Politics moves fast. One day a soundbite is everywhere, and by the next morning, it’s been chopped, screwed, and repurposed for a hundred different TikTok trends. You’ve probably seen the clips or read the frantic headlines: did Trump say we took freedom of speech away? It’s a heavy question. If a former president and current political juggernaut actually claimed the First Amendment was gone—or that he was the one doing the taking—that would be a seismic shift in American law. But like most things in the 2020s, the reality is a bit more tangled than a yes-or-no answer.
Social media is a wildfire. Context gets burned first.
When people ask this, they’re usually looking for one of two things. Either they want to know if Donald Trump admitted to suppressing speech, or they’re asking if he’s claiming the "other side" has destroyed the right to speak. Honestly, his rhetoric usually falls into the latter camp. He talks about "cancel culture" and "censorship" like they’re a plague. But there are specific moments—speeches in places like Bedminster, rallies in the Midwest, or posts on Truth Social—where his phrasing gets... well, let’s call it "creative."
The Core Debate: Did Trump Say We Took Freedom of Speech Away?
To get the facts straight, we have to look at the 2024 campaign trail and his post-presidency lawsuits. Trump hasn't said "I took freedom of speech away." That would be political suicide. Instead, he has repeatedly argued that the government and Big Tech have effectively taken it away from him and his supporters.
There’s a specific rhetorical flip he uses. He frames the current state of America as a place where the First Amendment is under heavy fire. For example, during his various legal battles regarding the 2020 election and the subsequent January 6th investigations, his legal team, led by people like John Lauro, argued that the indictments themselves were an attack on free speech. Trump told a crowd in New Hampshire that "they want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom."
It's a defensive posture. He positions himself as the shield.
But wait. There’s a flip side that critics point to. During his presidency, Trump often suggested that libel laws should be "opened up" so he could sue news organizations more easily. In 2017, he even tweeted about the possibility of challenging the licenses of TV networks like NBC for "fake news." Critics argue that these statements are the real threat to free expression. So, while he claims the "radical left" took speech away, his opponents argue his own policy suggestions would do exactly that.
Censorship, Section 230, and the Truth Social Era
You can't talk about this without mentioning the Great Deplatforming of 2021. After the Capitol riot, when Twitter (now X) and Facebook booted him, Trump's narrative shifted entirely toward the idea that free speech had been "stolen" or "taken."
✨ Don't miss: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
He didn't just complain; he sued.
His class-action lawsuits against Meta, Google, and Twitter were built on the premise that these companies acted as "state actors." That’s a specific legal term. Basically, his lawyers argued that the government pressured these companies so hard that the companies became an arm of the government. If that were true, their moderation would be a First Amendment violation. The courts haven't really bought it so far, but it’s the bedrock of his "they took our speech" argument.
Honestly, the nuance is where people get lost. Most people don't read legal briefs. They see a 10-second clip of Trump saying "We don't have free speech in this country anymore," and they wonder if he's admitting defeat or making a promise.
He’s doing neither. He’s campaigning.
The "Weaponization" Argument
Lately, the phrase has cropped up in the context of the "Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government." Trump and his allies, like Jim Jordan, use this platform to hammer the idea that the FBI and the DOJ have "taken away" the right to dissent.
Is there evidence? It’s complicated.
The "Twitter Files," released by Elon Musk, showed internal communications where government officials flagged accounts for misinformation. To some, this is proof that the government "took away" speech by proxy. To others, it’s just the government doing its job to stop foreign interference or health misinformation. Trump leans into the former. He tells his base that the "deep state" has replaced the Bill of Rights with a regime of silence.
🔗 Read more: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
Why the Confusion Persists
Misinformation travels faster than the truth because the truth is usually boring and full of "if/then" statements.
When you search did Trump say we took freedom of speech away, you might be seeing a misinterpretation of his 2023 "Free Speech Policy Initiative." In that video, he promised that if re-elected, he would sign an executive order banning federal agencies from colluding with private companies to "censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens."
He’s literally saying the speech was taken, and he’s the one to bring it back.
The irony isn't lost on his detractors. They point to his rhetoric about "the enemy of the people" (referring to the press) and his suggestions that people who burn the flag should lose their citizenship—a stance that directly contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson.
So, did he say it?
Technically, he says it every day, but he’s blaming the other guy. He says "they" took it. His critics say "he" wants to take it. It’s a tug-of-war where the rope is the First Amendment and both sides are pulling until it frays.
Real-World Impact: Does It Even Matter?
Words have consequences. When a major political figure says the most fundamental American right is "gone," it changes how people behave. It leads to the creation of "alt-tech" platforms like Rumble and Truth Social. It leads to a breakdown in trust.
💡 You might also like: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
If you believe your speech has been taken away, you stop trying to persuade and you start trying to fight.
Constitutional scholars like Laurence Tribe or former judges like Michael Luttig have frequently weighed in on this. Luttig, a conservative, has been particularly vocal about how "attacks on the rule of law" (which includes speech) undermine the very foundations of the republic. On the other side, scholars at the Federalist Society might argue that the "administrative state" really has encroached on private expression to a dangerous degree.
The Verdict on the Quote
If you’re looking for a transcript where Donald J. Trump stands at a podium and says, "I, Donald Trump, took away the freedom of speech," you won't find it. It doesn't exist.
If you’re looking for him saying, "We no longer have freedom of speech because of the corrupt Biden administration," you can find that in roughly 4,000 different videos.
The confusion stems from the word "we." In political rhetoric, "we" is often used to mean "we as a nation" or "we as a movement." When Trump says "We have no free speech," he isn't admitting to a crime; he’s lamenting a perceived loss.
How to Fact-Check Political Claims Yourself
It's easy to get sucked into the vacuum of partisan news. To stay sane, you've got to go to the source.
- Read the Transcripts: Don't trust the 5-second clip on X. Go to sites like Rev or the White House archives (for past terms) to see the full context of a speech.
- Check the Legal Filing: When Trump says something about speech, there’s usually a court case behind it. Look up the actual filing on PACER or a summary by a legal news outlet like SCOTUSblog.
- Look for the "But": Every politician has a "but." They support free speech, but only if it isn't "fake news." They support the press, but only if it's "fair." Identifying the "but" tells you their true stance.
The battle over the First Amendment isn't going anywhere. Whether you believe the threat comes from a former president’s rhetoric or from the current government’s collaboration with tech giants, the conversation is essential. Freedom of speech isn't just a rule on a piece of parchment; it’s a practice. It requires us to listen to things we hate without trying to "take" the speaker's right to say them.
Actionable Steps for Moving Forward
- Diversify your feed. If you only follow people who agree with your take on Trump and free speech, you’re only getting half the story. Follow a constitutional lawyer from the ACLU and one from the Heritage Foundation.
- Learn the limits. The First Amendment protects you from the government, not from private companies or your boss. Understanding this distinction clears up 90% of the confusion around "censorship."
- Support local journalism. National headlines are often sensationalized for clicks. Local reporters are more likely to cover how these broad political shifts actually affect your community’s town halls and school boards.
- Read the actual Bill of Rights. It’s surprisingly short. Knowing the exact wording of the First Amendment helps you spot when a politician—any politician—is misrepresenting what it actually guarantees.
- Practice digital hygiene. Before sharing a quote that sounds too "perfect" (like a president admitting to taking away rights), do a quick search for the full video. If you can't find a video of them saying it, they probably didn't say it.
The "freedom of speech" debate is often less about the law and more about who gets to control the narrative. By looking past the viral headlines and understanding the specific rhetorical strategies at play, you can see the difference between a political talking point and a genuine constitutional crisis. Keep your eyes open and your sources varied. In an era of deepfakes and AI-generated outrage, your own critical thinking is the last line of defense for the truth.