Trump Administration and Freedom of Speech - Response Received
Contact Information
Date Contacted: January 14, 2026 Method: Email Topic: Trump Administration and Freedom of Speech Response Status: Response received
Constituent’s Letter
A constituent contacted Rep. Langworthy to express concerns about the Trump Administration and freedom of speech.
Response from Rep. Langworthy’s Office
Rep. Langworthy defended the Trump Administration’s actions regarding press access while pivoting to criticize the Biden Administration.
Key Points from Response:
- Defended limiting AP access - Stated that actions limiting Associated Press from Oval Office events, Air Force One, and small press pools “are not unconstitutional”
- Blamed Biden Administration - Claimed Biden “pressured social media companies to remove content they disagreed with”
- Claimed Trump expanded access - Stated Trump Administration “expanded access to the White House Briefing Room for independent journalists, new media platforms, and politically focused podcasts”
- Cited previous legislation - Referenced support for H.R. 140 (Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act) which passed the House last Congress but was not brought to a Senate vote; has not been reintroduced in current Congress
What the Response Did NOT Address:
- Specific concerns the constituent raised about the Trump Administration
- Why the AP restrictions are appropriate
- Whether limiting mainstream press access while expanding access to “politically focused podcasts” serves the public interest
Analysis
This is a form letter that defends administration actions rather than engaging with the constituent’s concerns. The response:
- Dismisses concerns - Rather than acknowledging legitimate free speech concerns, the response defends the administration’s actions
- Whataboutism - Pivots to criticizing the Biden Administration
- Selective framing - Frames limiting traditional press access as acceptable while claiming expansion of access to “new media platforms”
- Cites irrelevant legislation - H.R. 140 addressed government pressure on social media companies, not physical press pool access - a completely different issue
The pivot is instructive: The constituent raised concerns about press restrictions. Langworthy’s response defends those restrictions as “not unconstitutional” and pivots to attacking Biden-era social media policies and citing legislation that addressed an unrelated topic.
Notable: The constituent expressed concerns about the Trump Administration and freedom of speech, but the response reads as a defense of administration policies rather than an acknowledgment of free speech principles that might apply equally to all administrations.
Related Fact-Check: Free Speech: Defending AP Restrictions by Citing Unrelated Previous Legislation
Notes
- Personal information has been redacted to protect constituent privacy
- This submission documents the constituent experience contacting Rep. Langworthy’s office
- All information is based on constituent-provided documentation