SRFOE expresses concern over the situation of freedom of expression in the United States

October 11, 2025

Washington, DC—The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (SRFOE) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expresses its concern over the situation of freedom of expression in the United States. Recognizing the country’s historic leadership in the protection and promotion of this right, the Office urges the State, and especially its highest authorities, not to abandon this longstanding commitment and to ensure the maximum guarantees for the full and effective exercise of free expression, as well as to promote vigorous public debate. 

During 2025, the IACHR and its SRFOE have monitored with concern a growing environment of violence that affects the conditions for democratic deliberation. In this context, the country has witnessed episodes of political violence, including the assassination of elected officials and diplomats, and of nationally renowned activists. The Special Rapporteurship condemns political violence in the country and expresses its solidarity with the victims and their families. 

While such acts should prompt national reflection and debate, the SRFOE views with unease statements from senior officials that risk conflating critical speech with incitement to violence, potentially discouraging legitimate expression that falls within the scope of democratic deliberation. Some have called on citizens to report to employers those they consider responsible for inciting violence. Others have suggested sanctions against broadcasters on account of their content.  The Rapporteurship considers it essential that authorities and elected officials, irrespective of political affiliation, make efforts to clearly distinguish between incitement to violence and critical expressions, unequivocally condemning and sanctioning any incitement while safeguarding pluralism and robust democratic debate.  

Political speech and debates on matters of public interest enjoy special protection. This is because public entities and officials, by virtue of their functions, are subject to greater scrutiny and criticism and, therefore, must demonstrate greater tolerance and openness toward such expressions and refrain more rigorously from establishing limitations. The SRFOE calls on the authorities to refrain from labelling and equating speech that incites violence with speech that, although critical, harsh, or even disturbing, constitutes a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and is especially protected.

The Special Rapporteurship regrets that some individuals, particularly journalists, academics, commentators, and comedians, have lost their jobs for expressing themselves on matters of high public interest. This Office believes that the expressions of the dismissed individuals were made under the expectation that they enjoy greater protection in democratic societies, which makes the erosion of trust and safeguards that historically allowed these voices to be heard, read, and viewed freely even more worrying. 

One of the arguments often invoked for the participation of large media conglomerates in a plural and diverse media ecosystem is that certain debates and tensions in democratic life can be borne and sustained over time by actors of that size. Based on this premise, the Special Rapporteurship finds it questionable that large media conglomerates have made editorial and staffing decisions without weighing the fundamental values ​​of freedom of expression at stake. This Office encourages all media companies, regardless of size, to strive to safeguard freedom of expression and pluralism as pillars of democracy.  

Finally, the SRFOE warns that these events are part of a context previously documented by the IACHR and this Office, in which there have been changes and exclusions in the accreditation of journalists covering the federal government; Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigations against broadcasters for content deemed critical of the administration; cuts in funding for journalism; and lawsuits against media outlets in apparent retaliation for their coverage and editorial stance.  

As an Office operating since 1998, the Special Rapporteurship has documented how the normalization of some of these events creates an inhibiting environment for dissent and debate, while facilitating the prevalence of government opinions. Along these lines, it warns that journalists, commentators, academics, activists, and comedians residing in the U.S. could increasingly be forced to refrain from addressing issues of public interest for fear of reprisals, to the detriment of democracy.

Consequently, the SRFOE urges the State to ensure the maximum guarantees for the full and effective exercise of the right to freedom of expression, ensuring that its highest authorities emphatically reject acts of violence; exercise caution to avoid confusing or equating incitement to violence with speech protected by the right to freedom of expression; and ensure that there are no reprisals against individuals and media outlets that legitimately participate and dissent in public debate. 

*This press release was duly notified to the State. Owing to the ongoing government shutdown, authorities were unable to submit its observations within the timeframe established under the applicable protocol. The SRFOE will consider any comments that may be received subsequently and will incorporate them, as appropriate, into an updated version, to be re-circulated through official channels.

No. R207/25

7:42 AM