“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. Constitution, First Amendment.
Image: Shutterstock, zimmytws.
In an address to Congress this month, President Trump claimed he had “brought free speech back to America.” But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges.
This story explores a slew of recent actions by the Trump administration that threaten to undermine all five pillars of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedoms concerning speech, religion, the media, the right to assembly, and the right to petition the government and seek redress for wrongs.
THE RIGHT TO PETITION
The right to petition allows citizens to communicate with the government, whether to complain, request action, or share viewpoints — without fear of reprisal. But that right is being assaulted by this administration on multiple levels. For starters, many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituents affected by the administration’s many federal budget and workforce cuts.
Another example: President Trump recently fired most of the people involved in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government agencies. FOIA is an indispensable tool used by journalists and the public to request government records, and to hold leaders accountable.
The biggest story by far this week was the bombshell from The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who recounted how he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat with National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and 16 other Trump administration officials discussing plans for an upcoming attack on Yemen.
One overlooked aspect of Goldberg’s incredible account is that by planning and coordinating the attack on Signal — which features messages that can auto-delete after a short time — administration officials were evidently seeking a way to avoid creating a lasting (and potentially FOIA-able) record of their deliberations.
“Intentional or not, use of Signal in this context was an act of erasure—because without Jeffrey Goldberg being accidentally added to the list, the general public would never have any record of these communications or any way to know they even occurred,” Tony Bradley wrote this week at Forbes.
Petitioning the government, particularly when it ignores your requests, often requires challenging federal agencies in court. But that becomes far more difficult if the most competent law firms start to shy away from cases that may involve crossing the president and his administration.
On March 22, the president issued a memorandum that directs heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States,” or in matters that come before federal agencies.
The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.
Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.
Other Trump executive orders targeted law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both of which have attorneys that worked with special counsel Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But this week, two federal judges in separate rulings froze parts of those orders.
“There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, and that is qualified as a constitutional harm,” wrote Judge Richard Leon, who ruled against the executive order targeting WilmerHale.
President Trump recently took the extraordinary step of calling for the impeachment of federal judges who rule against the administration. Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and urged he be removed from office for blocking deportation of Venezuelan alleged gang members under a rarely invoked wartime legal authority.
In a rare public rebuke to a sitting president, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a statement on March 18 pointing out that “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The U.S. Constitution provides that judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. The Constitution also states that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced while they are in office.
Undeterred, House Speaker Mike Johnson this week suggested the administration could still use the power of its purse to keep courts in line, and even floated the idea of wholesale eliminating federal courts.
“We do have authority over the federal courts as you know,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act, so stay tuned for that.”
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
President Trump has taken a number of actions to discourage lawful demonstrations at universities and colleges across the country, threatening to cut federal funding for any college that supports protests he deems “illegal.”
A Trump executive order in January outlined a broad federal crackdown on what he called “the explosion of antisemitism” on U.S. college campuses. This administration has asserted that foreign students who are lawfully in the United States on visas do not enjoy the same free speech or due process rights as citizens.
Reuters reports that the acting civil rights director at the Department of Education on March 10 sent letters to 60 educational institutions warning they could lose federal funding if they don’t do more to combat anti-semitism. On March 20, Trump issued an order calling for the closure of the Education Department.
Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.
In his first term, Trump threatened to use the national guard or the U.S. military to deal with protesters, and in campaigning for re-election he promised to revisit the idea.
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump told Fox News in October 2024. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”
This term, Trump acted swiftly to remove the top judicial advocates in the armed forces who would almost certainly push back on any request by the president to use U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell public protests, or to arrest and detain immigrants. In late February, the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top legal officers for the military services — those responsible for ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice is followed by commanders.
Military.com warns that the purge “sets an alarming precedent for a crucial job in the military, as President Donald Trump has mused about using the military in unorthodox and potentially illegal ways.” Hegseth told reporters the removals were necessary because he didn’t want them to pose any “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage.
In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.
The president sued The Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett, for publishing a poll showing Trump trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential election in Iowa (a state that went for Trump). The POTUS also is suing the Pulitzer Prize board over 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of purported Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Whether or not any of the president’s lawsuits against news organizations have merit or succeed is almost beside the point. The strategy behind suing the media is to make reporters and newsrooms think twice about criticizing or challenging the president and his administration. The president also knows some media outlets will find it more expedient to settle.
Trump also sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for stating that the president had been found liable for “rape” in a civil case [Trump was found liable of sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll]. ABC parent Disney settled that claim by agreeing to donate $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library.
Following the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Facebook blocked President Trump’s account. Trump sued Meta, and after the president’s victory in 2024 Meta settled and agreed to pay Trump $25 million: $22 million would go to his presidential library, and the rest to legal fees. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also announced Facebook and Instagram would get rid of fact-checkers and rely instead on reader-submitted “community notes” to debunk disinformation on the social media platform.
Brendan Carr, the president’s pick to run the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has pledged to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” But on January 22, 2025, the FCC reopened complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC over their coverage of the 2024 election. The previous FCC chair had dismissed the complaints as attacks on the First Amendment and an attempt to weaponize the agency for political purposes.
According to Reuters, the complaints call for an investigation into how ABC News moderated the pre-election TV debate between Trump and Biden, and appearances of then-Vice President Harris on 60 Minutes and on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.”
Since then, the FCC has opened investigations into NPR and PBS, alleging that they are breaking sponsorship rules. The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a think tank based in Washington, D.C., noted that the FCC is also investigating KCBS in San Francisco for reporting on the location of federal immigration authorities.
“Even if these investigations are ultimately closed without action, the mere fact of opening them – and the implicit threat to the news stations’ license to operate – can have the effect of deterring the press from news coverage that the Administration dislikes,” the CDT’s Kate Ruane observed.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to “open up” libel laws, with the goal of making it easier to sue media organizations for unfavorable coverage. But this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by Trump donor and Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn to overturn the landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which insulates the press from libel suits over good-faith criticism of public figures.
The president also has insisted on picking which reporters and news outlets should be allowed to cover White House events and participate in the press pool that trails the president. He barred the Associated Press from the White House and Air Force One over their refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico by another name.
And the Defense Department has ordered a number of top media outlets to vacate their spots at the Pentagon, including CNN, The Hill, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News, Politico and National Public Radio.
“Incoming media outlets include the New York Post, Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, the Free Press, the Daily Caller, Newsmax, the Huffington Post and One America News Network, most of whom are seen as conservative or favoring Republican President Donald Trump,” Reuters reported.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Shortly after Trump took office again in January 2025, the administration began circulating lists of hundreds of words that government staff and agencies shall not use in their reports and communications.
The Brookings Institution notes that in moving to comply with this anti-speech directive, federal agencies have purged countless taxpayer-funded data sets from a swathe of government websites, including data on crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development.
The New York Times reports that in the past two months, hundreds of terabytes of digital resources analyzing data have been taken off government websites.
“While in many cases the underlying data still exists, the tools that make it possible for the public and researchers to use that data have been removed,” The Times wrote.
On Jan. 27, Trump issued a memo (PDF) that paused all federally funded programs pending a review of those programs for alignment with the administration’s priorities. Among those was ensuring that no funding goes toward advancing “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies.”
According to the CDT, this order is a blatant attempt to force government grantees to cease engaging in speech that the current administration dislikes, including speech about the benefits of diversity, climate change, and LGBTQ issues.
“The First Amendment does not permit the government to discriminate against grantees because it does not like some of the viewpoints they espouse,” the CDT’s Ruane wrote. “Indeed, those groups that are challenging the constitutionality of the order argued as much in their complaint, and have won an injunction blocking its implementation.”
On January 20, the same day Trump issued an executive order on free speech, the president also issued an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which froze funding for programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Among those were programs designed to empower civil society and human rights groups, journalists and others responding to digital repression and Internet shutdowns.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this includes many freedom technologies that use cryptography, fight censorship, protect freedom of speech, privacy and anonymity for millions of people around the world.
“While the State Department has issued some limited waivers, so far those waivers do not seem to cover the open source internet freedom technologies,” the EFF wrote about the USAID disruptions. “As a result, many of these projects have to stop or severely curtail their work, lay off talented workers, and stop or slow further development.”
On March 14, the president signed another executive order that effectively gutted the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees or funds media outlets including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America (VOA). The USAGM also oversees Radio Free Asia, which supporters say has been one of the most reliable tools used by the government to combat Chinese propaganda.
But this week, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, temporarily blocked USAGM’s closure by the administration.
“RFE/RL has, for decades, operated as one of the organizations that Congress has statutorily designated to carry out this policy,” Lamberth wrote in a 10-page opinion. “The leadership of USAGM cannot, with one sentence of reasoning offering virtually no explanation, force RFE/RL to shut down — even if the President has told them to do so.”
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The Trump administration rescinded a decades-old policy that instructed officers not to take immigration enforcement actions in or near “sensitive” or “protected” places, such as churches, schools, and hospitals.
That directive was immediately challenged in a case brought by a group of Quakers, Baptists and Sikhs, who argued the policy reversal was keeping people from attending services for fear of being arrested on civil immigration violations. On Feb. 24, a federal judge agreed and blocked ICE agents from entering churches or targeting migrants nearby.
The president’s executive order allegedly addressing antisemitism came with a fact sheet that described college campuses as “infested” with “terrorists” and “jihadists.” Multiple faith groups expressed alarm over the order, saying it attempts to weaponize antisemitism and promote “dehumanizing anti-immigrant policies.”
The president also announced the creation of a “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias,” to be led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Never mind that Christianity is easily the largest faith in America and that Christians are well-represented in Congress.
The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, issued a statement accusing Trump of hypocrisy in claiming to champion religion by creating the task force.
“From allowing immigration raids in churches, to targeting faith-based charities, to suppressing religious diversity, the Trump Administration’s aggressive government overreach is infringing on religious freedom in a way we haven’t seen for generations,” Raushenbush said.
A statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the task force could lead to religious persecution of those with other faiths.
“Rather than protecting religious beliefs, this task force will misuse religious freedom to justify bigotry, discrimination, and the subversion of our civil rights laws,” said Rachel Laser, the group’s president and CEO.
Where is President Trump going with all these blatant attacks on the First Amendment? The president has made no secret of his affection for autocratic leaders and “strongmen” around the world, and he is particularly enamored with Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort twice in the past year.
A March 15 essay in The Atlantic by Hungarian investigative journalist András Pethő recounts how Orbán rose to power by consolidating control over the courts, and by building his own media universe while simultaneously placing a stranglehold on the independent press.
“As I watch from afar what’s happening to the free press in the United States during the first weeks of Trump’s second presidency — the verbal bullying, the legal harassment, the buckling by media owners in the face of threats — it all looks very familiar,” Pethő wrote. “The MAGA authorities have learned Orbán’s lessons well.”
Well unfortunately our best source of infosec information has decided to become political. I never would have thought after 16 years of reading this site, reading your book and meeting you in person multiple times that it would come to this. Enjoyed it along the way but it’s time to go.
You voted Trump, didn’t you. Orange man good.
Lol, found the Trumper. Facts are facts, I’m glad he’s using his platform.
Hi Robert,
I understand you may be new to this, but politics and infosec have been closely related since both were created, even more so in the digital age. As someone who’s been in the industry a long time, I can only hope that you don’t learn this lesson too late. In any case, here’s hoping that one day you have a successful career in the field.
bye
Can’t tell what facts are? Bye
Security and digital privacy have always been and will always be political. Without freedom there is no possibility of security and nothing to secure.
It’s strange seeing people covering their ears and shouting about things “becoming political” and ignoring facts when they clash with their twisted view of the world.
If you see anyone who disagrees with you as “too invested in politics” and/or performing “virtue signaling”… please take the invitation to wonder if you yourself are simply not being political enough and/or lacking in virtues and doing a bit of projection.
Assuming you’re not a billionaire, a religious extremist or a xenophobic nationalist, the people you seem to be aligning yourself with are your enemy and you must not align with them. And if you do happen to be so spiritually, intellectually, philosophically diseased as to espouse those views please seek help to address whichever personal inadequacies you are using that hate to deflect from.
So many bad takes from Bobs. I’ll be sure refund the remainder of your subscription, Bob.
Brian,
Where was all of your political posting during the Biden administration? I don’t recall any to be honest and it’s pretty obvious how bias you are. I didn’t sign up for your site to read about political nonsense, so please go back to writing about infosec before you destroy your credibility.
You absolute fool. Just proving what a desperate situation we are in. And people like you are a huge reason for that.
I dont understand this obvious biased post. I considered Brian a friend and a awesome source of information and yes I know he was a Washington Post reporter, but what happened here? Why did you go off the rails? Why no outrage on Biden, Obama. The assassination attempt on Trump, biased crooked judges? Did someone threaten you are is this a joke?
Tell me, friend, what specifically brings you to the conclusion this post is biased? If you really cared about continuing to be able to enjoy reading sites like this, you might pay a little closer attention to what is actually going on.
Well, there’s a reason for no outrage on Biden, Obama seeing as you would need many outrageous things to write a blog post about? A tan suit and tripping on stairs don’t quite amount to what we are seeing as actual danger to democracy and the constitution. Trump has been floating a third term, increasing the level of talk on attaining Greenland or Canada, pardoning the Jan 6ers. You do know the assassination attempt was by a registered republican and some of those “blocking” judges were appointed by republicans (Bush)?
What a kneejerk reaction, Robert House. This blog entry seems extremely relevant to infosec. It is unfortunate that it involves political power, but that is where we are, and ignoring it would be irresponsible.
Robert, good luck finding sources of good information from the people you support, who are actively lying to you. Wake up.
So, after sixteen years… one post and you’re done? If you don’t agree with the premises laid out, can you refute them or offer counter points? That is the problem we have currently, is if we see that someone has beliefs different than our own, we decide to turn them off instead of thinking critically which mostly involves questioning our own beliefs. It doesn’t mean we are “supporting” the other side, it means we are using facts to enforce our own assumptions or to find flaws in our thinking. We need more of this instead of our current state of political tribalism.
Brian is just pointing out the fascist tools the Trump administration are using and the republican party at large are tacitly allowing. It’s only going to get worse under this administration. Now he said (again) there is a way for him to have a third term. Oh joy, I can hardly wait to see 3rd inauguration of the Orange Buffoon. Given the treatment of our neighbors and allies, along with the handling of sensitive or classified data. We will get dropped as a party to 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes and 14 Eyes. They won’t trust that shared data won’t get just handed off to the highest bidder. Of course Putin get’s first dibs. He has something on the Orange One.
Bryan,
As a child, I loved one of my father’s sayings: “Some people have more money than brains.“
Those who have been reading you for many years, thank you for having the courage and intelligence to speak the truth.
Please remove your political views and editorial comments. I have long admired and depended on Krebs for reliable infosec, but I don’t want your political views no more that you would want mine.
How about I just remove your political views?
“If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.”
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890–1969)
(From a speech delivered at the Fourth Annual Republican Women’s National Conference on 6 March 1956.)
In 1958, President Eisenhower designated May 1 as Law Day to mark the role of the rule of law in the formation of the United States. Its observance was codified by Public Law 87-20 on April 7, 1961. His proclamation read: “In a very real sense, the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive it must choose the rule of law.”
He went on to say, “The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”
Much of what you say is correct. But not UNIQUELY so. And mostly has nothing to do with your core competence (security issues), the reason that most of us subscribe. (An exception is the use of disappearing messages on Signal, perhaps intended to avoid FOIA). I understand that the outrageousness of what you observe compels you to speak out. But, with respect, THIS is not the forum. This site should be unique, not an echo chamber (and I don’t mean that so snarkily) of communications on plenty of other channels.
Hey Bob. I’m sorry to inform you but this is MY forum, so it definitely is the place for it.
You should know your audience. You’ve lost me as a long time reader. I come here for news not politics.
Ohnoes! Another reader is canceling their subscription!
If you are incapable of reason, I never had you. Good luck.
This is his site. You’re welcome to go to Fox News if that makes you feel more comfortable, snowflake.
Thanks for posting this. You’ll probably get a lot of backlash from MAGAs but I appreciate you speaking the truth to your audience.
Thank you Bryan for speaking the truth.
Another Trump hater. You just can’t get away from these people. Bye!
I don’t hate on anyone. But it’s true that I do have a strong dislike for cowards, bullies and tyrants.
Anyway, bye.
Isn’t it nice when the trash takes itself out?
I hate Trump as much as the next person, but seriously I ain’t reading all that
Regardless of your political affiliation, anything or anyone who threatens the Constitution must be a concern to patriotic Americans. If we lose our principles, our republic envisioned by the founding fathers will not last for much longer.
Wow, Brian, you really hit a nerve with a few people. Notice that nobody is actually taken exception with what you have reported. Keep up the good work and keep reporting the truth.
Nope. All of negative comments so far are in line with the Reply Guy comments I see on LinkedIn when I post stories about likely unconstitutional actions by this administration. They can’t argue the facts, so they just attack the messenger.
The article is nothing but facts, why would anyone appeal to the political nature of it?
I’m out. I am not getting into this political BS. And yes, I hope he lays waste to a governement bueracracy that left friends of mine dead in Afghanistan for nothing.
I think you may have common ground with Mr. Kelly; I’m sorry for your loss. https://www.dearkellyfilm.com/
As an IT Professional and business owner, I personally subscribe to this site for Brian’s excellent and consistent investigative journalism.
I am not political and I voted for a presidential candidate in this past election (first time since 2000) and it wasn’t for Trump or Harris. After the election, I was behind Trump for most of the change he ran on. This article opens my eyes to a lot of development that I was unaware of and am shocked by. Thank you Brian for another in-depth article. I don’t take as partisan but from the freedoms you see taken away as a journalist as well as others’, including myself.
Robert has a voice and he voiced it. Too bad the only feedback was negative. Respect, Brian. I would recommend that you don’t leave this site for this one article as there will be plenty more great investigative journalism you have always experienced here.
Sean, I encourage you to join the real world. The fact that you are “just learning about all of this now” is laughable. I really hope you consider your life and your selfishness.
Best,
Andrew
Andrew, don’t be too hard on folks that, for whatever reason, haven’t been following current events closely. SeanS was very forthcoming and should be commended for becoming more aware.
“I am not political” is “I am privileged enough not to need to become political to defend my life.”
Have a good long look at what is happening and then ask yourself if you really believe you won’t be harmed by MAGAts.
I praise you, except you are the wisdom that only a sober man shall drink.
Thank you for the factual information about the alarming attack on the constitution.
Buh-Bye Idiot kraps! Didn’t realize you were such a clueless buttwad! I wish you nothing but failure going forward!
Ace,
Facts do not care about your feelings.
It’s sad and surprising to see the breadth and depth of the attacks against freedom and rule of law. This reads like a report on tactics. Thank you for speaking your opinion against political behavior which harms us all. I personally was looking to ‘see how this administration goes’ and can say that, I suppose my wisdom was lacking, given the speed of these abhorrent assaults on our American way of life.
Bravo. Glad to see more people speaking the truth about what’s going on.
This is vitally important as data security and personal security and freedom go hand in hand. Those who disagree with the conclusions Brian has drawn from the events he referenced should please post their reasoning and support it with references as well. Saying “I don’t like this” or “I’m leaving” is useless. Give us a meaningful argument. Make your case. Appreciate that it’s possible for you to support a given leader while not supporting absolutely everything he or she does, and that when they mistakenly attack something important to you, you should have the courage to speak out about that. Speaking truth to power is what democracy is all about.
The world has relied upon American technology, laws and institutions, and if we poison or weaponize that we’ll never regain that trust. I detest that any of the events Brian lists have happened, and am horrified that they all have.
This is nothing more than an evidence-based, transparent summary of facts. It is not biased, it is not emotionally driven and I have no doubt the author has very little to gain from writing it financially. In fact, I suspect the opposite. As a non American, I am astounded just how many US citizens are not able to put the pieces of this administration’s puzzle of actions together. Anyone who has studied history will know that these divisive and extreme regimes tend to only end one way.
Badly.
The problem with the article is not the reporting of facts, it’s the opinion that any of the facts represent a threat or attack on free speech. That is an opinion not a fact.
lot of material there. thanks for pulling it together and pointing out the mess we are in. EVERYONE with a platform must speak out. thank you Brian
Bravo, Brian. Many times, bravo.
Hey Brian, long time reader. I applaud you for going off the usual topic and speaking out. We’re in a constitutional crisis and people need to abandon their partisanship and wake up. I’m a Kamala voter and if she did any of this I’d be screaming for her impeachment.
The U.S. constitution is something we all should speak up about and fight for. People need to realize that this isn’t a partisan issue, it’s not about the left vs the right. This is about the rule of law and Democracy. This is about the average Joe vs wanna be rulers and dictators. We all should be on the streets protesting. My grandparents didn’t fight / die for this to happen.
Ben… well said. I agree. Normally I don’t like politics being involved in “non-political” arenas such as this, but, anyone outside the “cult bubble” knows this is becoming critical that the word be spoken in any means possible before we are beyond the point of no-return (in our lifetimes).
btw, thank you Brian Krebs. I’ve been following you for many years and value all your work and sacrifices you’ve made for us. Keep up any and all communication you feel is necessary!
Defending and supporting the Constitution of the U.S. isn’t partisan. 5 USC 3331
Defenders aren’t required to resort to any sort of force. The commitment to truth, and tirelessly repeating it is useful, and necessary, if for no other reason than to drown out all the disinformation and lies.
I’m so tired of MAGA people whining when anyone shows actual evidence that democracy is being attacked bit by bit and those MAGA followers still support this man. People should hold any politician and any voter who STILL supports a man that took the oath of office to defend and protect the constitution and within hours of that, started writing executive orders to violate them and the rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens under the constitution. This is unforgivable!
Thank you for writing. This is an excellent example of freedom of speech. It creates the awareness that politics and security are connected.
Sorry to see another great forum fall into politics. I’m deeply disappointed and will be unsubscribing. I truly enjoyed your work. I just don’t wish to hear about politics at all. I do understand that politics and legislation can affect technology/infosec, but I would prefer to see it kept to a minimum and focused on the tech/infosec. It’s been great.
Dear Gary S.
I hope you will one day read this and reply to me.
For context: I grew up a Christian and full time Republican voter. Here’s what I’ve learned: Politics is why we live in a Democracy. Politics is why the world we enjoy today is better than the world we had yesterday. Sometimes in politics, it’s important that we speak up – because politics shapes the world we all live in. When we don’t speak up, it threatens to take us back in time.
It doesn’t matter if the speaker talks about cybersecurity, arts or exercise. It is all of our duties to speak out when necessary. Don’t let your Politics attach you to labels, I as a Democrat am fully prepared to abandon my base if they betray me. The same should go with Republicans or Independents. Our loyalty should go to our beloved ideas, not to the people who profess that they represent them.
Read Brian’s article, whenever you read a name that you like replace their name with one that you dislike. How does it make you feel? Does this make you uncomfortable? Is what Brian is saying true? How do you know?
I wish you the best and hope you’ll reconsider.