ACLU Releases Legal, Legislative, and Advocacy Roadmap to Fight Executive Power Abuses in a Second Trump Administration
As part of the ACLU’s 2024 election policy memo series, this roadmap dives into the surveillance, protest, and free speech abuses the U.S. could face if Trump wins and implements Project 2025 policies
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union released the Trump on Surveillance, Protest, and Free Speech memo today as part of the organization’s 2024 election policy memo series. Written by ACLU’s experts on the First Amendment, surveillance, and privacy, this memo offers a roadmap to fight back against the broad range of abuses of executive power posed by a possible second administration of former president Donald Trump.
In an unprecedented threat to the foundations of our democracy, Trump and his supporters promise to criminalize dissent and stifle free speech, expand government surveillance, and target political opponents. The Trump on Surveillance, Protest, and Free Speech memo analyzes the threat posed by a second Trump administration and outlines how the ACLU and its nationwide network of attorneys and advocates will respond in the courts, Congress, and communities across the country.
“The ACLU has always worked to stop the executive branch from abusing its power at the expense of individual freedom and vulnerable communities. The Trump presidency, with its false declarations of national emergencies in service of discrimination and total disregard for the rule of law, demonstrated what we’ve always known – that relying on unwritten norms for presidential behavior is grossly insufficient. Trump is now threatening to be even less constrained if given a second chance,” said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “If there is a second Trump administration, we are prepared to defend people it attacks, including protestors, dissenters, and journalists.”
Based on Trump’s own campaign promises, his track record, and the detailed policy proposals of Project 2025, a second Trump administration would double down on these attacks on democracy, including by:
- Leveraging federal law enforcement for attacks on journalists and protestors to violate our First Amendment right to protest, including deployment of the military to “inner cities” to quell protests if he should win re-election.
- Exploiting the executive branch’s vast and unprecedented powers to spy on Americans’ lives with Big Brother surveillance of our data, using surveillance authorities like Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12333, which could result in mass collection of private, sensitive data about Americans, in addition to purchasing massive quantities of data from commercial brokers.
- Targeting political opponents with investigations and prosecutions by ordering the Department of Justice and other governmental agencies to indict political opponents, engaging in retaliatory and discriminatory investigations, replacing civil servants and traditionally apolitical appointees with individuals willing to do his bidding, and demanding pledges of loyalty from civil service employees.
The roadmap released today outlines the ACLU’s plan to protect our First and Fourth Amendment rights, including through:
- Litigation: The ACLU will defend protestors, journalists, and others who are subjected to abusive criminal prosecutions or other wrongful law enforcement and intelligence agency actions.
- Mobilizing Public Support on Federal Policy: The ACLU will push Congress to proactively limit potential abuses of executive power by narrowing the scope of the president’s power to order the military to quell lawful protest, limiting surveillance powers of the federal government, and strengthening oversight and firewalls against politically-motivated investigations and prosecutions.
- State and Local Advocacy: The ACLU will work with its network of affiliates across the country to pass strong data protection and shield laws, which will limit the reach of the federal government in their jurisdictions and safeguard the privacy of protesters, journalists, and others who may find themselves in the crosshairs of a vindictive presidential administration.
“Donald Trump has made no secret of his disregard for the rule of law and his intent to corrupt the immense powers of the federal government to target his opponents and break the institutions that could pose checks and balances to presidential power. In a second term, unleashed and feeling invulnerable from legal and political repercussions, he would pose an unprecedented challenge to our constitutional values. But the ACLU is ready,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs. “If Trump is elected and comes for our First Amendment rights, we’ll stand with the people of this country to defend our freedom.”
Trump on Surveillance, Protest, and Free Speech marks the sixth in a series of seven memos the ACLU is releasing leading up to the Republican National Convention next week. Other memos address immigration, LGBTQ rights, abortion, the criminal legal system, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), and voting rights. Following its focus on policies of a potential second Trump administration, in the run-up to the Democratic National Convention next month, the ACLU will release another series of memos on what a second Biden presidency would mean for our civil rights and civil liberties.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions.