In a post on his platform Truth Social on 1 November 2025, President Donald Trump targeted late-night host Seth Meyers, declaring his criticism as "100 % ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!" The post followed a segment in which Meyers mocked the president’s remarks aboard the USS George Washington regarding aircraft-carrier steam-catapult technology.

Trump described Meyers as “the least talented person to ‘perform’ live in the history of television” and demanded to know why his network continued to employ him. The broadcaster publicly responded through its programming, and Meyers later addressed the comments on his show, defending satire and warning that efforts to intimidate entertainers threaten broader democratic norms.

The exchange underlines mounting concerns among observers that the president’s rhetoric may be edging toward a modern analogue of the historical offence of lèse-majesté, once used to criminalise insults against monarchs, now applied—symbolically—to leaders. Some advocates say the First Amendment prohibits public office-holders from treating criticism as a legal offence.

Earlier this year the president signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” yet critics contend his actions reflect a pattern of supporting only favourable commentary while penalising opposing voices. Legal analysts say such precedent-setting remarks may chill legitimate criticism by suggesting that dissent is subject to scrutiny or sanction.

The episode has drawn attention to the boundaries of free speech in the United States just ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026. While political satire has long flourished in American media, the current environment has prompted renewed debate on whether criticism of a public figure could be treated as a punishable offence if rhetoric continues to escalate.

Supporters of the president argue that partisan media campaigns and entertainment-industry bias pose threats to balanced public discourse and that the president is simply pushing back against unfair coverage. They point to the historic importance of holding career politicians and media entities to account. But regardless of one’s view, the latest confrontation marks a significant moment in the evolving relationship between the presidency, the media, and the free-speech culture in the United States.