And when politicians attempt to overly script the narrative (whether about slavery or current events), teachers and students often see through it, potentially engendering more skepticism of the “approved” versions.
Nonetheless, it is small comfort to those living in communities now bereft of diverse library selections or under constant fear of reprisal for speaking freely. The story of these years is not a proud one for a nation that champions free speech. A senior Washington Post editor, Ruth Marcus, in early 2025 resigned after four decades, citing the challenges of the new environment; she lamented that “the job of getting the story out has grown increasingly difficult” amid the antagonism and restrictions cpj.org cpj.org .
The final chapters of this saga are yet to be written. Much hinges on upcoming court decisions (the Supreme Court’s rulings on social media laws and related First Amendment battles) and on electoral outcomes. If Trump or a like-minded figure returns to the White House, they have telegraphed even more drastic steps – stripping funding from VOA and international broadcasters entirely, making it explicitly a propaganda arm, and possibly prosecuting media organizations on dubious grounds firstamendment.mtsu.edu firstamendment.mtsu.edu . Already, during the hypothetical “Project 2025” scenario played out by some analysts, Trump’s fictitious second-term Attorney General rescinded DOJ policies protecting journalists from having their records seized, stating that “safeguarding… sensitive information” (i.e., stopping leaks) was more important firstamendment.mtsu.edu . In that scenario, a CBS News executive resigned in protest as the company bowed to Trump’s demands in a lawsuit firstamendment.mtsu.edu npr.org . While hypothetical, these events were grounded in current proposals and underscore what could happen if norms continue to erode.
Conversely, if there is political change in the other direction, we may see a swing back: Congress could pass a federal law guaranteeing the right to read (some have proposed a bill to that effect), or the Justice Department under a different administration might investigate whether state book bans violate students’ civil rights (this has been hinted). Public opinion might also serve as a check – polls suggest that when asked broadly, most Americans oppose censoring books, even if they support parental input. If the excesses of this period produce enough backlash – like moderate voters turning against book-banning school board candidates (something observed in some 2022 and 2023 local elections) – the trend could slow.
In any event, the period of 2017–2025 will be remembered as a time when the United States, long a global free-press champion, grappled with internal forces of censorship and propaganda. It was a time when a President referred to journalists as “enemies of the people,” a phrase chillingly reminiscent of Stalinist tyranny firstamendment.mtsu.edu . When state officials rushed to control narratives in classrooms, provoking one fed-up educator to cry out, “We’re teaching kids to read, not to be gay or communist or whatever – this paranoia has to stop.” And when those who love books and knowledge often found themselves on the defensive, quoting author Stephen Chbosky that “Banning books is just another way to ban ideas… and the easiest way to control a society is to control its knowledge.”
The stories of people affected – journalists kept at bay, teachers fired, students denied books, librarians harassed – put faces to the abstract debates. Jim Acosta holding onto a White House microphone while the President of the United States hurled insults; Brian Covey dialing into a school board meeting after losing his job, simply for showing the truth of empty shelves; Jenna Barbee watching investigators pull her terrified fifth-graders aside one by one;