Tempers flared across the United States this week after President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on August 25, 2025, aimed at banning the burning of the American flag. The move, which directs the Justice Department to prosecute flag desecration and attempts to clarify the limits of First Amendment protections, has ignited a fierce debate—even among the president’s own supporters and the broader conservative community.
According to The Times of London and ET, the executive order calls flag burning “uniquely offensive and provocative,” and instructs the attorney general to pursue charges against those who desecrate the flag “to the maximum extent permitted by the constitution.” President Trump was unequivocal in his public remarks, telling reporters in the Oval Office, “If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing.” The order itself describes flag desecration as “a statement of contempt, hostility and violence against our nation—the clearest possible expression of opposition to the political union that preserves our rights, liberty and security.”
But if Trump and his advisors expected unqualified applause from the political right, they were in for a surprise. The order has drawn sharp criticism from a chorus of prominent conservatives, many of whom argue that, however distasteful, flag burning remains protected speech under the First Amendment—a legal precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989.
Conservative radio host Erick Erickson did not mince words on X (formerly Twitter), writing, “This is actually not brilliant. While I agree with the sentiment, it is unfortunately well settled constitutional law that burning the flag is a matter of free speech and the executive does not get to create crimes.” Erickson’s remarks reflect a deep unease among constitutional conservatives who see the order as a dangerous overreach of executive power.
Jesse Kelly, another MAGA-aligned radio host, echoed these concerns in even starker terms. “I would never in a million years harm the American flag. But a president telling me I can’t has me as close as I’ll ever be to lighting one on fire. I am a free American citizen. And if I ever feel like torching one, I will. This is garbage,” Kelly wrote on X. His comments, widely shared and debated online, underscore the tension between patriotic sentiment and individual liberty—a tension that has long animated American debates over free speech.
Conservative commentator Dana Loesch also weighed in, stating, “Flag burning is vile but the government has no right to control speech or expression.” Her words capture a sentiment prevalent among many on the right: while flag burning is deeply offensive to many Americans, the Constitution’s protections must remain paramount.
The executive order comes at a particularly volatile time, with political polarization at historic highs and questions about the boundaries of protest and dissent dominating national conversation. According to ET, the order not only directs the attorney general to prosecute cases of flag desecration but also acknowledges the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling, which found that flag burning constitutes symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. However, Trump’s order attempts to carve out exceptions, suggesting that prosecution may be possible in cases where flag burning incites “imminent lawless action.”
To that end, the order empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to “pursue litigation” to clarify what exceptions—if any—exist to the court’s landmark ruling. The order appears to be testing the legal boundaries, seeking to identify scenarios where flag burning could be prosecuted without running afoul of constitutional protections.
The immediate aftermath of the order’s signing saw real-world consequences. As reported by ET, a veteran was arrested for burning a flag near the White House. The arrest has only intensified scrutiny of the executive order, raising questions about its enforceability and its potential to chill free expression.
Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates have been quick to point out that the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision, Texas v. Johnson, remains the law of the land. In that case, the court ruled 5-4 that flag burning is a form of “expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment, even if it is profoundly offensive to many. The decision was reaffirmed a year later in United States v. Eichman, when the court struck down a federal law prohibiting flag desecration.
Nevertheless, Trump’s executive order argues that there may be narrow circumstances—such as incitement to violence—where prosecution is constitutionally permissible. The order’s language echoes a longstanding debate over whether certain forms of protest cross the line from protected speech into unlawful conduct. By directing the Justice Department to “bring charges against those who burn the flag to the maximum extent permitted by the constitution,” the administration appears to be inviting a fresh round of legal battles.
For Trump’s critics—both on the left and the right—the order is seen as a political maneuver designed to rally his base ahead of the 2026 election cycle. But the backlash from conservative commentators suggests the issue is far more complicated. Many conservatives, while fiercely patriotic, remain wary of any government action that could erode fundamental freedoms.
As Colin Wright, another conservative voice, put it on social media, “This is garbage.” The blunt assessment from within Trump’s own ideological camp highlights the deep divisions over how best to balance national symbols with constitutional rights.
The order’s practical impact is also uncertain. While it directs federal prosecutors to pursue cases aggressively, any attempt to jail flag burners for up to a year—as Trump suggested—would almost certainly face immediate legal challenges. Civil liberties groups are already preparing to contest the order in court, arguing that it represents a clear violation of established Supreme Court precedent.
Meanwhile, supporters of the executive order argue that flag burning is not merely offensive but actively undermines the unity and security of the nation. “It is a statement of contempt, hostility and violence against our nation,” the order reads, framing flag desecration as a threat to the very fabric of American society.
Yet, as the country debates the wisdom and legality of Trump’s latest move, the core question remains: can the government punish symbolic acts of protest without sacrificing the freedoms that define American democracy? The coming months are likely to see this question tested in courtrooms and public squares alike.
With passions running high and legal lines blurred, the nation finds itself at a crossroads—torn between honoring its most sacred symbols and upholding the freedoms that make those symbols meaningful in the first place.
