American Freedom Stories Fade but Free Speech Debate Continues Unabated

Free Speech Narratives Gain Strength Amid Transatlantic Comparisons

The free speech debate in America – with both narratives and counternarratives promoted in equal measure – remains in full swing after 11 months of the Trump presidency. Perscient's semantic signature tracking the density of language asserting that free speech in America is absolute and inviolable remained 92 points above its long-term average in November, while the signature monitoring the density of arguments that free speech has its limits stood at 88 points above average. Both measures, though slightly lower than October's readings, continue to register elevated levels, reflecting sustained media attention to competing visions of speech protections.

The persistence of these parallel narratives became visible in November's heated exchange between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan, which drew millions of views across social platforms. The debate crystallized transatlantic tensions over speech boundaries, with Carlson arguing that in America, controversial words remain protected, while in Britain they risk investigation. Morgan's visible reluctance to repeat certain terms on air became, for critics, evidence of how British speech restrictions have created practical self-censorship among public figures.

These discussions unfolded against mounting American concerns about foreign regulatory models. The UK's Online Safety Act drew particular scrutiny from U.S. officials and advocacy groups. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr warned of a "real global effort to shut down free speech on social media" and expressed concern about British approaches to online content. Critics characterized the Act as a blueprint for government censorship that American policymakers must actively reject, with some observers noting that UK regulators have fined platforms for hosting content that would be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

At the Global Free Speech Summit, lawyers and scholars largely agreed that government has assumed an expanded role in attempting to curtail certain speech. This assessment aligned with polling data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression showing record numbers of Americans now believe freedom of speech in the country is headed in the wrong direction. The simultaneous strength of both absolutist and restrictive speech narratives suggests not resolution but deepening polarization about where constitutional boundaries should lie. While assessments indicated the United States' overall information environment remained vibrant and diverse, select aspects of internet freedom declined during the period as federal authorities exerted pressure on online platforms.

Emergency Powers and Due Process Language Shifts Downward

The competing visions of speech protections extended into questions about constitutional safeguards more broadly. The signature tracking the density of language asserting that everyone in America has a right to due process declined to 65 points above average in November, down from 73 points the previous month after a peak period that emerged in response to concerns about the nature of ICE detentions of suspects illegal migrants.

More striking, perhaps, was the 29-point drop in language arguing that universal due process isn't realistic in an emergency, which functionally fell off the narrative radar after having been raised as a counternarrative in response to constitutional protests against certain migrant detention techniques and extrajudicial executions of suspected ‘narcoterrorists’ in the Caribbean.

The evolution in both narratives took place as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, examining whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the President to impose tariffs based on national security threats. President Trump had unilaterally imposed tariffs on China through executive order in February 2025, raising fundamental questions about the scope of emergency presidential authority. During November 5 arguments, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared skeptical of the administration's position, with conservative and liberal members alike sharply questioning the government's lawyer.

The core legal issue proved deceptively simple: can the word "emergency" be stretched to cover anything a president wishes to address without congressional approval? Legal experts warned that if the Court blesses presidential use of emergency powers to evade Congress, the consequences would be profound. Justice Gorsuch characterized the arrangement as a "one-way ratchet" of power toward the presidency, noting that Congress as a practical matter cannot reclaim authority once it has been delegated. The Court had previously ruled that President Biden overstepped his powers in addressing emergencies, holding that a national vaccine mandate was illegal and that an eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness exceeded emergency authority.

Congressional responses to executive overreach remain constrained by structural factors. Under current law, Congress must muster a veto-proof two-thirds supermajority to terminate any emergency that the president wants to continue. Legislators are considering reforms through the ARTICLE ONE Act, which would introduce what supporters call sensible modifications to the National Emergencies Act. The declining density of language justifying emergency exceptions to due process, even as due process language itself remains elevated, points to reduced media narrative promotion activity relating to crisis-based arguments for curtailing constitutional protections.

Economic Critique Narratives Rise While American Exceptionalism Weakens

The questions about constitutional protections and executive power coincided with broader shifts in how media discourse framed American institutions and the state of freedom and rights more broadly. Language criticizing American capitalism as rigged rose 22 points in November, marking the second-largest monthly movement across all signatures. At the same time, assertions that America is the most free country in the world fell to 14 points below average, declining 17 points from October. Language arguing that many other countries have more freedom than the US rose to 3 points above average.

These movements accompanied new research on American inequality. An Oxfam report published November 3 found that the wealthiest 0.1 percent in the US own 12.6 percent of assets, and that between 1989 and 2022, a US household at the 99th percentile gained 101 times more wealth than the median household. Over 40 percent of the US population, including nearly half of children, are considered poor or low income according to the analysis.

Inequality has expanded dramatically since the 1970s, with the ratio of CEO pay to average pay in large US companies now approaching 300:1. Analysts noted that inequality within countries has increased most acutely in the United States, where the middle class has declined from 61 percent of American households to 52 percent over the past half-century. At a time of growing public discontent about rising inequality, the gaps opening between different economic tiers are even wider for wealth than for income.

The convergence of these narratives extended to shifting conceptions of patriotism and government loyalty. Language stating that standing up to oppressive government is what makes us Americans declined to 62 points above average, down 9 points from October. Meanwhile, language arguing that patriotic Americans should be loyal to their government in times of danger rose 11 points to 34 points below average. When No Kings protests took place across the nation, Trump administration officials characterized them as "hate America" rallies, though participants described themselves as patriots exercising their constitutional right to dissent. The simultaneous rise in economic critique language, decline in American exceptionalism narratives, and shifting patriotism framings suggests media discourse increasingly questions traditional narratives about American superiority, reflecting multiple storylines converging around themes of inequality, concentrated power, and the relationship between citizens and government institutions.

In short, stories of America’s commitment to freedom and equal rights faded almost across the board in November, with one key exception: absolute free speech remains a territory whose advocates and critics seem unwilling to give much ground either way.

Archived Pulse

October 2025

• Due Process Concerns Reach Historic Prominence Amid Immigration Enforcement Debates
• Competing Visions of Patriotism and Government Loyalty
• Economic Freedom Narratives Show Divergent Trends

Pulse is your AI analyst built on Perscient technology, summarizing the major changes and evolving narratives across our Storyboard signatures, and synthesizing that analysis with illustrative news articles and high-impact social media posts.