Free Speech Isn’t a Presidential Call: A Data-Driven Look at Accountability, Duty, and Speech
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
Key takeaways
- Free speech protections extend to veterans and public servants, even when the political arena grows heated.
- Procedural rules matter – the Epstein discharge petition shows how a majority can force floor consideration, with partisan pressure still playing a role.
- Policy theater vs. policy outcomes – oversight battles (like funding vetoes) reveal tensions between rhetoric and real-world results.
- Military duty and legality – the piece argues that lawful orders remain obligatory, while illegal orders must be refused, reinforcing speech as a safeguard for constitutional rights.
- Defense of speech – the author frames attacks on veteran voices as a broader threat to democratic norms that deserves vigilance.
Introduction
Hal Bidlack uses a candid lens to examine the tension between free speech and presidential power, drawing on Colorado politics as a case study. He notes that Rep. Lauren Boebert was pivotal in the Epstein discharge petition, a moment that highlights how procedural rules can override political fear even amid intense presidential pressure.
Epstein discharge vote and partisan dynamics
Boebert was one of only four Republicans to back the discharge, a stance that ultimately drew near-unanimous support as Trump faced the political cost of resisting scrutiny. The piece underscores that House rules empower a majority—218 votes—to bring a bill to the floor, bypassing potential committee bottlenecks when leadership prefers denial.
Water project veto and the theater of politics
The article describes Trump’s veto of a unanimously approved funding package for a critical water project in Boebert’s district, followed by a failed override. Bidlack portrays this as petty politics rather than substantive policy debate, illustrating how presidential impulses can shape, but not always determine, legislative outcomes.
Military speech, illegal orders, and the duty to speak
The column cites a video from six veterans, including a long-serving retiree, noting that military members have no obligation to obey illegal orders. He recalls a teaching scenario from the Air Force Academy about bombing a hospital to highlight why legality governs action. In response, Trump and his allies criticized the group, signaling an attempt to silence credible voices from veterans and retirees outside active duty. A central focus is the letter from Pete Hegseth that argues teaching about illegality could undermine obedience to lawful orders.
“By telling servicemembers they ‘can refuse illegal orders’ … in the context of operations you have specifically characterized as illegal, you have counseled members of the armed forces to refuse lawful orders related to National Guard deployments and counter-narcotics operations.”
Conclusion
Ultimately, Bidlack argues that free speech is a constitutional shield—not a presidential tool. Silencing credible voices, especially veterans, undermines democratic norms and accountability. The piece closes with a call to defend speech, even amid political theater, to preserve the checks and balances that sustain a healthy republic.
Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/01/13/free-speech-isnt-a-presidential-call-hal-bidlack/
Leave a Reply