#TalkRadio – September 30: Fascism Forward?: What You Need to Know About Trump’s Undermining of Constitutional Protections of Free Speech and Assembly with Jimmy Kimmel Attack, Portland Militarization, New EO Threatening Non-Profits and More!

INTRODUCTION:

Hi Igniters For Change! The Igniting Change Radio Show on Tuesday, September 30th, 2025, from 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM Eastern Time, entitled “Fascism Forward?: What You Need to Know About Trump’s Undermining of Constitutional Protections of Free Speech and Assembly with Jimmy Kimmel Attack, Portland Militarization, New EO Threatening Non-Profits and More!”, will be live with Radio Show Co-Hosts and Transformative Justice Coalition (TJC) Co-Leaders Attorneys Barbara Arnwine, Esq. and Daryl Jones, Esq. and will feature special guests Atty. Terry O’Neill and Jaheem McLaurin.

Thank you to all of those who supported the 10th Anniversary Celebration FootSoldiers’ Reception held on September 24th hosted by Partner A. Scott Bolden and Reed Smith LLP!  Special Shoutouts to Bloody Sunday FootSoldiers Betty Boynton of Selma Alabama and Phil Hunter, Attorney. This year marks several important anniversaries including the 70th Anniversary of the Montgomery Boycott, the 60th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the 60th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 10th Anniversary of the Transformative Justice Coalition! This weekend also marks the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Annual Legislative Weekend. The Transformative Justice Coalition sponsored two major events last week: “It Ain’t Over” TJC’s 10th Anniversary Reception Honoring the Foot Soldiers of Bloody Sunday on Wednesday, September 24th, 4:00-7:00 PM ET, Hosted by A. Scott Bolden and Reed Smith LLP, 1301 K Street, Washington, DC. During this program, attendees learned from the 1965 Foot Soldiers and from new Gen Z and Young Millennial Leaders including Dr. Kyler Wiltz, Lamair Bryan and Johnnie Brooker III. The second event sponsored by TJC last week was on Saturday, September 27th from 9:30 AM – 1:30 PM entitled “Do Something! Emerging Leaders’ Summit” hosted with the National Urban League (NUL).

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, a series of statements and actions by President Donald Trump and his administration have sparked widespread concern over the erosion of First Amendment protections, particularly surrounding free speech. Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking on The Katie Miller Podcast, asserted that “there’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” suggesting that speech deemed hateful—especially if it “crosses the line into threats of violence”—should be criminalized. While the First Amendment does not protect “true threats,” the ambiguity in Bondi’s framing raised alarms among constitutional scholars and conservative commentators alike, who warned against conflating offensive or unpopular speech with criminal conduct (Newsweek, September 25, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-maga-charlie-kirk-free-speech-katie-miller-2130492).

Bondi’s remarks were part of a broader pattern of speech suppression following Kirk’s death, which included President Trump’s public encouragement for Bondi to pursue legal cases against political opponents. In a social media post dated September 21, Trump criticized the pace of investigations and demanded immediate action, stating, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” This public pressure on the Attorney General to prosecute perceived enemies—such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey—was condemned by figures across the political spectrum, including Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who warned that such politicized prosecutions undermine democratic norms and violate constitutional boundaries (PBS NewsHour, September 24, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-pushes-bondi-to-pursue-cases-against-his-foes-as-he-ramps-up-retribution-campaign).

The controversy intensified when Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened to revoke broadcast licenses from ABC and its affiliates for airing “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following Kimmel’s controversial remarks about Kirk’s death. Trump applauded the suspension of Kimmel’s show and called for similar action against other late-night hosts. However, prominent conservative voices such as Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, and Senator Ted Cruz pushed back, warning that federal censorship of media content—even if politically charged—sets a dangerous precedent. Owens stated, “We never ever, ever should be applauding federal action when it comes to speech. We’re all losing.” Shapiro added that while he personally disliked Kimmel’s content, he opposed FCC intervention on principle (USA Today, September 23, 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/23/trump-free-speech-charlie-kirk-kimmel/86290420007/).

Following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel from ABC on September 17, 2025, over his monologue referencing the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Disney faced swift and severe backlash. Local ABC affiliates reported thousands of viewer calls demanding Kimmel’s reinstatement (Shaw, L., 2025, September 21, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-09-21/the-end-of-jimmy-kimmel-at-abc). The backlash was amplified by protests outside ABC studios and mounting pressure from advertisers and unions.

Following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on September 17, 2025, Disney experienced immediate and measurable backlash. Over 1.7 million paid streaming cancellations were recorded across Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ between September 17 and 23, according to internal estimates cited by journalist Marisa Kabas and confirmed by a Disney source (Kabas, M., 2025, September 29, MSN News, Millions of Disney, ESPN subscribers canceled over Jimmy Kimmel suspension, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/millions-of-disney-espn-subscribers-canceled-over-jimmy-kimmel-suspension/ar-AA1Ny7Ps). Concurrently, Disney’s stock dropped by at least 2.39%, erasing nearly $5 billion in market value, as reported by financial analysts tracking the fallout from the controversy (Economic Times, 2025, September 29, Jimmy Kimmel returns to ABC: How many billions did Disney lose during his suspension, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/jimmy-kimmel-returns-to-abc-how-many-billions-did-disney-lose-during-his-suspension-and-why-was-the-show-reinstated/articleshow/124072023.cms). The financial damage was compounded by shareholder unrest, with groups including the American Federation of Teachers and Reporters Without Borders filing formal demands for internal documents related to the suspension. Their letter alleged that Disney’s board may have breached fiduciary duties by prioritizing political appeasement over shareholder interests, citing brand damage and government pressure as contributing factors (Cho, W., 2025, September 24, The Hollywood Reporter, Disney Hit With Legal Salvo From Shareholders Over Jimmy Kimmel Suspension, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-hit-legal-salvo-shareholders-jimmy-kimmel-suspension-1236379327/).

The reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on September 23 was catalyzed by mounting pressure from prominent actors and entertainers, including Mark Ruffalo, Kerry Washington, Jon Stewart, and Rosario Dawson, who signed an open letter condemning what they described as “state-influenced censorship.” The letter was circulated by the Writers Guild of America (WGA), SAG-AFTRA, and the American Federation of Musicians, all of whom issued coordinated statements defending Kimmel’s right to free expression. The WGA wrote:

“The right to speak our minds and to disagree with each other – to disturb, even – is at the very heart of what it means to be a free people… Silencing us impoverishes the whole world.”
SAG-AFTRA added:
“The decision to suspend airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! is the type of suppression and retaliation that endangers everyone’s freedoms.”
(Dunn, J., 2025, September 25, Variety, https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/sag-wga-jimmy-kimmel-suspended-1236522863)

Public protests erupted outside ABC studios in Los Angeles and affiliate stations nationwide, with demonstrators accusing Sinclair Broadcast Group and Nexstar Media Group of capitulating to political pressure. Union leaders warned that the suspension was part of a “disturbing trend of increasing interference in creative expression,” and called on media companies to “stand firm in defense of free expression and the First Amendment, not capitulate to a policy of political appeasement.”

Sinclair, which had preempted Kimmel’s show across dozens of its ABC affiliates, reversed its decision on September 28, citing “thoughtful feedback from viewers, advertisers, and community leaders representing a wide range of perspectives.” In its statement, Sinclair acknowledged that advertiser pressure played a significant role in the reversal, noting that “our decision to preempt this program was independent of any government interaction or influence,” but also admitting that it had received “overwhelming input from stakeholders concerned about the precedent being set” (Sinclair Broadcast Group (2025, September 26). Sinclair Statement on the Return of Jimmy Kimmel Live! https://sbgi.net/sinclair-statement-on-the-return-of-jimmy-kimmel-live )

Despite the reinstatement, President Trump responded with renewed threats. In a Truth Social post dated September 29, 2025, he wrote:

“DISNEY & ABC are back at it—platforming hate and lies through Jimmy Kimmel, who should have been permanently removed. We’re reviewing ALL legal options. They’ve been warned before. This time, they won’t get away with it. Lawsuits incoming. STAY TUNED.”
(Trump, D., 2025, September 29, Truth Social, https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111943827462198947)

The post reignited concerns about executive overreach and the weaponization of regulatory threats against media entities. Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates warned that such rhetoric, especially when paired with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s earlier threats to revoke licenses, represents a dangerous encroachment on First Amendment protections. (Brennan, K., 2025, September 29, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2025/09/29/trump-threatens-disney-over-kimmel-reinstatement-free-speech)

This episode echoes earlier controversies, such as President Trump’s September 22, 2025 executive order designating “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization—a move that reignited constitutional concerns over the misuse of federal power to suppress ideological dissent (Politico, September 22, 2025, Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/22/trump-issues-terrorist-organization-antifa-00575921 ). “Antifa,” short for “anti-fascist,” is not a formal group but rather a loosely affiliated ideological movement composed of individuals and collectives opposing fascism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism (USA Today, September 29, 2025, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/09/29/what-is-antifa-president-donald-trump-calls-antifa-terrorist-organization/86420569007 ). Legal experts and civil liberties organizations immediately pointed out that the First Amendment protects ideological expression, and that labeling a non-organized ideology as a terrorist entity lacks legal foundation and risks criminalizing dissent (Politico, September 22, 2025, Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/22/trump-issues-terrorist-organization-antifa-00575921 ). The USA PATRIOT Act, often cited in terrorism-related designations, applies to individuals and groups engaged in violent acts—not to abstract political beliefs. Critics, including Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, warned that the designation “serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone, or any group, they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist” (Politico, September 22, 2025, Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/22/trump-issues-terrorist-organization-antifa-00575921 ).

Taken together, these actions reflect a pattern of conflating political opposition with criminality, and of using federal power to suppress speech deemed unfavorable to the administration. While some of these efforts have been met with internal resistance from conservative figures, the cumulative effect has been a chilling atmosphere for dissent and a redefinition of what constitutes protected speech. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, but its durability depends on the restraint of those in power. When federal agencies and top officials blur the line between criticism and criminality, the constitutional guardrails that protect democratic discourse begin to erode.

Our show will focus on these issues as well as the attacks on our right to assemble, another guardrail that President Trump and his Administration are eroding. The latest flashpoint is Portland, Oregon, where Trump ordered the deployment of 200 National Guard troops on September 28, 2025, invoking Title 10 authority without prior notice to Governor Tina Kotek or local officials (Rush, C., 2025, September 28, Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/oregon-sues-block-trump-national-guard-portland-00583937). The stated justification was to protect federal property—specifically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities—from what Trump described as “siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists” (CBS News, 2025, September 28, CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-sues-trump-over-federal-troops-deployment).

However, Portland’s crime statistics tell a different story. According to the Portland Police Bureau, the city is experiencing its lowest violent crime rates in over a decade, and protests around ICE facilities have been small and largely peaceful, with fewer than 30 participants and no arrests reported from June until the week of the deployment (OPB, 2025, September 28, Oregon Public Broadcasting, https://www.opb.org/article/2025/09/28/oregon-portland-sue-trump-deployment). Governor Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging the deployment as unconstitutional and politically motivated. “There is no insurrection, no threat to national security, and no need for military troops in our major city,” Kotek stated during a press conference, adding that the president’s actions were “an abuse of power” and “un-American” (Rush, C., 2025, September 28, Politico, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/oregon-sues-block-trump-national-guard-portland-00583937).

The deployment sparked immediate protests, with hundreds gathering outside Portland’s ICE facility and city hall. Federal agents reportedly used pepper spray to disperse demonstrators, and Portland police made two arrests—one for fourth-degree assault and another described as a “targeted arrest” (KPTV, 2025, September 29, MSN News, https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/latest-updates-trump-orders-national-guard-troops-to-portland/ar-AA1NwBdY). More than a dozen Oregon mayors signed a joint letter condemning the militarization of local law enforcement and pledging to pursue legislative and legal remedies to block future federal interventions.

This escalation in Portland exemplifies a broader trend: the federal government’s increasing willingness to override local governance and suppress constitutionally protected assembly under the guise of national security. As with speech, the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the First Amendment, and its erosion signals a dangerous shift toward centralized control and punitive federalism.

This erosion of constitutional guardrails has now extended to the nonprofit sector. On September 25, 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing federal agencies—including the FBI’s National Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service—to investigate and dismantle what he called “domestic terrorism networks,” explicitly naming progressive nonprofit organizations as targets (Presidential Memorandum on Domestic Terrorism, 2025, September 25, New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits, https://www.nhnonprofits.org/news/presidential-memorandum-domestic-terrorism-threat-nonprofits; Democracy Docket, 2025, September 25, Democracy Docket, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-order-terrorism-network-left-leaning-nonprofits).

The memorandum follows Trump’s earlier executive order designating “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization, despite longstanding FBI testimony that antifa is an ideology, not a structured group. The administration has since directed U.S. attorneys to open investigations into organizations such as the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation, accusing them—without evidence—of funding political violence. Trump has repeatedly invoked George Soros by name, stating in a press conference, “Soros is a name certainly that I keep hearing… Soros must be jailed. He’s a bad guy” (Democracy Docket, 2025, September 25, Democracy Docket, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-order-terrorism-network-left-leaning-nonprofits).

Legal experts warn that this directive represents a dangerous misuse of executive power. Federal law prohibits senior executive officials from directing the IRS to audit specific taxpayers or organizations, but the administration may attempt to trigger audits through indirect means, such as redefining compliance standards or leveraging federal funding restrictions. Two executive orders—Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity—have already introduced vague and shifting criteria that could be used to penalize nonprofits engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion work (Council of Nonprofits, 2025, September, National Council of Nonprofits, https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/files/media/documents/2025/faq-executive-orders-nonprofits.pdf).

The Open Society Foundations responded by calling the administration’s actions “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with and undermine the First Amendment right to free speech.” Their statement concluded: “When power is abused to take away the rights of some people, it puts the rights of all people at risk” (Democracy Docket, 2025, September 25, Democracy Docket, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/trump-order-terrorism-network-left-leaning-nonprofits).

This latest executive action signals a dramatic escalation in the administration’s campaign to redefine dissent as criminality, and to weaponize federal agencies against ideological opponents. As with speech and assembly, the nonprofit sector now finds itself on the front lines of a constitutional crisis.

Proposed Questions

The questions included below are designed to provide a guide but are not the only possible questions, nor may they be asked in the exact same order. If a question does not have a specific name, then it is for everyone.