By Jeff Mason and Trevor Hunnicutt
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The White House crackdown on political rhetoric in the aftermath of activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination has exposed a rift among conservatives, with some applauding curbs on what they see as hate speech and others warning the administration has gone too far.
In the days since Kirk was shot at a college campus in Utah while engaging in civil discourse, President Donald Trump and top officials throughout his government have issued public threats and put left-leaning groups on notice for language they find unacceptable following the 31-year-old’s death.
Attorney General Pam Bondi promised to prosecute purveyors of hate speech, and Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened repercussions against broadcasters after a television host made remarks he did not like.
Vice President JD Vance said those who celebrated Kirk’s killing should lose their jobs, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued penalties for foreign nationals and U.S. troops who did the same.
Sound like cancel culture? Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking to shut down public figures or entities to whom they object, say this is different. They are seeking to brand their actions instead as a culture of consequences.
“They’re not losing their jobs to cancel culture, they’re losing them to Consequence Culture,” the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., wrote on X.
Many top conservatives, however, object to the administration’s moves.
Republicans ranging from former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove to U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson have raised concerns about using Kirk’s death to go after political rivals or to curb freedom of expression, worrying about a dangerous precedent that could backfire against Republicans when Democrats are in power.
“If the government gets in the business of saying: ‘We don’t like what you the media have said. We’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives,” Cruz said on his Friday podcast.
He called Carr’s threats to fine broadcasters or pull their licenses over the contents of their shows “dangerous as hell.”
Trump, who largely has stood by Bondi and Carr, declined to delineate the difference between cancel culture and consequence culture on Friday, dismissing a question about the subject as a trick.
“I’m a very strong person for free speech,” he told reporters in the Oval Office, before complaining that his media coverage was persistently unfair.
White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich said Trump’s team, which is preparing an executive order on political violence in the wake of Kirk’s death, supported free speech unequivocally.
“People are free to exercise it. However, sometimes if you don’t have anything nice to say, then it’s best to not say anything at all. There are some people who would benefit from internalizing that adage,” he said in a text message.
WORRIES THAT FREE SPEECH UNDER ATTACK
First Amendment experts, who said the Constitution guarantees the ability of people to say hateful things, expressed worry that free speech rights are in jeopardy.
“Free speech is obviously under attack,” said Kevin Goldberg, vice president of Freedom Forum, an organization that seeks to promote and educate people about the First Amendment. “The threatening statements made by current FCC Chairman Brendan Carr are evidence of a threat to the First Amendment.”
Carr took issue last week with comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on his eponymous late-night show on the ABC television network, where he accused Kirk supporters of trying to score political points over the activist’s death. The FCC chair threatened “remedies” and ABC pulled the program off the air, sparking protests and widespread criticism across the political spectrum.
“After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” former President Barack Obama wrote on X.
Republicans said Democrats have also targeted political discourse and a free press.
Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton pointed to what many conservatives said were efforts by President Joe Biden’s administration to silence their views about COVID-19 on social media platforms, in a case that went to the Supreme Court. It was an example, he said, of Democrats doing what they are now criticizing Republicans for.
“I just think it’s a bit hypocritical,” he said.
Reuters/Ipsos polling suggests that Democrats feel increasingly wary about the words they choose in political conversations.
Some 41% of Democrats surveyed in August said they felt less free to speak their minds about politics, compared with 30% in August 2017, roughly the same point in the first Trump administration, the polling shows.
Fewer Republicans – 17% – felt like they needed to restrain themselves when talking politics, compared with 30% eight years earlier.
But some Republicans disagree with actions taken by the administration following Kirk’s death, particularly Bondi’s comments about hate speech and the suggestion that her department would go after Home Depot for not printing posters with Kirk’s visage.
“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane,” right-wing podcaster Matt Walsh wrote on X about the attorney general. “Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Though Bondi backtracked partially, criticism came from high-profile quarters.
Carlson, a Trump confidant, warned against using Kirk’s death to justify curtailing what his supporters might consider hate speech.
“You hope that a year from now the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country,” Carlson said. “And trust me, if it is, if that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience.”
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Trevor Hunnicutt; Additional reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Edmund Klamann)
Comments