Trump’s Push to Criminalize Flag Burning: A Constitutional and Cultural Dilemma
The LA riots have erupted into scenes of chaos—bricks hurled at law enforcement, fires consuming neighborhoods, and widespread anarchy— President Donald Trump seized the moment to renew a provocative proposal: criminalizing the burning of the U.S. flag. Addressing the nation, “The flag is a symbol of our nation’s greatness, and anyone who burns it is spitting on the sacrifices of our veterans.”
This stance aligns with his long-standing "law and order" rhetoric and reflects a desire to protect a cherished national symbol. However, Trump’s plan to outlaw flag burning directly collides with the First Amendment’s protection of free expression, a cornerstone of American democracy. While culturally we champion America’s values, criminalizing this act would be unconstitutional and, ironically, undermine a deeply American tradition—the freedom to dissent, even offensively.
Though it’s notable that Trump’s focus here targets an ostensibly anti-American act rather than solely protecting foreign interests (as seen in his anti-Semitism policies tied to Israel), this proposal still threatens the absolute rights that shield us from government tyranny. The cost of tolerating flag burning pales in comparison to the perils of authoritarianism.
The Constitutional Wall: Free Expression Under the First Amendment
The First Amendment is unambiguous: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This protection extends to symbolic speech—non-verbal acts that convey a message, like burning the U.S. flag in protest. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this right. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention, violating Texas law. The Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down his conviction, with Justice William Brennan asserting that flag burning is expressive conduct shielded by the First Amendment. The government, Brennan wrote, cannot ban an act simply because it offends.
This wasn’t a one-off decision. In United States v. Eichman (1990), the Court invalidated the Flag Protection Act of 1989, a federal law passed to override Johnson. The ruling reaffirmed that flag burning, as a form of dissent, is untouchable under current constitutional interpretation. For Trump’s proposal to take effect, it would require a constitutional amendment—a daunting task needing two-thirds support in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states—or a drastic shift in Supreme Court precedent, which seems unlikely given decades of consistency.
If enacted, such a law would face swift legal challenges and almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional. The First Amendment’s protection of free expression isn’t negotiable, even for a symbol as revered as the flag. Trump’s plan, however heartfelt, stands on shaky legal ground.
Cultural Paradox: Flag Burning as American as Apple Pie
America prides itself on liberty—the freedom to speak, protest, and dissent without fear of punishment. Flag burning, though polarizing, embodies this ethos. From Vietnam War demonstrations to modern rallies against injustice, it’s a raw, visceral way to express outrage or demand change. Far from being un-American, the right to burn the flag reflects the nation’s commitment to individual liberty over state-enforced reverence.
Banning flag burning would invert this cultural value. The flag’s power lies in what it represents—freedom, including the freedom to desecrate it. Justice Brennan captured this in Johnson: “Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered.” To criminalize the act is to elevate a physical object above the principles it symbolizes, a move at odds with America’s identity as a haven for free expression.
Yes, flag burning offends many—veterans, patriots, and everyday citizens who see it as a slap to national pride. But American culture thrives on tolerating the uncomfortable. It’s not violence or theft; it’s speech. Suppressing it would erode a tradition of dissent that’s as American as the flag itself.
Trump’s Vision: Patriotism or Authoritarian Overreach?
Trump’s disdain for flag burning isn’t new. In 2016, he tweeted, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag—if they do, there must be consequences—perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” His recent statements during the LA riots echo this sentiment, framing flag burning as an attack on America’s soul. For supporters, this resonates as a defense of patriotism, especially amid the riots’ chaos, where the flag’s "torment" symbolized broader disorder.
But the implications are chilling. Criminalizing speech—even symbolic speech—grants the government power to dictate acceptable protest. Stripping citizenship or jailing dissenters isn’t democratic; it’s authoritarian. Trump’s rhetoric misreads the Constitution, suggesting punishment for exercising a protected right. During the LA riots, he tied flag burning to the violence, but the two are distinct—burning a flag isn’t a brick thrown at police; it’s an expression, not an assault.
Compare this to his 2019 executive order on anti-Semitism, which expanded Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to address anti-Semitic speech on college campuses. Framed as protecting Jewish students, it was criticized for potentially shielding Israel—a foreign interest—from legitimate critique, raising free speech concerns. Here, Trump’s flag-burning stance is arguably more positive: it focuses on a domestic symbol, not a foreign ally. Yet, both policies flirt with speech restriction, revealing a pattern of favoring control over liberty.
Absolute Rights: A Bulwark Against Tyranny
The First Amendment’s absolutism—no exceptions for offensive or harmful speech—is deliberate. It’s a safeguard against government tyranny, ensuring the state can’t silence dissent or unpopular views. This carries costs: flag burning angers patriots, hate speech stings, and provocative acts like those in the LA riots unsettle communities. But these are trivial compared to the alternative—state exploitation of power.
History proves this. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 imprisoned government critics; McCarthyism ruined lives over suspected communism. Each curbs on speech fueled authoritarian drift. Justice Louis Brandeis, in Whitney v. California (1927), argued, “The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” A burned flag can be replaced; lost freedoms can’t.
Trump’s proposal risks starting down this path. If flag burning is outlawed, what’s next—banning criticism of the president? Suppressing protests? The cost of tolerating flag burning is a small price for preserving democracy.
The LA Riots: Fueling Trump’s Crusade
The LA riots of June 2025—sparked by aggressive immigration raids—set the stage for Trump’s renewed push. As bricks flew at law enforcement, fires raged, and anarchy spread, the image of the flag being "tormented" became a potent symbol for his narrative. In a televised address, he declared, “We cannot allow our great flag to be desecrated by those who seek to destroy our country from within.” It’s a rallying cry that ties flag burning to the riots’ lawlessness, amplifying his "law and order" appeal.
Yet, this framing oversimplifies. Flag burning during the riots, while provocative, isn’t the same as physical violence. It’s a protected act of dissent, not a call to anarchy. By fixating on it, Trump sidesteps the riots’ root causes—anger over immigration policies—and leverages a symbolic issue to energize his base. The real challenge lies in addressing the unrest, not policing a flag.
Liberty Over Symbolism
Trump’s bid to criminalize flag burning, galvanized by the LA riots, stems from a visceral urge to defend America’s honor. But it’s unconstitutional, clashing with the First Amendment’s ironclad protection of free expression. Culturally, it defies America’s tradition of dissent, where even burning the flag affirms our freedoms. It’s a positive shift that this targets an act seen as anti-American rather than prioritizing foreign interests (like his anti-Semitism order), but it still encroaches on sacred rights.
Absolute rights exist to prevent tyranny, not to comfort us. The cost of flag burning—or any offensive speech—is negligible next to the danger of authoritarianism. Trump’s plan, cloaked in patriotism, would weaken what makes America truly great: the liberty to dissent, even when it burns.