Independence Day is always a moment to pause and consider what freedom means in practice. Not as an abstract ideal or value but rather something shaped by the choices we make as a nation. This year, the 250-year anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, this reflection feels especially urgent. The past 12 months have brought a multitude of events that test our institutions, challenge our beliefs, and force us to confront what kind of country we want to be.
Attacks on Free Speech. One of the most alarming trends of the past year has been the intensifying restriction on free expression and the institutions that support it. We saw a rise in discussions surrounding freedom of speech after the September assassination of American political activist Charlie Kirk. A well-known conservative activist and founder of youth organization Turning Point USA, Kirk was killed while answering questions during a campus event at Utah Valley University. His death sparked impassioned responses from both sides of the political aisle. Throughout the responses amongst the public, other political commentators, and government officials, a troubling image began to appear. Speech that criticized or failed to memorialize Kirk were picked up by the right and used as fodder in a highly charged culture war. Five days after Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance serving as a guest host of Kirk’s eponymous podcast, encouraged listeners to report anyone who was “celebrating” Kirk’s death to their employer. In the eight months since Kirk’s death, free speech settlements totaling more than $1.5 million have been reached with people who lost their jobs over social media posts that were critical of Kirk.
Calls for the importance of free speech rose once again in January after journalist and longstanding critic of President Trump, Don Lemon, was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles. Present at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota where demonstrators interrupted a service to protest federal immigration enforcement, Lemon was charged with conspiracy to deprive rights and interfering with religious freedoms by allegedly obstructing someone’s First Amendment rights by force. Lemon, his legal team, and various civil rights groups argued that gathering news is a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment.
The deliberate targeting of political dissenters by the Trump Administration this past year sets a troubling precedent. These incidents, different as they are, point to a narrowing space for open debate; individuals may self‑censor out of fear of job loss, public harassment, or government scrutiny. As we reflect on the meaning of the First Amendment, this moment calls for renewed civic vigilance: to stay informed, to support those whose voices are being pressured or silenced, and to defend the principle that a healthy democracy depends on protecting the freedom to speak, question, and dissent.
Immigration Policy Effects on Community. Last year, Operation Metro Surge, a massive but controversial immigration enforcement initiative was launched by the US Department of Homeland Security. The operation heavily targets established refugee communities causing massive disruptions to daily life. Federal immigration officers shot 14 people from September 2025 to February 2026, including the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January. In many of the shootings, including Good’s, officers fired directly into cars. These types of shootings have long raised serious concerns among policing experts about the use of force in confined spaces, the heightened risk to bystanders, and the difficulty of justifying lethal action when officers initiate encounters with moving vehicles. Following Operation Metro, the city of Minneapolis estimated $203.1 million in community and economic impact, including losses to workers, businesses, food and housing stability, and mental health services.
Closer to home, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in a lawsuit over the release of the Forest Hills School District’s ICE Response Plan. The lawsuit alleges the Board of Education and Forest Hills treasurer violated their duties by not publicly sharing the details of the district’s internal response plan regarding ICE officers on school grounds. While the school argues that the secrecy around the policy is for the security for its students, supporters of disclosure argue that families have a right to know how schools will handle potential encounters with federal immigration agents, especially in districts with large immigrant or mixed‑status communities. The case has become a highlight in the broader debate over transparency, local autonomy, and the role of educational institutions in protecting (or exposing) vulnerable students during an era of heightened federal enforcement.
Operation Metro Surge and the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan legal battle both show how deeply immigration policy reaches into daily life, schools, and local governance. This moment calls for sustained public engagement. Attending local meetings, supporting organizations that document enforcement practices, demanding transparent policies from school districts and city officials, and staying informed about how federal actions directly affect our community.
From a jail cell in Birmingham, Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that there is a critical distinction between law and justice. Laws, even when uniformly applied, do not always guarantee a just result. The principles shaping the rule of law in our country are intended to promote stability, predictability, and equal treatment under the law. However, those goals can only be achieved when legal institutions remain responsive to legitimate concerns about fairness and abuse of power. That requires us, as a society, to ensure that the rule of law also serves the interests of justice. The demand for transparency in Forest Hills reflects how communities should respond when government officials attempt to subvert the rule of law. By insisting on accountability and openness, citizens help ensure that governmental power remains subject to the law rather than above it.
Global Conflict and Geopolitics. This year our country has been heavily involved in conflicts beyond our borders. As we strive to be informed of the injustices happening here at home, we should make the same efforts to consider how decisions made here in the United States may affect other countries. In February, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military operations against the Iranian regime. After 40 days of sustained combat, an open-ended cease fire between the United States and Iran began. President Trump and the U.S. government maintains that the ongoing war is officially paused under the ceasefire agreement, while Iran argues that any tangible peace is contingent on ending broader regional conflicts, particularly in Lebanon. While discussions in the United States have focused largely on the war’s impact on the economy and household finances, the consequences for ordinary people in Iran extend far beyond monetary strain and have raised serious concerns about violations of basic rights. In addition to the direct violence, Iranian civilians are dealing with strikes on oil facilities, water infrastructure, and industrial sites which are relied upon. Civilians — especially children, the elderly, and those with chronic illness — feel these hardships the most. These hardships only compound over time, because after the war ends, the risk of toxic exposure, untreated disease, hunger, dehydration, and psychological trauma continue to shape daily life for years.
Freedom, as we often celebrate it in the United States, is not simply a condition we inherit, it is an action we must continue to practice. Understanding the global consequences of American policy is part of that responsibility. The suffering endured by civilians abroad should prompt us to think critically about what the cost of American freedom can be for others, and what obligations we have when our government’s actions raise constitutional or humanitarian concerns. Holding our leaders accountable, demanding transparency, and refusing to overlook the human impact of foreign policy are essential expressions of the very freedom we claim to defend.
With the state of social justice in America and abroad, it is important to consider a foundational principle of the rule of law: accountability. Both the government and private actors are accountable under the rule of law. For the government, this requires proactive accountability in the form of strict adherence to constitutional safeguards, including the First Amendment, meant to protect the balance between the power of the government and the autonomy of the governed. When those safeguards fail, accountability also requires transparent investigation, public scrutiny, and legal remedies where appropriate. Likewise, holding private actors accountable often requires society to investigate, address, and remedy misconduct after it occurs. Likewise for private actors, reactive accountability asks us to address and resolve misconduct after the fact.
When government actions produce such severe consequences, the rule of law demands more than retrospective acknowledgment of mistakes; it requires transparent investigation, public scrutiny, and legal remedies where appropriate. Accountability is essential not only to provide redress for those who have been harmed, but also to maintain public confidence in the institutions entrusted with enforcing the law and to preserve the nation’s credibility and commitment to the rule of law at home and abroad.
Across these issues, from the pressure placed on dissenting voices in the United States to the disruptions and dangers created by aggressive immigration enforcement and the suffering experienced by civilians affected by American actions abroad, a clear pattern emerges. Each shows how easily rights can be limited, how fragile democracy is, how quickly vulnerable communities can be placed at risk, and how deeply American decisions shape the lives of people both at home and in other countries. Freedom is not a possession; it is a practice that requires us to look closely at these realities, to question the policies carried out in our name, and to insist that our government uphold constitutional principles and human dignity wherever its power reaches.
In Unity,
The Nathaniel R. Jones Center for Race, Gender, and Social Justice