Trump signs order aiming for one-year jail terms for flag burning

[Peacetrain]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-signs-order-aiming-one-153218417.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

""If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, "

Geez he is signing pieces of paper again, thinking he is making laws.. Uhh , no one is going to jail for burning a flag.. Honest to God you just cannot make this stuff up..

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. MaddowBlog-The problem(s) with Trump's radical new executive order on flag burning

In this country, a presidential executive order cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. On flag burning, Trump doesn't appear to care.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problems-trumps-radical-new-executive-order-flag-burning-rcna227025

A few weeks after winning the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump said he was prepared to take American citizenship away from those who burn the American flag, insisting there had to be meaningful “consequences” for such protests, even if the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that this is protected speech under the First Amendment.....

In his second term, however, he has apparently decided to take action — or something resembling action. NBC News reported:

Trump signed [an] executive order on Monday aimed at prosecuting people who ‘desecrate’ the American flag, a third fact sheet said. That order, first reported by Fox News, directs Bondi to ‘vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the flag, and to pursue litigation to clarify the scope of First Amendment in this area.’

“What the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail — no early exits, no nothing,” the president said, adding: “You will see flag burning stop immediately.”

Trump signs an executive order: "If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-08-25T15:11:52.954Z

......In this country, whether Trump likes it or not, a presidential executive order cannot override a Supreme Court ruling. In this country, whether Trump likes it or not, a president cannot create new criminal statutes — measures that would literally imprison Americans — without Congress.

As The New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie wrote in response to the Republican’s new order, “He literally thinks he is a king. ... This entire media blitz for when he signs executive orders is meant to create the impression that they are royal decrees.”

To the extent that the administration tries to implement this policy, litigation would be inevitable. Whether Trump assumes that the far-right high court would rule differently on the underlying issue than it did 35 years ago is unclear. Watch this space.

[Peacetrain]

2. It is embarrassing how clueless he is..

[Girard442]

3. Um.... what is, or isn't a flag?

If I burn an envelope with a flag stamp, do I go to jail? If I burn a magazine with a picture of a flag in it....

[Ocelot II]

4. We can't burn the flag, but Trump wipes his ass with it every day.

[Norbert]

5. I'd give him a year in jail for burning the US Constitution.

[Justice Brandeis]

6. Not one single person will be put in jail for one minute

nt

[Ocelot II]

16. True; but they will be subjected to an initial arrest and threat of prosecution,

and all the expense and inconvenience that goes with it, even though the prosecutors know very well that burning a flag is protected symbolic speech. The EO is unconstitutional but until a defendant is arrested and challenges their prosecution and a court agrees, it will have a chilling effect on that form of free expression.

[Buckeyeblue]

7. Don't executive orders only apply to federally controlled territory?

They don't apply to states. Otherwise, Biden would have signed an executive order to override all the states the criminalized abortion. Those executive orders aren't decrees from a king...

[Ocelot II]

14. Not quite; they apply to the actions of federal *agencies.*

They are binding only on the executive branch and its agencies. An EO can direct a federal agency as to how it should implement the statutes and regulations that control the agency, but it can't override acts of Congress or Supreme Court decisions. Many of Trump's EOs do exceed his Constitutional authority, and this is likely one of them. It purports to direct the DoJ to prosecute flag-burners, but in 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that flag-burning is expressive speech protected by the First Amendment.

[Ms. Toad]

18. Whoever wrote it was smatter than that.

All it does is direct the DOJ to prosecute individuals who are breaking the law in a way that includes burning a flag (e.g. violating open burn laws, or shoving a burning flag in someone's face, etc.). It doesn't even pretend to ask the DOJ to prosecute flag burning as political speech.

This was pure political theater.

[Ocelot II]

21. Of course. But what it means *in practice* is pretextual arrests

for violating misdemeanor ordinances relating to burning trash or other minor offenses when the real motivation is, of course, the suppression of the flag-burner's free expression rights. The flag-burner will be hauled into court while someone burning leaves in their back yard would probably just get a ticket. If you want to burn a flag it would probably be a good idea to do it in a public picnic area where fires are permitted and use the provided fire pit, in full compliance with all open burning ordinances. Then if you get arrested anyhow you'll know for sure why.

[Ms. Toad]

23. Good practical advice.

If you are going to protest in a way that is likely to spark official resistance - make sure you do it in a way that is absolutely legal.

And if you choose not to - create a lot of documentation for a case of selective (i.e. targeted at first amendment suppression) enforcement.

[Buckeyeblue]

24. I would say flag burning is not an effective way to protest

It only feeds the MAGA narrative. I think boycotting continues to be the best way to protest.

[Ocelot II]

25. I agree; I've always thought it was kind of dumb. There are more effective methods, IMO.

But it's protected dumb speech.

[Ms. Toad]

26. It isn't a way I would choose to protest.

I've never (at least since I was pre-teens) said the pledge of allegiance. Pledging my allegiance to a piece of cloth just doesn't speak to me. My allegiance is to God and to all of humankind way before it is to a piece of cloth that represents dogmatic nationalism.

I also don't think it is effective - protests which are effective don't file people up without making them think. Flag burning almost exclusively riles people up for no reason other than they have internalized that the flag is sacred. If they aren't thinking, they aren't likely to change their ways.

I'm not convinced that boycotting is the most effective way either (although I am currently boycotting Target). It runs the risk of harming people who are caught in the low-skilled/take whatever job you can get cycle. What was effective during the vietnam era were large multi-generational protests. What was effective in the civil rights era were "likeable" people who put their names and lives on the line. I don't know yet what will be effective here - but chance that it is flag burning are slim to none.

[brush]

8. Guess he and his clown car cabinet never heard of the First Amendment/Freedom of Speech...

which this ridiculous EO is in direct violation of.

[2MuchNoise]

9. How many years will he get for crapping on our country?

[D_Master81]

10. Unfortunately not a day

[2MuchNoise]

11. You're right, of course.

[JI7]

12. The PEDO Rapist scumbag wants to distract

[Irish_Dem]

13. What if we burn Trump flags?

[rsdsharp]

15. Damn, the VFW is goin' to the slammer!

[Ms. Toad]

17. Not only can he not make laws - the paper he signed said zero about making flag burning a crime

or imposing a prison sentence (not even a generic one - let alone one year). He's not even asking Congress to pass a law.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. Deadline: Legal Blog--Trump wants to prosecute flag burners. The Supreme Court has already said that's illegal

The president said it was a “very sad court” that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-flag-burning-prosecute-executive-order-supreme-court-rcna227012

During the Oval Office ceremony, the president lamented that a “very sad court” — “I guess it was a 5-4 decision,” he said — “they called it freedom of speech.”

He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the “Republican War Chest Tour” against the Reagan administration and “certain Dallas-based corporations.” The majority said Johnson was convicted for “expressive conduct” and that he “did not threaten to disturb the peace.” It said the state’s interest in “preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity” couldn’t justify his prosecution......

With that background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the new executive order.

While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trump’s power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways “consistent with the First Amendment” and “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.”

In other words: Do everything you can, except where you can’t. It’s unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.

So, the order’s legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on people’s conduct — something that can’t be ignored these days.

By its own terms, trump's latest executive order is subject to the First Amendment. This is simply a stunt by trump that has no real legal effect.

[redwitch]

20. Is there an epidemic of flag burning of which I am unaware?

I’m pretty sure Jeb Bartlett said that.

[Vinca]

22. How much do you get for autographing one?

https://meidasnews.com/news/viral-video-trump-violated-flag-code-signed-american-flag-on-9-11

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. Deadline: Legal Blog--Trump wants to prosecute flag burners. The Supreme Court has already said that's illegal

The president said it was a “very sad court” that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-flag-burning-prosecute-executive-order-supreme-court-rcna227012

During the Oval Office ceremony, the president lamented that a “very sad court” — “I guess it was a 5-4 decision,” he said — “they called it freedom of speech.”

He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the “Republican War Chest Tour” against the Reagan administration and “certain Dallas-based corporations.” The majority said Johnson was convicted for “expressive conduct” and that he “did not threaten to disturb the peace.” It said the state’s interest in “preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity” couldn’t justify his prosecution......

With that background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the new executive order.

While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trump’s power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways “consistent with the First Amendment” and “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.”

In other words: Do everything you can, except where you can’t. It’s unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.

So, the order’s legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on people’s conduct — something that can’t be ignored these days.

By its own terms, trump's latest executive order is subject to the First Amendment. This is simply a stunt by trump that has no real legal effect.