Trump Says He Wants To Ban Pride Flags. Is That Even Possible?

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's shooting, Republicans have grasped at straws trying to find a scapegoat. Today's attempt is the most unconstitutional yet.

In the wake of last week’s killing of Charlie Kirk, political tensions between liberals and conservatives have skyrocketed. And from the very beginning, starting with the Wall Street Journal’s false report of there being pro-trans markings on the shooter’s ammunition, Republicans have been desperately trying to rope the transgender community into the narrative. This right-wing fervor was summed up perfectly by Lex McMenamin, writing for New York Magazine: ‘They want Charlie Kirk’s killer to be trans.’

Today, that rhetoric took another turn when President Trump was asked by Marjorie Taylor Greene’s journalist boyfriend if he would be opposed to forcing people to take trans flags down because ‘a lot of people are threatened by [them].’ In response, Trump said he wasn’t against the idea but that the ban would invite a lawsuit on free speech grounds. But when asked if he could brand pride flags as symbols of domestic terrorism and ban them that way, he appeared to downplay the threat of a legal challenge: ‘Again, you’ll be sued, and it’s okay. I’ve been sued before a couple of times.’

So if he wouldn’t really be bothered by a potential lawsuit, can he even be stopped from attempting to institute a ban on pride flags and other LGBTQ+ symbols? And if he does try it, can it work?

‘Abridging the Freedom of Speech’

Since the start of his second term, Trump has often tested the limits of executive power while operating under the Unitary Executive Theory—a conservative legal theory that argues the president has total control over the executive branch. This idea, notably absent from his first term, has allowed the Republican Party to quickly implement its agenda when it comes to colleges, healthcare, trans people, immigration, and more with only the stroke of Trump’s pen. And although almost all of these actions have been challenged in court, some policies have been upheld by the Supreme Court, further emboldening the Trump administration in its game of ‘constitutional Marco Polo.’

Today’s exchange isn’t the first time Trump has floated violating a right Republicans traditionally support when it comes to trans people, either. Just two weeks ago, in the aftermath of the Annunciation shooting, it was reported that the DOJ was exploring ways to ban members of the trans community from being able to own guns. That idea was so extreme that it was even publicly opposed by the NRA. But despite the policy’s apparent failure, something is clear: conservatives are open to the idea of denying trans people the rights they supposedly believe should be immutable. Now, that discussion has reached free speech.

Like it was suggested by Marjorie Taylor Greene’s boyfriend, any potential federal ban on pride flags would probably come by way of designating LGBTQ+ imagery as being a threat to public safety. But there’s no such law that can define displaying a flag or symbol as a threat. Even now, it’s still perfectly legal to display Confederate flags, Nazi flags, Soviet flags, and other objectively egregious flags and symbols despite the contentious nature of what they represent and the potential for people to feel threatened by them. It’s also legal to burn the American flag, with certain exceptions (see: 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson).

This idea has actually already been attempted, and this year, Utah, Montana, and Idaho became the first states to prohibit pride flags from being flown on government property. To fight back against these laws, cities like Salt Lake City designated slightly modified versions of pride flags as city flags. And because of how vague those laws were—along the lines of prohibiting any non-official flags—they were pretty easy to get around.

A Means to a Dark End

All things considered, a federal pride flag ban that punishes those that fly them is basically impossible. However, there’s another component to this idea: federal funding. Already, the Trump administration has cut funding from universities and hospitals without statutory authority. In a similar vein to the narrative surrounding campus protests, it’s certainly possible that the Trump administration could threaten the funding of institutions that don’t crack down on the flags in the name of ‘protecting’ students, patients, children, and/or women. In that context, a ban on pride flags could be hypothetically enforced, although it would certainly invite legal challenges.

But looking deeper, it’s not about whether or not pride flags can be banned. Really, this discussion isn’t even about the flags themselves, but about the narrative it builds. Like I said last month after the shooting in Minneapolis, Republicans have long been obsessed with the idea of manufacturing a link between violence and being trans. It’s not even just after major incidents: this theme is present in arguments surrounding bathrooms and healthcare as well.

In examining rhetoric, there’s a key distinction that needs to be made between the reason someone gives for supporting something and the reason they actually support it. In conversations surrounding trans people, many of those that advance arguments that trans people are threatening do actually feel threatened; it’s just the reason for those feelings that’s being obscured. Because the existence of trans people does actually threaten something: traditional gender norms and their role in building a conservative worldview. Of course, expressing that wouldn’t get as much support, so they resort to creating a boogeyman.

And if they can’t find enough examples of trans people being dangerous (because the only thing we threaten isn’t even real to begin with), they just expand the definition of what being dangerous means. This comes in the form of straight-up fabricating anecdotes, accusing shooters of being trans, and, borrowing straight from the Russian playbook, attempting to designate the LGBTQ+ community as domestic terrorists.

And in response to what happened to Charlie Kirk, the right will be grasping at straws now more than ever. In the past 6 days, they’ve said a lot of things, and they’re going to say a lot more in the near future. Personally, I’d be surprised if today’s story doesn’t end up buried like the firearms proposal. Even if Trump tries to ban pride flags, that won’t be the end of the story. The progress, community, and love our flags embody can never be lost. In the words of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, they can pry them from our cold, dead, gay hands.