Federal agents recently visited two individuals in New York to issue warnings over harsh criticisms of government officials, raising alarms among civil liberties advocates about free speech protections.
In Rochester, two federal officers went to the home of David Streever last week regarding an email he sent to then-ICE interim director Todd Lyons.
The message compared Lyons to a Nazi official and criticized him over protesters killed by federal agents in Minnesota.
The email contained no direct threats of violence.
Separately, in Syracuse, ICE officials issued a formal warning letter to Paigelynne Gonyea over an Instagram post about a fatal shooting involving an agent.
The post shared a name previously published by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and called for an indictment without issuing threats.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) challenged the actions, arguing they constitute unlawful intimidation.
"Free speech is the bedrock of a free society, and the First Amendment squarely prohibits ICE agents from intimidating Americans for nothing more than repeating information from a newspaper report," said Adam Steinbaugh, FIRE senior attorney.
Legal experts noted the actions contrast with administration promises to protect citizens from government-facilitated censorship.
Jacob Mchangama, executive director of Vanderbilt University's Future of Free Speech think tank, pointed out in a November 2025 column that President Emmanuel Macron has initiated legal proceedings against people mocking him as a Hitler-like figure.
"Trump is not improvising a uniquely American abuse of power; he is copying elements of the European playbook," Mchangama said.
Critics also highlighted President Donald Trump's past statements about major television networks.
Last year, Trump complained about ABC and NBC, calling them "FAKE NEWS" and suggesting their licenses should be revoked by the FCC.
Following those statements, the FCC initiated a review of ABC's station licenses, drawing criticism from legal scholars.
George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin commented last year, "Recent presidents have not used the FCC as abusively as FDR, JFK, and LBJ did.
But the danger remained, and Trump is now exploiting it." Somin added, "The FCC should be abolished."
Legal analysts emphasize that constitutional frameworks remain the primary defense against administrative policies aimed at restricting public speech.
As Mchangama points out, "the First Amendment continues to function as a critical obstacle to Trump's ability to fully implement his most censorious policies."
