cultural relationship. I believe very strongly that one of the main ways to combat racism is through relationships. Part of me thinks that I will always be somewhat disappointed if what ends up becoming one of the most important relationships in my life is with another white person. If someone is a woman of color, that checks a box for me in a real way. I am seeking to be antiracist in all my relationships."

NY TIMES ADVICE COLUMN PONDERS APPROPRIATENESS OF FLEEING THE COUNTRY IF 'WRONG CANDIDATE' GETS ELECTED

He added that his motivation is "to combat implicit bias, having grown up in a fairly White, quasi rural place" and has since "dedicated to educating [himself] on issues of racism, sexism and other forms of kyriarchy while also learning from marginalized people." 

Kyriarchy is a feminist theory term that refers to a social system revolved around domination, oppression, and submission.

He also compared his dating preference to "eating a food or adopting a habit because it’s good" for him until he can "really like it for what it is."

"Both I and my hypothetical partner of color would be choosing more learning and less comfort, to put forth greater effort and practice more listening, than we otherwise would in a culturally homogeneous committed relationship," the reader said. "And one of the main ways that I hope to combat racism individually is by leveraging my own privilege (economic, family connections, education) for people of color, including any biracial children we bring into this world."

"Here’s my question: Despite my well-meaning antiracist principles, is this preference (as friends have suggested) wrong, insensitive or somehow itself racist?" he asked.

Although Appiah called his dedication "impressive," he warned the reader about the downsides to "treating a relationship like a seminar."

"Although you’re not objectifying your hypothetical partner, you are, just a little, instrumentalizing her," Appiah answered. "That’s not to say you aren’t entitled to pursue this campaign of strenuous self-optimizing. Just be transparent about your box-checking ambitions. Perhaps some prospects will be grateful for your offer to put your privileges at their disposal while you embark on your journey of uplift. But — how to put this? — I suspect that most would rather be your honey bun than your grain bowl."

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

Appiah encouraged compromise and peaceful gatherings between Democratic and Republican family members in a column last November ahead of Thanksgiving.

"Today, family gatherings routinely unite Catholics and Protestants, Jews and gentiles, Baptists and Episcopalians, Blacks and whites and Latinos and Asians; not so long ago, they could unite Democrats and Republicans. In perfect harmony? Far from it. But it helps to remember people are more than the sum of their political views — and that intolerance has a habit of breeding intolerance," he wrote.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

MSNBC's Michael Steele unloaded on Democrats during a rant on Saturday, demanding they start to show they care about people "losing their jobs" and President Donald Trump's early actions as president. 

"I’d just like you to show that you give a damn!" Steele, a former RNC Chair turned MSNBC host, said. "That you get a little emotional about the fact that people are losing their jobs indiscriminately! That this individual sitting down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has given absolute power to one man, who brings his son into the Oval Office, whose son says to him, ‘you’re not the president! You shouldn’t be in that chair!’ Now, where did he get that from? He got it from his daddy! Because that’s what his daddy thinks of the man who brought him into the Oval Office."

Steele and his fellow MSNBC colleagues discussed a piece from The Nation, a progressive outlet, headlined "The Courts can't stop the Trump-Musk coup," which deemed the pair to be "barbarians at the gate," and argued that they would defy orders from the courts. 

"They’re in your bedrooms!" Steele continued. "They’re in your living rooms! They’re in your businesses! They’ve got they got your data, dumb a--! They got all your stuff! Elon Musk has his tentacles in everything you’re doing! Not just off of X, but he’s in the Treasury Department! He’s in the Labor Department! He’s in Department of Homeland Security!"

ELON MUSK ALLEGES $50B IN FRAUD AT TREASURY AFTER JUDGE BLOCKS DOGE AUDIT

"And nobody seems to give a damn! So that’s all I want — somebody to show that they care enough to get off their fat a-- and say something about it!" he said. 

Co-host Symone Sanders-Townsend also issued a warning during the discussion.

"I am thoroughly concerned about how we survive. And it just makes me think about this movie that I saw on the plane a couple months ago, ‘Civil War.’ It wasn’t necessarily great, but in the movie ‘Civil War,’ like all hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. and in places all across the country. And there were people in the middle of the country that were just living their lives like nothing was happening. And I think that that is actually where we are, and there are going to be a lot of people that are going to continue to just go on about their daily lives as though Rome is not burning," she said. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

Musk has been focused on weeding out government waste through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been met with pushback from the media and from Democratic lawmakers.

However, former Democratic lawmaker Dean Phillips said members of the party looked pathetic.

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Phillips admitted that Democrats are being "steamrolled" by the X owner who has begun conducting internal investigations into the spending of various government agencies, while liberal lawmakers have been loudly protesting on the sidelines. Phillips urged the party to change their strategy.

"And all I‘m saying is that sometimes it’s better to join [DOGE, Trump] and actually play a role in how the strategy works, rather than so pathetically, frankly, try to combat something that clearly is a steamroller," the former Minnesota lawmaker told CNN’s Laura Coates.

Fox News' Gabriel Hays contributed to this report.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and border czar Tom Homan's back-and-forth continued Sunday as the "Squad" Democrat's reply to a warning that she could soon find herself in "trouble" for allegedly impeding ICE operations roused an on-air response.

"What she needs to do is read the statutes enacted by Congress… because it's a crime to enter this country illegally," the Trump border czar said on this week's "Sunday Morning Futures." 

"Not only that, but when you harbor and conceal and impede law enforcement, that's a felony. What she's doing, she says she's educating everybody on their constitutional rights, and we all know they've got constitutional rights, but what she's really doing… she's trying to teach them how to evade law enforcement."

HOMAN, AOC CLASH OVER WEBINAR TO HELP IMMIGRANTS ‘EVADE’ ICE RAIDS: ‘I THOUGHT I EDUCATED HER’

The clash began with Ocasio-Cortez's hosting of a "Know Your Rights with ICE" webinar on her Facebook page, advising illegal immigrants on how to handle an encounter with the agency. 

Homan, responding to that webinar on "The Ingraham Angle," recently suggested the New York Democrat could be crossing a line.

"I'm working with the Department of Justice and finding out. Where is that line that they cross? So maybe AOC is going to be in trouble now," he said.

NYC MAYOR ADAMS, TRUMP BORDER CZAR HOMAN ANNOUNCE ‘GAME CHANGER’ FOR ICE ENFORCEMENT

Ocasio-Cortez responded on X, mocking the suggestion that she could soon be in trouble, adding that Homan "learn how to read," beginning with the Constitution.

Homan reiterated that ICE raids are currently concentrating on national security and public safety threats by zeroing in on illegal immigrants with "significant criminal convictions." By "educating" those living in the U.S. illegally on ways to evade law enforcement, he suggested she could be sewing the seeds of another heinous crime.

"Let's hope she's not educating the next person who gets out and murders a young college student in Georgia…" he said. "She can call it education all she wants. But we all know it's about evading law enforcement."

Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

Independent voters in a Fox News Digital focus group approved of President Donald Trump's promise to cut taxes and eliminate wasteful government spending.

Voters responded to Trump discussing his plan to make the government more efficient and cut taxes for families while at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Jan. 23. 

"I have promised to eliminate ten old regulations for every new regulation which will soon put many thousands of dollars back in the pockets of American families to further unleash our economy," Trump said.

"Our majorities in the House and Senate, which we also took along with the presidency — we are going to pass the largest tax cut in American history, including massive tax cuts for workers and family and big tax cuts for domestic producers and manufacturers. And we're working with the Democrats on getting an extension of the original Trump tax cuts, as you probably know by just reading any paper," he continued.

INDEPENDENT VOTERS SHOW SIGNIFICANT DISAPPROVAL OF DEMOCRATIC ANTICS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP

The focus group consisted of 75 Democrats, 49 independents and 32 Republicans, and their reactions were represented by blue, yellow and red lines, respectively. 

Independents and Republicans were on board with Trump's plan to save taxpayers money. Democrats slightly disapproved at the start of Trump's comments before their reaction remained steady, the Fox News Dial shows.

Lee Carter, a communications strategist and president of Maslansky + Partners, said that Trump's regulation and tax cuts were popular with the group. However, many feared these cuts wouldn't happen.

The group also reacted to Trump discussing the future of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in an exclusive interview with Fox News' Bret Baier last Sunday.

NEW POLL REVEALS WHICH TRUMP POLICIES AMERICANS LOVE AND HATE

"We have to solve the efficiency problem. We have to solve the fraud, waste, abuse, all the things that have gone into the government," Trump said. "You take a look at the USAID, the kind of fraud in there that you found significant damage. Well, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of money that's going to places where it shouldn't be going, where if I read a list, you'd say, this is ridiculous and you've read the same lists and there are many that you haven't even seen. It's crazy. It's a big scam now."

"There's some good money and we can do that through any one of a number. I think I'd rather give it to Marco Rubio over at the State Department. Let him take care of the few good ones. So I don't know if it's kickbacks or what's going on, but the people — look, I ran on this, and the people want me to find it. And I've had great help with Elon Musk, who's been terrific," he continued.

Independents and Republicans were in favor of Trump's pledge to tackle the "fraud, waste and abuse" in the federal government. The Democratic line remained flat at first before trending slightly downward. 

 CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST MEDIA AND CULTURE NEWS

"Fascinating response," Carter said of the group's reaction. "His message of eliminating fraud, waste, abuse is working."

One participant said, "I actually work with USAID so I don't agree with entirely dismantling, but his messaging was very sensible and reasonable in terms of eliminating fraud and wasteful spending."

"Even there, it makes sense," Carter continued. "Trump is bringing common sense back to government. And if Democrats fail to understand this is how it is viewed, they will lose the debate."

Vice President JD Vance left U.K. army veteran Adam Smith-Connor "incredibly surprised" after his story of being arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic became the focus of a defense of free speech and religious liberty on the international stage over the weekend.

"I had no idea it was going to happen," Smith-Connor said Sunday on "Fox & Friends Weekend."

"I'm a physiotherapist. I was treating a patient. I just had a few minutes' gap between patients… and [I learned] the vice president of America was talking about [my] case, so it was incredibly surprising, and I'm very grateful to him for highlighting this case."

Smith-Connor was found guilty of breaching the local government's Public Spaces Protection Order in October, nearly two years after standing outside an abortion facility with his head bowed in silent prayer.

VANCE WARNS THE US WILL USE SANCTIONS, MILITARY ACTION IF PUTIN DOESN’T AGREE TO UKRAINE PEACE DEAL: REPORT

He was ordered to pay £9,000 (approximately $11,330 USD) to his prosecutors as a result.

Vance highlighted the case as he blasted 'Soviet'-style European censorship in an address to European leaders at the Munich Security Conference last Friday. 

"The backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs," the vice president said.

"A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes, not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own."

HEGSETH SAYS HE AND VANCE ARE 'ON THE SAME PAGE' DESPITE VP'S REMARK ON US TROOPS IN UKRAINE

Lois McLatchie Miller, senior legal communications officer at Alliance Defending Freedom International, informed Smith-Connor of Vance's acknowledgment through a phone call. 

She told "Fox & Friends Weekend" co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy that ADF International is supporting his legal defense as they seek to appeal the judgment later this year.

"This intervention from Vice President Vance highlighting the case really exposes that this is the worst example of censorship in the West right now. If we cannot think thoughts in our heads on certain British streets, we have no hope for freedom anywhere else."

New York Times columnist David Brooks said during an interview on Friday that he understood why President Donald Trump's administration barred the Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One, citing the media's deeper problem — an under-representation of pro-Trump voices. 

"I'm a little less harsh on the Trump administration," Brooks said during "PBS NewsHour," adding, "Listen, I lived through the end of the Biden administration, where there was almost no press access to the guy."

The Associated Press was barred from the Oval Office and Air Force One due to the news organization refraining from renaming the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "Gulf of America" in their coverage. "PBS NewsHour" host Amna Nawaz asked Brooks and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart about the decision. 

"And so administrations manipulate the press. That's part of the job. And if they don't want to talk to the AP, fine. The AP can do its own reporting," Brooks said. 

TRUMP TO RENAME GULF OF MEXICO, MOUNT DENALI ON FIRST DAY IN OFFICE

Brooks pointed to a larger problem in the media during the conversation before noting that he was "appalled" by the decision to bar the AP.

"I think the deeper problem here — and this is our business; I hate to comment on the media, because I have spent my life in it — but we have not represented enough Trump voices over the last 40 years, enough working-class voices over the last 40 years," he continued. 

"And so, if we had done that, maybe some of the hostility that's come our way wouldn't be there. And so I'm appalled by what Trump is doing, but I understand sort of why he's doing it," he said. 

Capehart argued that Trump was "bullying the press corps," and urged reporters to stand up to him. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

"And the press is vitally important for a democracy, because an informed citizenry is what is the foundation of our system of government, democracy. And if the press doesn't stand up to the president, who will?" Capehart said.

Google Maps and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced after Trump's renaming that they were updating their systems to reflect the change. 

White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich took to X on Friday to elaborate on the Associated Press' access. 

"The Associated Press continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America. This decision is not just divisive, but it also exposes the Associated Press' commitment to misinformation. While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One," Budowich posted on X.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

AP spokesperson Lauren Easton told Fox News Digital, "Freedom of speech is a pillar of American democracy and a core value of the American people. The White House has said it supports these principles."

Instead of the big game, DOGE leader Elon Musk was focused on U.S. government-funded media. He backed Trump ally Richard Grenell’s call to shut down VOA and Radio Free Europe, replying on X: "Yes, shut them down." Kari Lake, Trump’s nominee for VOA Director, responded, advocating for keeping them open but making them pro-American.  

Lake strongly denied liberal media fears that she would turn VOA into "Trump TV," clarifying that even President Donald Trump wants it to present a fair and accurate portrayal of America — the real Voice of America. To further shake up the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), Trump also nominated a fierce conservative media watchdog and Media Research Center President Brent Bozell to lead the USAGM, the parent agency of the Voice of America and other taxpayer-funded international broadcasters.  

With an annual budget of nearly $1 billion, USAGM has rightfully caught Musk’s attention. Despite then-President Joe Biden’s $950 million budget proposal for these media outlets in 2025, most Americans remain unaware of VOA’s role. Outside the U.S., however, VOA is a widely recognized international broadcaster, reaching a weekly audience of 354 million people in 49 languages.  

DOGE 'PLAYBOOK' UNVEILED BY GOP SENATOR AS MUSK-LED AGENCY SHAKES UP FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Its reach is so extensive that it makes America’s largest domestic radio and TV networks "look like small fry," according to The Guardian. The real concern is that VOA often spreads anti-American narratives instead of promoting U.S. values. The left fears losing a well-funded, poorly monitored and highly influential tools for criticizing American values globally. 

Founded in 1942 during World War II, Voice of America aimed to communicate U.S. policies and counter enemy propaganda. Joined by Radio Free Europe in 1950 and four other federally owned outlets, they played a key role in shaping global perceptions through WWII, the Korean War and the Cold War, until the Soviet Union's collapse.  

However, on April 30, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the International Broadcasting Act, establishing the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to oversee non-military international broadcasting.  

Since then, concerns have risen about some programs favoring adversarial regimes like Iran, China, Russia and Cuba. In May 2020, Trump State Department’s Iran envoy, Brian Hook, criticized VOA in a New York Post article titled "Why Are U.S. Taxpayers Funding a ‘Voice of the Mullahs’ in Iran?" accusing it of promoting hostile regime narratives over American interests. 

The campaign to reform VOA began in 2006, led by then-Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn. Coburn invited to testify about how U.S. taxpayer-funded broadcasts to Iran were undermining U.S. policy and proving ineffective.   

In a letter to then-President George W. Bush, Coburn credited me as the initiator of efforts to reform VOA and Radio Farda, arguing that these media outlets "may actually be harming American interests rather than helping." A report commissioned by the State Department and National Security Council mirrored my testimony, despite resistance from VOA insiders. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I became involved in this issue shortly after escaping Evin Prison and fleeing Iran with the help of Bush’s administration. Having endured over five years of torture, I was recognized by Amnesty International as the first known victim of "white torture" in Iran. Before leaving Iran, I briefly watched VOA, shocked by their respect for the Islamic regime and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), downplaying brutality while promoting internal reform. In my testimony, I urged VOA to stop misleading Iranians with so-called balanced reporting. 

Under President Barack Obama, Coburn continued his campaign to reform VOA, leveraging his strong relationship with the president. He successfully helped appoint eight new BBG members — equally split between Republicans and Democrats.  

On April 6, 2011, I testified again before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee titled: "Is America’s Overseas Broadcasting Undermining our National Interest and the Fight Against Tyrannical Regimes?", alongside BBG governors and John Lenczowski, the founder of The Institute of World Politics, where I was a research fellow and visiting lecturer.  

Despite initial hopes that new leadership at BBG and VOA would resolve the issues, corruption persisted. Coburn’s illness prevented him from completing his efforts, and after the resignation of the VOA Persian service director and some BBG members, VOA returned to its usual anti-American bias. 

USAGM has 4,000 employees and 1,500 stringers, including over 2,000 at VOA, many of whom are bureaucrats shielded by union protections. The most effective way to bypass these obstacles is to shut down these corrupt services. Dissolving VOA and Radio Farda would remove taxpayer-funded platforms for far-left activists pushing anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-China, pro-Russia, and pro-Iranian Mullah agendas. These services could then be rebuilt with a leaner, dedicated team of pro-American journalists, ensuring VOA truly represents America — a key step in Trump’s strategy to counter adversaries without military intervention. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM AMIR FAKHRAVAR

Everything you need to know about engagement, power likes, sponcon, and trust.

The internet erupted in controversy over Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues’ claim of a microbe thriving on arsenic. Nearly 15 years later, she’s pursuing new research on the boundaries of life.

© Marissa Leshnov for The New York Times

The popular social media app was removed to comply with a new law that banned it in the United States. President Trump has paused enforcement of the ban.

© Ore Huiying for The New York Times

The social media company is attracting investor interest because of Elon Musk’s close ties to President Trump and a recent jump in revenue.

© Eric Lee/The New York Times

The internet erupted in controversy over Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues’ claim of a microbe thriving on arsenic. Nearly 15 years later, she’s pursuing new research on the boundaries of life.

© Marissa Leshnov for The New York Times

The Russian-born CEO styles himself as a free-speech crusader and a scourge of the surveillance state. Here’s the real story behind Pavel Durov’s arrest and what happened next.