President Donald Trump’s new executive order on flag burning has managed to do something unusual in American politics: draw real fire from both the left and the right.
The order, unveiled Monday, directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute violations of flag desecration laws where applicable, pursue litigation aimed at re-examining the scope of First Amendment protections, and refer local violations to state prosecutors. The timing is no accident. Months of anti-Israel and anti-ICE protests have featured leftist agitators torching American flags in the streets—an image that infuriates patriotic Americans who see the flag as more than fabric, but as a sacred symbol of sacrifice.
Banning flag burning is absurd. It’s anti–free speech and peak snowflake behavior.
I would never burn the American flag because of what it symbolizes to me. But the act of banning the burning of it runs more contrary to American values than the burning itself ever could. pic.twitter.com/V8G4j80JxP
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) August 25, 2025
But here’s where things get complicated: conservatives, normally in lockstep with Trump on law-and-order moves, are split.
Some were blunt in their criticism. Radio host Jesse Kelly said he’d never desecrate the flag himself, but warned that “a president telling me I can’t has me as close as I’ll ever be to lighting one on fire.” Dana Loesch agreed: “Flag burning is vile but the government has no right to control speech or expression.” Even Erick Erickson—hardly a Never-Trumper—reminded his readers that Supreme Court precedent is clear: burning the flag, however offensive, is protected symbolic speech.
I would never in a million years harm the American flag.
But a president telling me I can’t has me as close as I’ll ever be to lighting one on fire.
I am a free American citizen. And if I ever feel like torching one, I will.
This is garbage. https://t.co/hzNdGJLXfm
— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) August 25, 2025
Others echoed a theme: it’s not that they support flag burning—they despise it—but that banning it smacks of big government overreach and creates constitutional headaches that conservatives traditionally try to avoid. As one RedState writer put it, “I’d like to return to a time when presidents didn’t sign unconstitutional executive orders for show.”
But there were defenders, too. Commentators like Kira Davis and Kristen Mag pointed out that the order is full of qualifiers: it doesn’t ban all flag burning, but narrows enforcement to situations where desecration incites violence or is linked to other crimes. Ed Whelan, a legal scholar, went so far as to argue that the EO is less sweeping than critics fear, because it explicitly states action must remain “within the bounds permitted by law.”
Ok let’s clear this up. I was opposed to Trump’s Executive Order at first, but then I read the full text…
It does NOT criminalize burning the American flag. And it does NOT infringe on our freedom of speech.
It criminalizes flag burning *only* when it’s intended to incite… pic.twitter.com/P9WOSLszBv
— Kristen Mag (@kristenmag) August 25, 2025
The White House reinforced that line, with spokesperson Taylor Rogers insisting: “President Trump will not allow the American Flag…to be used as a tool to incite violence and riots… [but] will always protect the First Amendment.”
Still, the elephant in the room is Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court ruling that said flag burning is indeed protected free speech. Trump’s order all but invites new litigation to test the boundaries of that precedent, noting that the Court has never declared flag desecration meant to provoke “imminent lawless action” or “fighting words” as constitutionally protected. That’s the legal crack the administration wants to drive a wedge into.
I’m sorry, but as long as this is the status quo, I’m not going to work myself into a state of hysteria about Trump’s executive order on burning the American flag pic.twitter.com/YCeHkaR2hC
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) August 25, 2025
