President Donald Trump’s latest executive order has ignited a firestorm of outrage from the left. Their fury reveals more about their lack of constitutional understanding than about the order itself.
Signed on August 25, 2025, the directive doesn’t “ban” flag burning as liberal commentators have loudly claimed.
It does something far narrower and, most importantly, entirely constitutional.
The order simply instructs federal prosecutors to pursue cases when flag desecration crosses into conduct that is already unlawful—like arson, property damage, or provoking violence.
The outrage comes from a fundamental misrepresentation. Progressives want Americans to believe Trump outlawed political expression.
That would indeed run afoul of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson and its follow-up, United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, the Court ruled that flag burning, no matter how offensive, is protected speech under the First Amendment.
But Trump’s order deliberately avoids contradicting that precedent. Nowhere does it criminalize the symbolic burning of flags by itself.
WATCH: TEXAS Democrat INDICTED — STOLE Thousands from TAXPAYERS with SIBLINGS
Instead, it targets scenarios where flag desecration coincides with actions the law already forbids.
If someone sets a flag on fire in the middle of a crowded street, creating a fire hazard and risking public safety, they can face prosecution—not for the political message, but for endangering others.
The order is careful to tether enforcement to “content-neutral” principles. Section 2 directs the Justice Department to prosecute acts of flag desecration that violate neutral statutes, such as arson laws, open-burn bans, or public safety regulations.
It also directs federal agencies to coordinate with state and local authorities to ensure existing laws are applied consistently.
For foreign nationals who engage in threatening acts involving flag desecration, the order authorizes visa revocation and immigration consequences—again, not because of their viewpoint, but because of the threatening nature of their conduct.
Liberals argue this opens the door to selective enforcement. That’s a valid legal question and one likely to be tested in court. But what cannot be said honestly is that the order outlaws speech. It does not.
Instead, it leans on the clear distinction the Supreme Court itself has drawn: speech, even flag burning, is protected, but speech that becomes conduct—conduct that poses imminent danger or incites violence—can be prosecuted.
Over the past several years, flag burnings have often occurred not as isolated symbolic protests but alongside riots, vandalism, and threats to public safety.
Demonstrators have set fires in public parks, near government buildings, and in crowded streets.
In many of these cases, local officials hesitated to prosecute, fearing claims of “silencing dissent.” The executive order is a direct response to that hesitation, ensuring that violent or dangerous acts cloaked in political symbolism are still treated as crimes.
What makes this order so infuriating for the left is that it denies them the chance to play victim. They can no longer argue that burning a flag in the middle of a riot is “protected speech” when it so clearly endangers lives or property.
But no matter how much spin is applied, the truth is simple. Trump’s executive order does not criminalize expression—it criminalizes crime. And that is both constitutional and necessary.
The post Trump Ends Flag Burning. Liberals Explode. appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.