UnHerd with Freddie Sayers

Episode: Greg Lukianoff: America's new free speech crisis
Release Date: December 22, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Freddie Sayers, editor of UnHerd, speaks with Greg Lukianoff—lawyer, author, and president of FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression)—about the alarming rise in free speech restrictions in the US during 2025. The core discussion centers on surprising new data showing freedoms under greater threat now than during the so-called "peak" of cancel culture in 2020-2021. Lukianoff and Sayers tackle why censorship has worsened under a Trump administration that promised to restore free speech, the emerging threats from the right, the chilling effect on advocacy, and philosophical defenses of liberalism in an era of political polarization.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. A Unexpected New Peak in Campus Censorship

• Freddie Sayers sets the scene, highlighting recent FIRE statistics showing 2025 was the worst year on record for documented sanctions against student and scholar speech on US campuses—outpacing the 2020-2021 "cancel culture" peak.

  • Notable Quote:

    "What they conclude is that 2025, looking back on it, was worse for infringements of academic and individual freedom of expression, worse than 2020." (03:11)

• Greg Lukianoff expands:

  • FIRE's long-term data show 273 attempted student sanctions and 309 scholar sanctions in 2025, compared to 252 and lower numbers in 2020.
  • The right, particularly local/federal officials, are now a major source of censorship.
  • The left's censorious tendencies have decreased but not vanished, creating a “worst of both worlds” scenario.
  • Quote:

    “...the censorship from the left hasn't stopped. It's decreased somewhat, but it hasn't stopped. So we're dealing with a worst of both worlds situation now.” (07:56)

2. Aftermath of the Charlie Kirk Assassination

• The assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk became a flashpoint, triggering a wave of censorship, mostly from the right.
  • Even mild dissent ("I disagreed with him on any number of things") led to firings and sanctions.
• Landmark Case:
  • Larry Buschaert, ex-cop in Tennessee, jailed for a meme satirizing Trump. Local authorities used a convoluted threat argument, leading to 37 days’ jail and a $2 million bond.
  • Quote:

    “I can't really find a case as severe as that in American history since at least the 1920s, for someone being in jail for speech that is that clearly protected.” (11:43)

3. Direct Government Involvement: A New Level

• Sayers notes a dramatic rise (about 30% of cases) in direct government or politician-driven punishments for speech in 2025, a major departure from previous years where such involvement was rare.
  • Quote:

    "The new wave of censorship is explicitly political in a way that even the 2020 madness was not." (13:28)

• Lukianoff: This trend is deeply partisan; each side claims the "other started it," but the escalation is dangerous.
  • Quote:

    “Everybody else thinks the other guy started it, and I don't care as much. I've been battling censorship on campus for 26 years.” (13:54)

4. Debate over DEI and Academic Censorship

• The right frames many actions as eliminating "illiberal ideas" (e.g., stripping DEI content from the Naval Academy), but Lukianoff insists removing or banning books is simply censorship.
  • DEI-related cases led to a surge in sanctions.
  • Quote:

    “If you're removing books, if you're banning books at a Naval Academy, it's censorship.” (15:18)

• Even deeply flawed or objectionable ideas (like Ibram X. Kendi's anti-racism proposals) should be read and debated, not suppressed.
  • Quote:

    “The idea that you can actually win an argument by getting rid of the arguer is treating people like children and government like it's their mommy.” (16:13)

5. The Israel-Palestine Effect & Selective Free Speech

• Post-October 7, anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian speech led to intense institutional backlash—sometimes including arrests or threatened deportation for legal, mainstream opinions (e.g., Turkish student Ramesa Ozturk at Tufts).
  • Quote:

    “She was arrested by ununiformed officers... held in prison while they decide whether or not she's going to be deported for writing an op ed that any American would be 100% within their rights to say.” (21:20)

• Lukianoff and Sayers discuss the right's hypocrisy in selectively defending or restricting speech, depending on the topic or the speaker.

6. First Amendment for Non-Citizens

• Sayers probes the logic of lesser rights for non-citizens (e.g., students on visas). Lukianoff, whose parents were immigrants, insists that while visa policy can be selective, once present, everyone must have the same free speech rights.
  • Cites Supreme Court precedent (Bridges v. Wixon, 1945).
  • Highlights dangers of a "two-tier society" where speech rights depend on citizenship status.
  • Quote:

    “When they are here... it's a big difference between not granting them to go further in their citizenship and saying, you have to get out now ... because of ... something that every other person here can say.” (24:27)

7. The Chilling Effect & Hypocrisy among Activists

• Many supposed "free speech activists," left and right, are opportunistic—principled only when their political foes are being silenced.

  • Some pro-free speech organizations have gone silent or self-censored following the Trump administration's turn; there’s a notable chilling effect and even fear of personal or organizational reprisals.
  • Quote:

    “I am a little scared he's going to come after FIRE because he's gone after every other law firm, every other organization that has ever opposed him...” (31:38)

• Funding and support have been lost as FIRE now confronts right-wing censorship:

  • Quote:

    “We lost a lot of funding taking on the Trump administration because there were a lot of people who loved us when we were fighting wokeness...” (32:58)

8. Is Open Censorship Really Better than Hidden Censorship?

• Sayers raises an argument from some Trump supporters: "At least Trump’s censorship is honest gangstering, not sneakily coded as 'liberalism.'"
• Lukianoff rejects this:
  • It’s unprincipled and also strategically foolish—using unconstitutional tactics just arms future opponents with more power.
  • Quote:

    “You want to fight [woke censorship], you don't fight it in the way the Trump administration is doing by abandoning liberalism...” (34:33)

9. US vs. UK/EU: Who Has the Bigger Speech Crisis?

• Sayers argues the US is now worse than the UK—Britain remains fundamentally liberal, even as edge-case prosecutions occur; public and political reaction is corrective.
• Lukianoff disagrees: UK/EU have more people actually jailed for speech acts, with several cases in recent months that he’s documenting. Europe sees more egregious legal penalties for speech.
  • Cases referenced:
    • Darren Brady (arrested for arranging pride flags in a swastika)
    • Carolyn Farrow (subject to police action after online dispute)
    • Cases where victims of crime received harsher penalties for speech than their assailants.
• They agree the global "liberal settlement"—institutional limits on power—is under strain everywhere.

10. A Fiercer Defense of Liberalism

• Lukianoff calls for a reinvigorated, unapologetic defense of small-l liberalism:
  • The liberal tradition's skepticism about concentrated power and belief in free speech are crucial, even (or especially) when unfashionable.
  • Need a broad center-right & center-left alliance.
  • Quote:

    “I've been increasingly arguing for a fiercer liberalism... I'm like, no, we are liberals. That is a badass idea. It's about the limitations on human ability.” (45:54)

  • Liberalism means real-world wisdom about human fallibility, bias, and the necessity of slow, orderly processes.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Sayers:

  “This was a big part of the energy which brought Donald Trump to victory... So why have you probably not heard about it until this?” (04:16)

• Lukianoff:

  “A left that thinks it's forever 2021.” (08:21)

• On the core danger:

  “It does require a deep, free philosophical defense of small-l liberalism... there's a value in letting everybody have basic human rights, like the ability to express their point of view.” (43:24, Greg Lukianoff)

• Summing up:

  “We can disagree on who's in bigger trouble. But I'm worried about this, and I think the problem is global and the so-called free world at the moment is not exactly covering itself in glory.” (44:09, Greg Lukianoff)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:06] — Introduction & framing the “new free speech crisis”
• [06:15] — Lukianoff introduces FIRE’s 2025 findings
• [08:53] — Charlie Kirk assassination as watershed; Larry Buschaert case
• [12:31] — Politician-driven censorship: new and brazen trend
• [14:20] — Specific cases: DEI crackdown, Naval Academy, book bans
• [16:07] — On “winning arguments” versus banning books/ideas
• [18:16] — Israel-Palestine on campus: new vectors for censorship
• [21:20] — Ramesa Ozturk’s case: deportation for legal speech
• [23:08] — Non-citizens and First Amendment rights
• [29:16] — Chilling effect on activists and organizations
• [34:21] — Debate on “honest gangster” censorship vs. algorithmic censorship
• [35:53] — US vs. UK/EU: gravity and nature of threats
• [45:40] — Call for “fiercer liberalism” and re-grounded defense of principle

Tone & Attitude

• Direct but principled: Both Sayers and Lukianoff are plainspoken, skeptical of power from either side, and unapologetic about defending small-l liberalism.
• Philosophical and urgent: Lukianoff, especially, gives historical context and appeals to enduring values while warning the crisis is pressing and global.
• Candid disagreement: The hosts disagree respectfully about the UK/US situation, modeling civil discourse.

Conclusion

This episode exposes how, despite promises of “restored free speech,” recent years have actually seen intensified challenges—now from the political right as well as the left. Lukianoff and Sayers highlight the necessity for consistent principle over partisanship, the importance of protecting the speech rights of all (including foreigners), and the danger of abandoning liberal traditions. Listeners are left with both a sobering audit of the state of free speech and a rousing call for renewed, unapologetic advocacy for a truly liberal society.