On September 16, 2025, President Donald Trump ignited a firestorm of controversy as he left the White House for a state visit to London, openly threatening ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl during a tense press briefing. The flashpoint came as Trump, still reeling from the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, doubled down on his call for a sweeping crackdown on what he labeled “hate speech.” The president’s combative exchange with Karl, and subsequent remarks targeting the media and left-leaning nonprofits, have stoked fears that his administration is weaponizing the tragedy to suppress dissent and undermine the First Amendment.
The confrontation unfolded as Karl pressed Trump on whether his proposed hate speech crackdown risked trampling free speech. Referencing Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent remarks that even negative truths about the administration could be criminalized under the hate speech banner, Karl asked if such a policy was constitutionally sound. Trump, visibly irritated, shot back, “You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC, maybe they’ll come after you.” According to Reuters, the exchange left many reporters stunned and further underscored the fraught relationship between the Trump White House and the press.
Trump’s antagonism toward ABC News didn’t stop there. He reminded the assembled journalists of a 2024 settlement in which, as he described, ABC agreed to donate $15 million to his future presidential library and pay $1 million in legal fees after anchor George Stephanopoulos misstated the outcome of a civil case involving writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump called this a “form of hate speech,” suggesting the network could be targeted under his administration’s new policies. As reported by NewsOne, Trump’s comments signaled a willingness to use the Justice Department against media organizations he perceives as hostile—a move many legal experts believe would run afoul of the Constitution.
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s role in this unfolding saga has been equally provocative. On September 15, during an appearance on Katie Miller’s podcast, Bondi declared, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Her comments, reported by the Associated Press, immediately drew scrutiny from legal scholars, who pointed out that hate speech, while offensive, is not a legally defined category in U.S. law and is generally protected by the First Amendment except in narrow cases such as incitement or true threats.
Bondi went so far as to suggest bringing racketeering charges against left-leaning groups, an idea that quickly gained traction among Trump’s allies. The White House specifically named progressive organizations like Indivisible and the Open Society Foundations as potential targets for investigation, citing protests and alleged support for disruptive actions. Trump’s top policy adviser, Stephen Miller, echoed this hardline approach, telling Vice President JD Vance on Kirk’s talk show, “We are going to channel all of the anger as we work to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks by using every resource we have.” Vance, guest-hosting the program from his ceremonial office, insisted, “We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence.”
Despite these sweeping threats, authorities investigating Kirk’s assassination found no evidence linking the suspect to any political group, charging the individual with murder on September 16. Nonetheless, the administration’s rhetoric has rattled the nonprofit sector. More than 100 nonprofit leaders, including those from the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, published a joint letter rejecting what they called attempts to “exploit political violence to mischaracterize our good work or restrict our fundamental freedoms.” They wrote, “Attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving undermine our democracy and harm all Americans.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, described the current climate as “a heightened atmosphere in the wake of political violence, and organizations who fear they might be unjustly targeted in its wake are making sure that they are ready.” Nonprofits have begun recruiting lawyers and stepping up security measures in anticipation of possible government action. The Open Society Foundations, frequently singled out by Trump and his allies, condemned both the violence and what it called the dangerous politicization of Kirk’s death, stating, “It is disgraceful to use this tragedy for political ends to dangerously divide Americans and attack the First Amendment.”
Trump’s approach has found enthusiastic supporters on the far right. Conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer called for a shutdown of left-wing groups, declaring, “Let’s shut the left down,” and expressing her desire for Trump “to be the ‘dictator’ the left thinks he is.” Meanwhile, in Congress, Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Chip Roy have proposed new legislation to empower the Justice Department to use racketeering laws against violent protesters and the groups that support them. Roy argued, “We must follow the money to identify the perpetrators of the coordinated anti-American assaults being carried out against us.”
Yet, not all voices on the right are in lockstep. Bondi, after facing a fierce backlash, clarified on social media that the administration would focus on “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson insisted, “It is disingenuous and false for Democrats to say administration actions are about political speech. The goal is to target those committing criminal acts and hold them accountable.” Still, critics remain deeply skeptical, pointing to Trump’s continued pardoning of January 6 rioters—whom he called “hostages” and “patriots”—while ignoring political violence perpetrated against Democrats, such as the killing of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman.
Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, lamented on social media, “The murder of Charlie Kirk could have united Americans to confront political violence but Trump and his anti-democratic radicals look to be readying a campaign to destroy dissent.” Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, observed, “Trump shrugs at right-wing political violence.”
The events of mid-September 2025 have cast a harsh spotlight on the precarious balance between national security, civil liberties, and the role of the press. As the administration prepares for the looming midterm elections, the nation is left to grapple with a fundamental question: Can a democracy endure when its leaders seek to punish speech they dislike, and where is the line between protecting the public and silencing dissent?
For now, the debate rages on, with nonprofit leaders, journalists, and ordinary Americans bracing for what may come next in this escalating battle over the very soul of free expression in the United States.
