Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Staff Editorial

Written by: Krista Giltner and Ava Hansen

Since President Trump’s win in the 2024 election, he has modeled behavior showing a lack of care towards the United States Constitution by attempts to censor the media and individuals, a direct violation of the First Amendment right.

What is the First Amendment Right? 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. First Amendment). 

The First Amendment is the right of the people to speak their minds without fear, regardless of what the government says, and the ability to practice the beliefs they hold. The Amendment protects the rights of those who formally disagree with the government, the right to petition, and the right to protest and assemble peacefully. 

The First Amendment was adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of free speech, religion, and the press.  The amendment was created to address concerns about the Constitution’s lack of protections for these freedoms.

 The Supreme Court has made many alterations within cases like Tinker v. Des Moines and Near v. Minnesota. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that students retain their First Amendment right to free speech in public schools, assuming their expressions do not materially disrupt the learning environment. In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court established a strong prohibition against prior restraint, holding that the government cannot censor speech before it is published, reinforcing freedom of the press, and marking a landmark decision in First Amendment jurisprudence. 

These landmark cases demonstrate the everlasting importance of the First Amendment in protecting individual freedoms and shaping the balance between government authority and constitutional rights. 

The First Amendment has become a popular topic of discussion with the presidency of Donald Trump and how he treats the Amendment in a particularly negligent manner, seemingly containing a dereliction of duty towards following these precedents.

Shooting the Messenger

Although Donald Trump, in the 2020 Presidential election, made it clear to us he could not accept his losses, in December of 2024, he made it clear he could not accept his wins either, and he would begin to take this out on the Media itself. 

Ann Selzer, president of the Iowa-based polling firm Selzer & Company, released her poll for the 2024 Presidential election on November 2, three days before election day itself. In this poll, Democratic party candidate Kamala Harris was predicted to win the state of Iowa by 3%. Published by the Des Moines Register, this poll began to spread rapidly across news sources and social media outlets.

Suddenly, individuals in and outside of the state of Iowa were dissecting the true meaning of Harris taking the win in a state that has been deeply red since 2016. If she could win the majority in Iowa, what was possible for the rest of America? Could swing states work out in the favor of the Democratic Party after all?

Regardless, on November 5, President Trump won the state of Iowa with 57.09% of the overall vote. Following this, it was announced the next day that he had won the race, collecting a total of 312 electoral votes; all discussion of Selzer’s poll ceased rapidly.

In early December, President Trump filed a civil lawsuit against both Slezer and the Des Moines Register. He claimed that under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, the statistics released by the renowned pollster fostered a sense of false inevitability towards Harris taking the state once and for all. 

According to the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, chapter 714H.2 defines consumer fraud by a private service as a person being aware of pretenses they present to misrepresent material facts that others rely upon in connection to sale, advertisement, lease of consumer merchandise or for charitable means.

Lark-Marie Anton, Des Moines Register Spokesperson, stated, “We believe this lawsuit is without merit. We have acknowledged the Selzer/Des Moines Register pre-election poll did not reflect the ultimate margin of President Trump’s Election Day victory in Iowa by releasing the poll’s full demographics, crosstabs, weighted and unweighted data, as well as a technical explanation from pollster Ann Selzer. We stand by our reporting on the matter and will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”

Despite President Trump’s paroxysmal reaction to this poll, it is clear to us that at the end of the day, Selzer continued her duties just as she had in any other presidential election. The only thing different with this call was that it favored a woman of color over a presidential elect who could not handle a simple difference of opinion. The idea, not even the actual result, of Harris winning a state President Trump has been confident in was enough for an outburst on his behalf. 

Instead of continuing after the poll was proven false, President Trump felt threatened enough to be inclined to continue with legal action against those who published it. Despite explanation from Selzer, he pushed forward claiming that the poll swung Iowa’s overall vote regardless of his win. 

This act of retaliation illuminates a reality that may seem shallow but digs significantly deeper than what is on the surface. Even before the inauguration, President Trump has a clear need and desire to have control over what is being published regarding him and all elements of his presidency. Instead of honoring differences of opinion and the right to share such as displayed in the United States Constitution, we can begin to see patterns of fighting against ideas the media publishes that do not represent him in his ideal light.

These patterns are not just a simple tantrum but the beginning of a direct violation of the First Amendment right. Media companies have at small, one job. They are in charge and responsible for sharing information with the general public. When suddenly this information is being censored and fought against, the opinions and facts published by the media begin to shape into a conformist mindset. This is a reality the First Amendment right is directly trying to shield society from. The extreme reaction towards a poll that simply is not in his favor is harming the source millions of Americans turn to for news and information. When a political leader is targeting the media, they are shooting the messenger. 

Unfortunately, the trend of silencing those providing vital information to allow the average citizen to stay informed has followed President Trump into office. On January 23, 2025, Amanda Barrett, Vice President of Standards at the Associated Press (AP) released the style guidance regarding President Trump’s renaming of geographical monuments and locations. In this statement, Barrett explained the AP would use the name of Mount McKinley compared to the formal renaming of Mount Denali by President Obama. However, the body of water between the United States of America and Mexico would continue to be referred to as the Gulf of Mexico compared to the Gulf of America. 

Regardless of the pride the AP takes in being a bipartisan news source and the four dozen Pulitzer Prizes the organization has under its belt, President Trump made the executive decision to remove reporters for the media company from the Oval Office. Additionally, they have been removed and excluded from other matters like Air Force One events. 

Not much later, current Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked on the matter in a White House Press Briefing. In early February, Leavitt remarked, “Nobody has the right to go into the Oval Office and ask the president of the United States questions. That is an invitation that is given.”

Similar increased hostility has followed the AP in such briefings on Leavitt’s behalf. This barring of a vital media company continues with the Trump administration’s attempt to diminish those providing news and information to the people. Although Leavitt has merit in commenting on the privilege of media coverage in such a personal matter, such transparency has been a vital part of keeping the United States democracy intact. Without direct feedback from the media and the people, the government continues its action without regard to the impact and people of the everyday citizen.

This emphasizes the importance of the First Amendment right. Without it, media companies are prohibited from informing the individual of the direct decisions impacting them. When President Trump decides he does not like something published and should punish a company, the direct result is a wrinkle in the ironed-out system our democracy has created. Freedom of speech has shaped our country time and time again, and it is clear President Trump is preventing any sort of narrative away from his personal beliefs. 

Associated Press editor Julie Pace commented, “It is alarming that the Trump administration would punish AP for its independent journalism. Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the First Amendment.”

To obtain the image he so desires but is lacking, President Trump is using the media as the target. By attempting to censor and silence, he is impacting the reach of the people. This as a result shifts entire ideas and opinions, all by removing the contact from the government to the everyday American. When the messenger is removed, there is no opinion to spread and no opportunity for more pushback towards President Trump and his actions in office. 

The Impact on the People

President Trump has demonstrated a lack of trust in the media, believing they do not present his preferred narrative in a positive light, which affects those who rely on the media for accurate information and those who use their First Amendment right to speak their opinions. 

On January 20th, 2024, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States. During this day of festivities for the newly elected President, President Trump attended a traditional prayer service before getting formally inaugurated. During the service, Bishop Reverend Budde stated, “In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now.” 

She led the traditional prayer service with small caveats about the President being able to unite people instead of hurting the minorities that President Trump has repeatedly attacked, such as those in the LGBTQ+ community. 

Even though she spoke of uniting everyone in the country and the importance of accepting everyone under God’s love, President Trump lashed out by demanding a public apology and stated, “She brought her church into the world of politics in an ungracious way.” 

President Trump’s attack on Bishop Budde is contemptible as she was speaking under her First Amendment rights. President Trump can not call on her to apologize strictly because he disagreed with what she said. The Bishop discussed her speech as something she was called upon to do by God, and as it was a peaceful way of protesting, it did not violate the First Amendment.

 As a Christian, she felt called to speak peacefully to protect and plead with the President to unite instead of divide. Instead of listening to the sermon, President Trump immediately dismissed Bishop Budde’s words, stating, “I didn’t think it was a good service… They could do much better.” 

He described how her sermon was not compelling or intelligent because of the content, instead of listening to someone demonstrating their right to express their religious beliefs. She asked for mercy and was met with an extremely disrespectful audience that criticized her position simply because there were disagreements with the content.

Trump’s ignorance of the freedom to express one’s religion and, in this case, their call to God is nothing new for his presidency. The Trump administration has launched many inflammatory attacks on Catholic and Lutheran charity organizations because of their work with migrants, refugees and other persecuted groups.

 The attacks and the administration cutting around 8 million dollars of funding to these groups have left many religious groups reeling. The groups have accused the administration of abandoning the principles of compassion and service that define Christianity.  

Again, we see President Trump as indignant with those who threaten what he defines as “Christian values” instead of what a community of Christians see in themselves

President Trump tore into many Lutheran groups for their work with minority, displaced persons. He declared that these groups had to be money-laundering and that the government was working to shut them down because of these operations. 

Since then, many Christian charity groups, such as Lutheran Services, have responded, saying, “We have passed every test, every audit and every monitoring. We are extremely diligent in our efforts with donor dollars, and we steward that very carefully.” 

It is against the First Amendment right to attack and withdraw funding from religious groups because the President does not agree with their beliefs. 

The Lutheran World Relief project had thousands of dollars of federal aid withdrawn because President Trump disagreed with who the groups were helping even though the group helps millions of those in need and believes they are called by God to do so. 

When asked what Lutheran Services believed about these investigations, they voiced, “We want to defend our organization and what we do and what Lutherans do. We just have to tell people the truth. The truth always prevails.” 

These religious groups should not have to defend themselves because the government does not agree with the people they help. Lutheran Services spends their time and money protecting people the government will not, and President Trump has no right to determine what groups get to do because he has to align the groups with his specific beliefs. 

Not only does President Trump threaten the First Amendment rights such as Freedom of Speech, Press and Religion, but he also threatens the Freedom to Assemble and Petition.

 On March 8th, Mahmoud Khalil, a student at Columbia University, was arrested for protesting and speaking out against the government’s actions in the Israel and Palestine war. The Department of Homeland Security issued an arrest for Khalil after one of his protests, claiming that the protests he organized were meddling with foreign affairs, and now the government is trying to take away his student visa and green card, which make him a legal citizen of the U.S. 

A judge has since blocked the revoking of these documents, and ordered that Khalil was to stay in the U.S. until due process and he receives a hearing. 

Khalil’s attorney was adamant about the claims against Khalil being false and stated, “He was taken by the U.S. government agents in retaliation, essentially, for exercising his First Amendment rights, for speaking up in defense of Palestinians in Gaza and beyond, for being critical of the U.S. government and of the Israeli government.”

This is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Khalil protesting a war and exercising his given rights is what the Constitution was made for. If speech remains free in the U.S., then what happened to Khalil should be unacceptable. The federal government has no authority to strike a citizen of their legal status because they peacefully protested against the government’s decisions and actions. 

Khalil is a legal citizen of the U.S. and did not commit any crimes, but disagreeing with President Trump’s agenda. He was outspoken and the face of a lot of protests, which put a target on his back. 

Even after receiving backlash from thousands of students and Khalil supporters, President Trump asserted that Khalil’s arrest was only the beginning. 

President Trump’s reaction shows that this is part of an agenda that President Trump is trying to fulfill, and this agenda shows no consideration for the First Amendment rights that Americans hold dear. The right to speak out and protest now can make you become a target, which is not what democracy stands for. To be outspoken is to now be a weapon to what President Trump is trying to accomplish.

Life Without the First Amendment

In short, President Trump’s negligence towards the First Amendment does not go without consequence. The power slowly begins to slip away from the people, and the government is more inclined and in control than ever.

In his 1860 speech, A Plea for Free Speech in Boston, Frederick Douglas declared, “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right that they first of all strike down. They know its power.”

Countries like China and Cuba, both unitary communist states, are without free press and free speech. This reality may seem far from that of the United States, but without the fundamental ideals and freedoms Americans hold close, democracy whittles to nothing. It is vital that alongside the freedom of the press, freedom of speech continues for the individual to promote the choice our country was founded on.

In a 2023 study on The Decline of Freedom of Expression and Social Vulnerability in Western Democracy, the National Library of Medicine established, “When people cannot express themselves…vulnerability arises. This weakens not only those individuals that are not allowed to express their thoughts but also those who do not dare to do it.”

Final Thoughts

In an interview with Mary Beth Tinker, face for the Tinker v. Des Moines case that would pivotally change the First Amendment. Tinker noted, “It is important for the free press to be free, without punishment from government officials. And, it is important for adults to model the rights of the First Amendment for youth, who must learn that rights are kept alive by using them.”

By highlighting President Trump’s disregard for the First Amendment right, we are directly enacting freedoms that are essential to continue to model. Without the freedom of the press, the people are left with a narrow set of perspectives to view. When this starts to happen, suddenly, the country that takes pride in diversity and freedom to choose is left without a choice.

The democracy the United States and its people hold dearly is rooted in the ability to express their opinions without fear of government reign. The messenger is a pivotal step in keeping the people’s government suited for them. With the removal of the media, not only has the messenger lost its purpose, but American citizens are removed from their own picture. 

We ask directly that the media is allowed to convey their message, as the Iowa state motto asserted, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”