Trump’s anti-free speech rhetoric increases support for censorship among his voters

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that when political leaders suddenly express support for censorship, their supporters tend to adopt those same views. The findings provide evidence that the statements of prominent politicians can easily sway public opinion on foundational democratic rights like freedom of speech. This highlights how political language can influence voters to abandon long-held values in favor of restricting the rights of opposing groups.

President Donald Trump has frequently portrayed himself as a strong defender of free speech. Following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Trump and members of his administration suddenly shifted their messaging. They began to argue that speech should be restricted under certain conditions, suggesting that overly negative media coverage should not be protected by the Constitution.

Matthew E. K. Hall, the David A. Potenziani Memorial College professor of constitutional studies and director of the Rooney Democracy Institute at the University of Notre Dame, explained the motivation behind the research. He noted the unusual nature of this sudden change in political messaging.

“After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump and various members of his administration drastically changed their rhetoric about freedom of speech,” Hall said. “Trump had portrayed himself as a free speech champion for years. But suddenly, Trump and his allies repeatedly asserted that various forms of expression were not protected by the First Amendment.”

This shift presented a unique opportunity for scientists to test competing theories about public opinion. One theory suggests that everyday citizens have a deep, unmovable commitment to core democratic values. The opposing theory proposes that people tend to blindly follow the cues of political elites, who are highly influential figures such as presidents and lawmakers.

“Americans traditionally express strong support for free speech, and Republicans have become especially supportive of this right in recent years,” Hall said. “So we wanted to know how the public was reacting to Trump’s sudden shift in rhetoric.”

Prior research provides evidence that people in the United States overwhelmingly support free speech in abstract terms. However, this support often weakens when people are asked about protecting the speech of groups they strongly dislike. The authors wanted to see what happens when a major political figure openly challenges a widely popular right. They sought to understand if loyal voters would change their own views on censorship to match the new stance of their preferred leader.

Outright calls for government censorship from mainstream political leaders are incredibly rare in modern American politics. The recent shift by the Trump administration marked the first time in recent history that a modern president explicitly advocated for restricting a fundamental liberty. The researchers designed a study to see if this new rhetoric would alter attitudes in a highly polarized political environment.

To explore these questions, the researchers designed an online experiment involving 1,305 adult participants from the United States. The participant group was matched to the general population in terms of age, gender, education, and race. The sample was evenly divided, containing 653 people who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 and 652 people who did not. The non-Trump voter group included people who voted for Kamala Harris, those who voted for third-party candidates, and those who did not vote at all.

The participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups. The first group read anti-free speech quotes that were adapted from real statements made by Trump, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. The second group read pro-free speech quotes, which the researchers created by exactly reversing the language of the anti-speech quotes. The third group served as a control and did not read any quotes.

Within the groups that read quotes, the scientists introduced another layer of randomization. Half of the participants saw the quotes attributed to their actual sources, such as Donald Trump or Pam Bondi. The other half saw the exact same quotes but attributed to a generic prominent politician. This design allowed the authors to test whether the identity of the speaker changed how participants reacted to the message.

After reading the assigned materials, participants answered a series of questions to measure their support for government censorship. The researchers asked whether the government should be allowed to censor media sources, websites, and talk shows. Specifically, they asked about media outlets that spend more time attacking the participants’ own political party than the opposing party. In political science, a person’s own political group is known as the inparty, while the opposing group is called the outparty.

The study also measured support for censoring everyday individuals. Participants indicated whether the government should be allowed to censor an author in a local library or a person giving a speech in their community. These questions specifically targeted individuals who heavily criticize the participants’ inparty.

The data showed that exposure to anti-free speech statements increased support for censorship among Trump voters. When Trump voters read quotes calling for speech restrictions, they were much more likely to endorse government censorship of outparty media and individuals compared to those in the control group. Exposure to the pro-free speech quotes did not significantly change the attitudes of Trump voters.

The anti-free speech quotes produced a very different reaction among non-Trump voters. For these individuals, reading the restrictive quotes created a backlash effect. Non-Trump voters became significantly less supportive of censoring outparty media and individuals after reading the anti-speech statements.

“We found that exposure to Trump’s new antispeech rhetoric increased Trump voters’ support for government censorship of outparty media and individuals but prompted backlash among non-Trump voters, increasing their support for protecting outparty speech,” Hall told PsyPost. “Our findings suggest that Republicans are more devoted to supporting Trump than they are to free speech, while Democrats actually support free speech more when they hear Trump oppose it.”

Interestingly, the researchers found that explicitly naming the source of the quotes did not change the outcome. The anti-speech rhetoric increased censorship support among Trump voters and decreased it among non-Trump voters regardless of whether the quotes were attributed to Trump or to a generic politician. This suggests that the style, content, and familiarity of the political language carry implicit partisan signals.

“I was surprised that Republicans reacted the same way whether we told them the rhetoric came from Trump and his allies or not,” Hall said. “The finding suggests that most Republicans were already aware of the rhetoric or they could recognize the tone as coming from their political leaders.”

The researchers also conducted additional exploratory analyses to measure broader attitudes. They looked at whether the quotes affected skepticism toward the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees free speech. They found that exposure to pro-speech rhetoric actually increased First Amendment skepticism among non-Trump voters. Additionally, the anti-speech quotes decreased warm feelings toward Donald Trump among the non-Trump voters, especially when the quotes were directly attributed to him.

The authors note some limitations regarding how these findings should be interpreted. The most prominent unknown factor is the durability of these shifting attitudes. It is entirely possible that the increased support for censorship among Trump voters is a temporary reaction to recent news events. Over time, these voters might naturally return to their baseline support for constitutional rights.

Future research will need to track public opinion over longer periods to see if these changes persist. The scientists suggest that the longevity of these attitudes likely depends on whether political elites continue to normalize anti-free speech rhetoric. If politicians routinely call for censorship, the shift in public opinion may become permanent. Even short-term shifts in public sentiment can pose challenges to democratic norms, highlighting the immense influence that political figures wield over their supporters.

The study, “From free speech advocates to critics: The Trump administration’s new rhetoric promotes support for censorship among Trump voters,” was authored by Matthew E. K. Hall, B. Tyler Leigh, and Brittany C. Solomon.