WASHINGTON (BN24) — President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order directing federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals who burn American flags during protests, reigniting a decades-long constitutional debate over freedom of expression.
The order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review incidents of flag burning and determine whether individuals can be prosecuted under existing statutes, such as disturbing the peace or environmental violations. By doing so, Trump is attempting to circumvent the landmark 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, where the court ruled 5-4 that flag burning constitutes protected political expression under the First Amendment. That decision struck down laws banning flag desecration in 48 states.
“All over the country they’re burning flags,” Trump said from the Oval Office as he signed the order. “All over the world they burn the American flag, and as you know, through a very sad court — I guess it was a 5-4 decision — they called it freedom of speech.”
Although Trump asserted during the signing that flag burning should be punished with a one-year jail term, the order itself does not specify criminal penalties. Instead, it emphasizes exploring possible legal avenues for prosecution.
Trump has repeatedly pushed to criminalize flag desecration. In 2016, he posted on social media that “nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag — if they do, there must be consequences — perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail.”
Public opinion on the issue has shifted over time. A 2020 YouGov poll showed nearly half of Americans supported making flag destruction illegal, while one-third believed it should remain protected speech. A follow-up survey in September 2023 found 59% of Americans now consider burning the U.S. flag during protests to be “always unacceptable.”
The executive order is expected to face swift legal challenges, with constitutional scholars noting that any attempt to criminalize flag burning would likely collide with the Supreme Court’s standing precedent.
