Root out regulations and practices that infringe on our First Amendment rights.

Donald Trump promises to cut bureaucratic waste through the Department of Government Efficiency. He should apply the same approach to free speech. A task force, which he could name the Federal Initiative to Reduce Speech Threats, or First, could identify federal regulations and guidelines that harm speech or new rules that could protect it.

• New rules for bureaucrats. Federal law grants broad powers to executive-branch department leaders to regulate employees’ conduct. The Murthy v. Missouri case helped expose how federal employees facilitated censorship by social-media platforms. Mr. Trump’s cabinet could write rules prohibiting such actions, enforceable by termination if necessary.

Regulations could also force disclosure of most government contacts with social-media organizations asking to take down third-party posts. After uprooting any remaining Biden “anti-disinformation” efforts, future ones could be barred by regulation.

• Clarify the Johnson Amendment. This law prohibits “the publishing” of statements by charities, foundations, and religious groups “on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate.” Everyone understands this bars such groups from endorsing or urging a vote against a candidate. But many fear the Internal Revenue Service would view harsh criticism of a candidate’s policy proposals as a violation. The amendment thus gives IRS bureaucrats a weapon to target disfavored speech and has a chilling effect. We need clear regulations interpreting the vague law in a way that respects Supreme Court precedents on speech. The IRS guidance is murky, making the law unconstitutionally vague.

• Repeal Securities and Exchange Commission limits on political donations. The SEC imposes strict contribution limits on investment advisers—$350 for candidates for whom they can vote and $150 for other candidates. These rules, which have no clear basis in statute, need elimination or a total overhaul.

These impediments to free speech—and many others a task force would unearth—demand reform. Crucially, none of these changes would require congressional approval.

The Supreme Court declared that “where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.” Federal agencies too often serve as censors, and First could prevent them from censoring again.

Abolishing or reforming speech-restricting regulations would expand Americans’ freedom to speak without fear of bureaucratic retaliation. That’s the type of shake-up Americans wanted when they voted for Mr. Trump.

Through the creation of DOGE, President-elect Trump has shown that he understands the need to reduce governmental waste and inefficiency. Creating a free-speech task force would demonstrate a commitment to protecting our most fundamental constitutional right and would create an enduring legacy for his second term.

To see this article in its entirety and to subscribe to others like it, please choose to read more.

Source: Trump Needs a DOGE for Free Speech – WSJ