A Possible Number One Issue For The 2026 Midterms

Recent events have propelled the long-running controversies regarding the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment to a fever pitch. Naturally, those on the left who just a short time ago were doing their darnedest to cancel or discredit every utterance in the public square that did not align with their agenda, are now outraged that the tables have been turned. This latest round of point-counterpoint may well shape the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. And, if the Republicans are not very careful and concise in their messaging, “free speech” could become a losing issue for them.

As Democrats so often do, they have found a way to demagogue the free speech issue into something that makes Republicans look bad. Let’s take the recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel from his late-night propaganda show disguised as late-night “comedy.” Should Kimmel have been taken off the air for his outrageous claims about Charlie Kirk’s assassin being a “MAGA” supporter? In my opinion, yes, this was long overdue. What Kimmel and his buddy Stephen Colbert have gotten away with over the last few years is nothing short of disgraceful. Their ongoing vicious campaign to bring Trump down by any means necessary was unacceptable and almost makes the mothballed Fairness Doctrine look attractive again. The question that looms with Kimmel’s suspension and the firings of others for celebrating Kirk’s murder is, how do we as a society support someone’s First Amendment rights but, on the other hand, make them face the consequences of the damage their words caused? And how do we educate the voting public on being able to discern the difference between outlawing free speech and simply holding people accountable for what they say?

Another looming question is this. Who gets to decide when someone in the public eye has gone too far in peddling false and inflammatory information? In Kimmel’s case, it could be argued that from either decision point (private or federal), the action to get him off the air was the right one. However, FCC Chair Brendan Carr made statements implying that if the private sector, including local broadcast stations, hadn’t made the right decision, he may have stepped in to make it for them. This is what the Democrats hope to make next year’s election about – the heavy hand of Trump’s government, in their view, cancelling an entertainer’s show simply because they (the government) didn’t like what the entertainer was saying. Of course, the truth of the matter is more nuanced than that. The simple facts of bleeding money and falling ratings were sufficient indicators that Kimmel’s show could justifiably have been taken off the air several years ago, factoring in his boorish conduct only as the primary cause of the show’s imminent collapse. Arguably, the private companies that carry Kimmel’s show in numerous outlets were responding as much or more to local affiliates’ pressure than that from either Trump or the FCC chair.

President Trump is in the middle of another long-running First Amendment controversy involving the right to burn the American flag. The president wishes to enshrine into law an automatic jail sentence for those who burn the U.S. flag as a sign of protest or contempt. Given the current polarized state of affairs in our country, a consequences argument can certainly be made for such a law. That is, if flag burning is against the law, maybe that will deter at least some of it. And, let’s face it, for those who see the flag as the ultimate symbol of our great country and what it stands for, desecrating the flag in public with impunity does not sit well, and may turn the temperature up (both literally and figuratively) in a protest/counterprotest situation. So, is Trump correct in his thinking that protection of our flag overrides normal First Amendment free speech rights? As freedom-loving conservatives, we may struggle with what the right answers are in this case. If we make a free speech exception for illegal flag-burning, what may be next? And how might the next Democratic administration get new laws enacted that prohibit conservatives from exercising their First Amendment rights, citing the precedent of a flag-burning prohibition? Indeed, we’ve already seen some of this heavy-handedness in the restrictions placed on protests at abortion clinics, supposedly imposed to ensure the safety of the women visiting the clinics. The point being, either side can justify free speech restrictions by citing the risks they believe increase in the absence of such restrictions. 

Now, back to the “careful and concise” I mentioned earlier about how Republicans need to handle First Amendment arguments in the days and weeks ahead. Attorney General Bondi gave us a good example of what not to do with her remarks about going after those who engage in “hate speech,” which she had to try walking back later. However, she unwittingly gave the Dems a great video clip for their midterm campaign in their quest to accuse Republicans of taking away free speech rights. In the wake of all the fallout from the Charlie Kirk assassination, freedom of speech will undoubtedly be a key issue, if not the number one issue, in next year’s campaign. Thus, it’s up to Republican candidates to do their homework and speak responsibly and clearly on this issue, emphasizing the rights as well as the consequences.