April 22, 2026, 9:16 p.m. ET
It is redundant to say that President Donald Trump’s “Truth” Social attacks on Pope Leo are unwarranted and beneath the dignity of the Office of the President, even acknowledging the low bar Trump has established. And of course, Vice President JD Vance’s Pavlovian defense of the comments, and his suggestion that Pope Leo stay in his lane, are equally abhorrent.
But this whole sad spectacle is just the latest in what is now a familiar pattern − a speaker has the temerity to speak out against some policy or action by Trump, and the response is not to defend the policy or the action, but rather to attack the speaker. This is known as an ad hominem argument, and if it were an Olympic event, Trump would be the undisputed gold medal winner, while Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump’s cabinet would be vying for silver and bronze.
But even though I am a cradle Catholic, I am not here to slug it out with Trump and his minions over their assault on the Catholic faith. I write today to highlight how this incident, like so many others, demonstrates that Trump simply does not accept the premise that the First Amendment is a right worth honoring. And this contemptuous attitude is decidedly un-American.
Free speech protects the listener, too
It is important to note that the value of the First Amendment is not merely the protection it provides to speakers. The First Amendment, by extension, protects the right of others to hearwhat the speaker is saying. It protects and encourages discussion − from both sides of an issue. This right, this value, is the bulwark of a democracy.
But don’t take my word for it. In the 1927 Supreme Court case of Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote this:
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
Spoiler alert: I agree with Justice Brandeis. But President Trump demonstrates again and again that he does not agree.
Discussion versus domination
Trump does not engage in discussion with those who disagree with him − he attacks. His response to Pope Leo’s criticism of the Iran war included such nuggets as “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime. . . . [Leo] wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican. Unfortunately, Leo’s Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons, does not sit well with me, nor does the fact that he meets with Obama Sympathizers like David Axelrod, a LOSER from the Left, who is one of those who wanted churchgoers and clerics to be arrested.”
Does any of that diatribe have anything to do with the war? Could any reasonable person characterize it as a “discussion?”
Of course not.
And Trump’s hostility to free speech is not limited to verbal attacks. Forbes recently reported that the Trump administration has abruptly cancelled a six-decade relationship with Catholic Charities in Miami, scuttling an $11 million contract that helps offer shelter to migrant children. The point is that Trump does not embrace the notion that the First Amendment protects public discussion of issues.
A challenge to American ideals
“Discussion” means the consideration of differing views. But Trump has no interest in that definition of discussion. He seeks to shut it down, or worse yet, by bullying and intimidation, to prevent it in the first place.
I cannot believe that James Madison and the other architects of the Bill of Rights envisioned a time when we’d have a president who fundamentally disagrees with the premise underlying the First Amendment.
But here we are.
Jack Greiner is a Cincinnati attorney. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.
