Bulwark Takes: Trump's 'Free Speech Warrior' Goes After Free Speech
Release Date: April 2, 2025

In this compelling episode of Bulwark Takes, The Bulwark team delves into the controversial actions of the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Chair Brendan Carr. The discussion navigates the intricate balance between upholding free speech and the administration's apparent attempts to suppress dissenting voices, particularly targeting corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Targeting DEI Initiatives at Disney and ABC

The episode opens with Peter addressing the recent move by FCC Chair Brendan Carr to investigate Disney and ABC for their DEI efforts:

Peter (00:00): "Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, urged the organization's enforcement arm to open up an investigation into whether or not Disney and ABC are engaging in, quote, invidious end quote, DEI efforts that run afoul of the commission's rules against discrimination."

Peter elaborates on Carr's letter to Disney CEO Bob Iger, highlighting concerns that despite Disney’s adjustments to its diversity branding, the fundamental policies remain unchanged:

Peter (00:40): "Although your company recently made some changes to how it brands certain efforts, it is not clear that the underlying policies have changed in a fundamental manner nor that past practices complied with relevant FCC regulations."

The FCC's specific grievances include Disney’s creation of "affinity groups" and enforcing quotas requiring at least 50% of characters and staff to come from "marginalized groups." Peter raises the question of whether the FCC is genuinely upholding the law or abusing its power to target political opponents:

Peter (01:30): "It's impossible to argue that the Trump administration's FCC chair is doing this in good faith because the Trump administration has made a habit of going after opponents, real and perceived, with the power of government."

The Irony of a 'Free Speech Warrior' Suppressing Speech

Alyssa critiques the administration’s stance on free speech, pointing out the stark contrast between Trump’s declarations and his administration’s actions:

Alyssa (02:53): "Donald Trump started his second term by signing an order declaring that he was, like, bringing back free speech, that there would be no more censorship, that, like, he was the free speech president."

She argues that Carr’s actions against media organizations, such as News Guard, contradict the proclaimed commitment to free speech:

Alyssa (04:00): "His got basic facts about how News Guard runs their business. Totally wrong. Completely mistook this."

Peter reinforces this sentiment by emphasizing that the administration uses the FCC to penalize organizations based on disfavored speech:

Peter (05:00): "Donald Trump... is willing to use the power of the government to do so. And this is the real issue here with the FCC."

Broader Implications for Free Speech in America

Greg introduces a broader perspective on the state of free speech, suggesting that the lack of a unified coalition supporting a comprehensive understanding of free speech exacerbates the issue:

Greg (06:25): "There is not, I mean, there is not actually a big, broad American public consensus in favor of the idea that speech should be pretty freewheeling and wide open."

Alyssa counters by distinguishing between traditional censorship and what she describes as "quasi-censorship" by Republicans, emphasizing that both sides exhibit problematic behaviors regarding free speech:

Alyssa (06:38): "It's more just sort of like a kind of quasi censorship rather than cancel culture."

The Role of the Courts and Media Defense

The conversation shifts to the role of the judiciary in safeguarding free speech, with Alyssa expressing confidence in the courts to rectify FCC overreach:

Alyssa (14:41): "I do think that the courts are going to be pretty good on this... the news guard suit stuff... was, in fact, tossed by a judge just this last week because it was so obviously bs."

Greg emphasizes the necessity for media companies to resist FCC pressure through legal battles to establish legal precedents that protect free speech:

Greg (12:04): "Media companies have to not settle... you need to impose some costs on the people who are doing this sort of thing."

Concluding Thoughts: A Battle Over Free Speech

Peter wraps up the episode by underscoring the fundamental clash between the administration's rhetoric and actions regarding free speech. He cites Ari Cohn from FIRE to encapsulate the issue:

Peter (15:51): "If you say things that I don't like or that I think will anger the President of the United States who appointed me, then I'm going to exercise whatever rights that I have as FCC chair and wield the power of this agency to hassle you in other ways."

Peter laments the current state of governmental power overreach and the erosion of free speech protections, advocating for a principled and unified resistance against such abuses.

Key Takeaways

• Contradiction in Free Speech Advocacy: The Trump administration's professed commitment to free speech is undermined by actions targeting organizations that engage in DEI initiatives.

• Abuse of Regulatory Power: FCC Chair Brendan Carr's moves against Disney, ABC, and News Guard reflect a possible misuse of governmental authority to suppress dissenting voices.

• Legal Resistance is Crucial: Media organizations must actively defend themselves in courts to prevent setting precedents that could further erode free speech protections.

• Need for Unified Free Speech Coalition: A broad-based alliance supporting a clear and comprehensive understanding of free speech is essential to counteract fragmented and inconsistent approaches.

• Judicial Safeguards: Confidence in the judiciary’s role suggests that legal battles may ultimately favor the protection of free speech against administrative overreach.

This episode of Bulwark Takes vividly illustrates the ongoing struggle between governmental control and the preservation of free speech, highlighting the critical importance of vigilance and proactive defense of constitutional rights.