Bulwark Takes: Detailed Summary of "Taking Trump’s Speech Crackdown to Court" (August 10, 2025)

Hosted by The Bulwark, "Bulwark Takes" delivers insightful, bite-sized analyses of daily news from a team of seasoned commentators. In this episode titled "Taking Trump’s Speech Crackdown to Court," Sarah Longwell engages in a compelling discussion with Connor Fitzpatrick, an attorney from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The conversation delves into recent legal actions against the Trump administration's handling of free speech, particularly concerning non-citizen students.

Introduction and Context

[00:00] Sarah Longwell opens the episode by welcoming Connor Fitzpatrick from FIRE, highlighting his organization's commitment to protecting free speech. She sets the stage by referencing the lawsuit filed by FIRE against the Trump administration, emphasizing the administration's alleged targeting of foreign university students for deportation based on their protected speech.

Sarah Longwell: "Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration have waged an unprecedented assault on free speech, targeting foreign university students for deportation based on bedrock protected speech like writing op-eds and peacefully attending protests." [00:24]

Notable Crackdowns on Non-Citizen Speech

Connor provides an overview of significant cases that have emerged under the Trump administration's policies.

[01:18] Connor Fitzpatrick: He discusses the cases of Mahmoud Khalil from Columbia University and Ramessia Osterk from Tufts University. Both individuals faced deportation threats solely for exercising their First Amendment rights—Khalil for organizing protests and Osterk for co-authoring an editorial.

Connor Fitzpatrick: "Neither of them have been charged or convicted with a crime. They are being targeted solely for their protected speech." [02:00]

Government Overreach and Free Speech

Longwell probes into the mechanisms allowing the government to arrest individuals for their opinions, expressing personal discomfort with some of Khalil's recent statements.

[02:39] Connor Fitzpatrick: He vehemently defends the First Amendment, emphasizing that it is designed to protect even unpopular speakers.

Connor Fitzpatrick: "What we're not going to do is enlist government jackboots to throw someone in jail or throw someone out of the country because we don't like their opinion." [03:35]

Defending Free Speech Regardless of Content

The conversation shifts to address concerns about speech that may appear incendiary or supportive of violence.

Sarah Longwell: Raises the issue of Khalil's defense of violent actions, questioning the balance between free speech and public safety.

[06:50] Connor Fitzpatrick: Clarifies that while violent actions themselves are not protected, advocating for ideas—even violent ones—remains under First Amendment protection unless they directly incite imminent lawless action.

Connor Fitzpatrick: "As long as what's being advocated is an idea, is an opinion, the First Amendment is always going to protect it." [08:21]

Critique of the Trump Administration's Free Speech Policies

Longwell reflects on the irony of expectations versus reality regarding Trump's stance on free speech.

Sarah Longwell: Observes that despite initial promises of protecting free speech, the Trump administration has been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech administrations.

[09:12] Connor Fitzpatrick: Agrees, highlighting the administration's inconsistent stance—professing support for free speech abroad while suppressing it domestically.

Connor Fitzpatrick: "What we're seeing from this administration is the attempt to use government power as a cudgel against people who voice opinions that this administration disagrees with." [10:17]

FIRE's Nonpartisan Stance and Ongoing Legal Battles

Longwell inquires about FIRE's experiences defending free speech across political landscapes, particularly under the Trump administration.

Sarah Longwell: Notes FIRE's reputation for defending free speech without partisan bias and asks how they navigate the current hostile environment.

[11:42] Connor Fitzpatrick: Emphasizes FIRE's nonpartisan philosophy, defending speech irrespective of political affiliation. He provides examples of cases they are handling, including defending an LGBT student group and conservative students advocating their viewpoints.

Connor Fitzpatrick: "We are protectors of free speech. And anyone who attacks free speech can expect to hear from us." [12:53]

Importance of the Current Lawsuit

As the conversation draws to a close, Longwell asks Fitzpatrick to highlight the significance of the ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration.

[12:59] Connor Fitzpatrick: Urges listeners to pay attention to the lawsuit, framing it as a fundamental test of American values concerning free speech. He underscores the constitutional principle that individuals should not have to self-censor their opinions, regardless of government disapproval.

Connor Fitzpatrick: "The idea that someone should have to watch what they say in the United States, especially watch what they say about the government, is such a profound betrayal of American values and American liberty." [12:59]

Conclusion

The episode concludes with Longwell thanking Fitzpatrick for his insights and urging listeners to engage with FIRE's efforts to defend free speech. The dialogue underscores the persistent challenges facing free expression in the current political climate and the vital role of organizations like FIRE in upholding constitutional rights.

Sarah Longwell: "Connor Fitzpatrick, thank you so much for coming on and talking to the Bulwark." [14:03]

Key Takeaways:

• FIRE's Lawsuit: Focuses on combating the Trump administration's attempts to deport non-citizen students for exercising protected speech.
• First Amendment Protection: Emphasizes that the First Amendment safeguards even unpopular or controversial opinions, preventing government overreach.
• Nonpartisan Defense: Highlights FIRE's commitment to defending free speech irrespective of political ideology, defending both liberal and conservative viewpoints.
• Current Political Climate: Critiques the Trump administration's contradictory stance on free speech, professing support while undermining it through policy and enforcement.
• Critical Importance: Stresses the lawsuit's role in defining America's commitment to free speech and preventing the government from arbitrarily silencing dissenting voices.

This episode serves as a compelling examination of the ongoing struggles to maintain free speech in the face of governmental attempts to suppress dissent, showcasing the pivotal role legal battles play in upholding constitutional liberties.