President Trump is set to give a speech tonight. While we're not sure exactly what he'll talk about, it seems it will have something to do with elections. Whatever the subject, he's the President, freely and fairly elected, and he's going to address the nation.
But the possible Democratic Socialist of America's (DSA) choice for 2028, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is trying to censor the President, and she's telling the media they have an 'ethical obligation' not to air tonight's speech.
AOC argues networks have 'ethical obligation' to not air Trump's upcoming speech about elections https://t.co/hU0kg75355 pic.twitter.com/U30raMVijn
— New York Post (@nypost) July 15, 2026
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) argued Tuesday that television networks have an “ethical obligation” not to air President Trump’s upcoming address to the nation if it’s not “rooted in evidence and fact.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) argued Tuesday that television networks have an “ethical obligation” not to air President Trump’s upcoming address to the nation if it’s not “rooted in evidence and fact.”
“Many news outlets, oftentimes, may receive transcripts, and I think we have an ethical obligation to not air things that undermine our election that are not rooted in evidence and fact,” the congresswoman continued.
She added, “Of course, it depends on the contents of his speech.”
I'm old enough to remember when President Trump tweeting mean things about journalists and calling the media 'the enemy of the people' was labeled an unconstitutional attack on a free and independent press, and a violation of the First Amendment.
AOC on Trump’s Thursday address: I don’t think we should be contributing to the platforming of lies about our elections. Many of these outlets often receive transcripts, and I think we have an ethical obligation not to air things that undermine our elections and are not rooted in… pic.twitter.com/MrHKjt2Waa
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 14, 2026
Now a prominent Democrat, who might very well run to be our next president, is demanding the media review and fact-check the President's speech before deciding whether or not they're going to air it.
Democrats have long questioned every election where a Republican wins. In 2000, George W. Bush 'stole' the race after the Supreme Court stepped in. I have it on good authority that there was no circumstance in which Al Gore was going to win Florida, by the way, but that didn't matter.
When President Trump won in 2016, the election was stolen, too. This time by the Russians, which turned out to be a lie, too. And when he beat Kamala Harris in 2024, this time also securing the Democrats' favorite, but meaningless, metric—the popular vote—he stole that one, too. This time it was Elon Musk rigging election machines, or something.
It's perfectly fine for Democrats to question election results, because they can't fathom a world in which they don't win elections. When they do, even when the election is shady as hell, like the recent Los Angeles mayoral election, you cannot question it. Gavin Newsom is pushing to criminalize and imprison anyone who does. But when a Republican wins an election, it had to be stolen, fraudulent, or somehow underhanded.
Who gets to be the arbiter of what is and isn't 'evidence and fact'? This is just another way of saying 'disinformation,' which was the Left's favorite word a few years ago. What it meant was 'stuff we don't like.' When Kamala Harris ran for president, she campaigned on a platform of social media censorship. She didn't like that Elon Musk (and the rest of us) could speak to one another freely, without some bureaucrat fact-checking our words. Her running mate, Tim Walz, said 'hate speech' and 'disinformation' were not protected by the First Amendment.
They are. That's precisely the kind of speech the First Amendment protects.
I don't know what President Trump is going to say tomorrow. But he has a right, under the First Amendment, to say it. The First Amendment isn't contingent on his speech being rooted in 'facts and evidence,' or whether or not AOC likes what he's got to say.
AOC and the Democrats can use the First Amendment to debate and argue against what President Trump says. To counter his alleged 'disinformation' with their own 'facts and evidence.' Yet time and again, I notice they don't do that. Is that because the 'facts and evidence' aren't on their side? They sure act like people who don't believe in, or have the proof to support, their arguments, don't they?
It seems like they're afraid. Why?
But, either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is that a leading voice of the Democratic Party, and a possible nominee for president, wants a state-run media to only air the speech of which she approves. We can only imagine she'd use a weaponized government to get broadcasters to bend to her will.
And that should frighten us all.