Image via Wired
***
“Let us be reminded that before there is a final solution, there must be a first solution, a second one, even a third. The move toward a final solution is not a jump. It takes one step, then another, then another.”
– Toni Morrison, “Racism and Fascism”
A defining element of fascist governance is the maintenance of order and obedience, necessitating suppression of dissent and political opponents. Censorship is broadly defined as the suppression or removal of speech, media, or other content that is deemed inappropriate, hateful, or dangerous to a nation or institution. The First Amendment of the Constitution states, “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.” The actions of the current Trump administration fall in violation of not only the Constitution, but the basic tenets of free and democratic society, through relentless targeting of institutions of education and media and the harsh crackdown on individuals’ right to speech and protest.
During WWII, with the emergence of the fascism in Germany and Italy, censorship was commonplace in obscuring information, concealing military losses and atrocities, and bolstering civilian morale for the war effort and ruling class. In Italy, the main objective was to present Benito Mussolini as a strong and absolute leader while obscuring his shortcomings and failures. Foreign radio stations and films were banned, and dispatches written in Italy had to be passed through government censors, who could modify content at their discretion and insert propaganda. In Germany, the Nazis engaged in book burnings, the imprisonment of political opposition (Communists and Socialists), and a relentless propaganda effort and cover up of the horrors committed during the Holocaust, among countless other crimes.
However, the history of censorship is not unique to fascist governments; The United States itself has a long history of speech and protest suppression that serves as a foundation for the egregious violations we see today. In 1873, the Comstock Act prohibited the dissemination of obscene materials or information about abortion and contraception through the mail. Two decades later, the Supreme Court decided Rosen v. United States (1896), defining material as obscene if it could “deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” Beyond sexual content, censorship also manifested as race-based exclusion and political suppression. In the Jim Crow-era South, some community leaders rejected Carnegie Library grants because they feared they would be required to admit Black people, a clear example of exclusion that is considered a form of censorship. Later, during the McCarthy era of the 1950s, American public libraries faced pressure to censor or withdraw materials believed to spread Communist ideas. These historical acts, ranging from legal prohibitions like the Comstock Act and Supreme Court rulings (e.g. Rosen v. United States, and Roth v. United States (1957)) to racial and political exclusion in libraries and schools, demonstrate the United States’ long-standing use of state power to define and suppress “unacceptable” speech and access to information.
This history of using legal and institutional methods to suppress uncomfortable or dissenting ideas—whether related to sexual morality, racial integration, or political alignment—demonstrates a recurring American susceptibility to censorship. However, the current assault on intellectual freedom under the Trump administration marks a critical evolution—shifting the focus from restricting specific content like obscenity, to the executive branch now waging “open warfare” on the institutions that provide information and serve as checks on power.
The battlefield has moved to the media, where the repeated use of the term “fake news” has allowed the administration to undermine objective truths. The arbitrary nature of the speech being criminalized illustrates how federal policy is often being dictated based on the personal feelings of the president. The assasination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk only amplified the administration’s crackdown on speech with Trump labeling various individuals and ideas as domestic terrorism threats. Within days of the event, Jimmy Kimmel’s show was suspended by ABC, under pressure from FCC Chair Brendan Carr, among other allies of the president, for criticizing the administration’s response to the shooting as a bid to “score political points.” The targeting of such prominent liberal and non-political commentators is highly visible, but it raises the question of how people without a late-night show can fight back against targeted censorship. The mass deportations currently being carried out by ICE at the behest of Trump ties into this censorship regime and fulfills his promise to weed out “the home-growns.”
Another major pillar of American society now subjected to heavy censorship is education, especially institutions of higher learning and other academic and scientific organizations. The Trump administration has cut over $10 billion in research grants intended for areas like cancer research and diabetes treatment, thus far, and threatens to further “choke off the money to schools that aid the Marxist assault on our American heritage and on Western civilization itself.” Trump’s offensive against higher education is particularly targeted toward elite and Ivy League universities, especially those with student bodies who have been active in protesting Israel’s genocide. The administration justifies these actions by claiming to be fighting wokeness and ideological indoctrination, focusing on colleges where subjects like critical race theory and gender ideology are taught and discussed, and equating this education to “subsidizing communist indoctrination.” Here we can see parallels to past fascist movements that persecuted their political opposition on the left and propagandized about “communist” threats. These attacks most harshly affect student activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, who because of—or sometimes in spite of their immigration status—are vulnerable to deportation.
Outside of the aggressive campaigns against institutional sectors of the country such as the press, education, and academia, the administration is keen on suppressing the speech of any individual or group that they perceive as threatening to their political aims. This crusade to suppress critical speech and target political enemies is heavily reliant on explicitly naming and criminalizing ideological opponents. The administration has made clear its opposition to “anti-fascist” groups, going so far as to issue an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. This framework identifies a pattern of supposed violent activities unified under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism,” which the administration asserts is animated by the common thread of anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity. In response to this perceived organized political violence, the government has focused its crackdowns on protests in major democratic cities, citing increased attacks on federal agencies and anti-police riots in places like Los Angeles, D.C., and Portland. This has involved the deployment of federal law enforcement agents to stifle demonstrations, including militarized units and the use of masked agents, which one federal judge characterized as intended to “terrorize Americans into quiescence.” The government has further targeted vulnerable populations by weaponizing immigration enforcement, threatening non-citizens who protest with risk of deportation.
In combination, this use of coercive power, which relies on targeting political enemies and limiting the information environment, reflects authoritarian methods of past fascist states. The administration’s rhetoric, such as the plans to deploy the military to “inner cities” like Chicago, Washington D.C, and Portland, as well as the defense of “American culture” or “Western civilization,” links these efforts to white supremacy and ultra-nationalism, echoing historical authoritarian strategies like the Nazi demand for loyalty only to the race-nation (Voelkische Gemeinschaft).
Autocrats inherently oppose independent universities because the commitment of these institutions to open inquiry over propaganda and democracy over dictatorship serves as a vital check on the arbitrary exercise of power. To resist this trajectory, we must refuse the call to quiescence. We must actively defend the fundamental right to free speech and to access information, remembering that the historical suppression of writers is the “earliest harbinger of the steady peeling away of additional rights and liberties that will follow.” The struggle against fascism demands collective action and vigilance. We must organize to protect dissenters, journalists, and non-citizens targeted for their speech. This will require using every available channel of resistance, including litigation, legislative action, and political advocacy at all levels of government, to constrain executive overreach and support the rule of law. Only by safeguarding the besieged voices and actively upholding our constitutional principles can we secure the protections of a free, democratic society.
***
This article was edited by Sidney Blasco and Sophie Reilly.
Anika Bobeck 
Daniela Cadena Hernandez 
Fathema Siddiqua