President Donald Trump signed a new executive order on Monday aimed at addressing the burning of the American flag, a move that drew strong and unusual criticism from conservatives.
The order instructs the attorney general to prosecute violations of existing laws involving flag desecration and to pursue litigation designed to clarify the reach of the First Amendment in cases involving flag burning.
It also directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to refer cases that break state or local laws on flag desecration to local authorities for enforcement.
The action followed months of demonstrations in which protesters burned American flags during anti-Israel rallies and anti-ICE protests.
These incidents fueled renewed debate over the limits of free expression and the federal government’s role in prosecuting acts tied to national symbols.
Trump’s move received rare pushback from conservatives on social media.
Critics argued that while flag burning is deeply offensive, it has long been recognized as a form of symbolic expression protected under the First Amendment.
Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist, wrote, “Banning flag burning is absurd. It’s anti–free speech and peak snowflake behavior. I would never burn the American flag because of what it symbolizes to me. But the act of banning the burning of it runs more contrary to American values than the burning itself ever could.”
Radio host Jesse Kelly also opposed the order, writing, “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.”
Radio host Dana Loesch added her perspective, saying, “Flag burning is vile but the government has no right to control speech or expression.”
Conservative commentator Erick Erickson criticized the executive order as unconstitutional.
He wrote, “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.”
RedState writer Bonchie also voiced opposition, stating, “I know nothing matters and you aren’t allowed to criticize your own side, but I’d like to return to a time when presidents didn’t sign unconstitutional executive orders for show.”
Kimberly Ross, a contributor to the Washington Examiner, emphasized that her opposition was rooted in consistency.
She said, “I don’t think the federal government should take equity stakes in companies. And First Amendment protections apply to the burning of the American flag, as much as I abhor that action. Follow me for consistent takes (a rarity on here) in direct opposition to tribalism.”
Some conservatives, however, defended Trump’s order, arguing that critics misunderstood its scope.
They pointed to specific provisions in the text that limit enforcement to certain contexts.
Podcast host Kira Davis wrote, “POTUS explained this is not a blanket ban. This is a commitment to investigate flag burning incidents that occur in a ‘terroristic’ context. If it is determined the flags were burned in provocation of violence, then criminal sentencing kicks in. It’s not a total ban.”
Ed Whelan, Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said, “President Trump’s executive order on flag-burning is replete with qualifiers that strip it of any discernible meaning. ‘To the fullest extent possible’ sounds aggressive, but it actually means ‘within the bounds permitted by law.’”
Writer Kristen Mag highlighted that the order does not outlaw all forms of flag burning. She stated, “Ok let’s clear this up. I was opposed to Trump’s Executive Order at first, but then I read the full text…It does NOT criminalize burning the American flag. And it does NOT infringe on our freedom of speech. It criminalizes flag burning only when it’s intended to incite violence or when it’s accompanied by other lawless action.”
Chris Rufo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, also downplayed the controversy, writing, “I’m sorry, but as long as this is the status quo, I’m not going to work myself into a state of hysteria about Trump’s executive order on burning the American flag.”
The White House issued a statement defending the action.
Spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital, “President Trump will not allow the American Flag – a special symbol of our country’s greatness – to be used as a tool to incite violence and riots that jeopardize the safety of everyday Americans.”
“President Trump will always protect the First Amendment, while simultaneously implementing commonsense, tough-on-crime policies to prevent violence and chaos.”
Fox further noted that the Supreme Court previously addressed flag burning in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, ruling that burning the flag is a form of symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment.
That decision struck down laws in 48 states that had criminalized flag desecration, solidifying free speech protections for the act.
Trump’s order seeks to reopen the issue, directing the attorney general to “pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions” in cases involving flag burning.
The directive suggests the administration anticipates future legal challenges to Texas v. Johnson.
The executive order argues that the Supreme Court has “never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that an action amounting to ‘fighting words’ is constitutionally protected.”
It also prioritizes enforcement against flag burning “unrelated to expression,” including cases linked to “violent crimes; hate crimes, illegal discrimination against American citizens, or other violations of Americans’ civil rights; and crimes against property and the peace, as well as conspiracies and attempts to violate, and aiding and abetting others to violate, such laws.”
The post Trump’s New Executive Order Sparks Rare Conservative Backlash appeared first on Resist the Mainstream.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Jordyn M.
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://resistthemainstream.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
