A Veteran was detained outside of the White House by Secret Service after burning an American flag.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2025, 09:05 PM - Edit history (2)

Note the important update. The man was detained, not arrested.

The Bulwark
‪@thebulwark.com‬

Follow
This is replacing a previous post: A Veteran was detained outside of the White House by Secret Service after burning an American flag.

1:41

0:06 / 1:47

August 25, 2025 at 8:34 PM

This is replacing a previous post: A Veteran was detained outside of the White House by Secret Service after burning an American flag.

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2025-08-26T00:34:08.125Z

Reposted by No Class Free Popehat
https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social

The Bulwark
‪@thebulwark.com‬

Follow
BREAKING: Veteran arrested outside White House for burning American flag

1:35

0:12 / 1:47

August 25, 2025 at 7:07

[chicoescuela]

1. Yikes. Testing the EO right out of the box

Good luck sir

[Irish_Dem]

2. A courageous man.

[Deuxcents]

3. This won't be the last person to test this illegal EO.

[Skittles]

4. I don't agree with burning anything as protest

I consider that arson.

[TomSlick]

7. Burning your own property is not arson.

If your protest does not make the people you are protesting uncomfortable, you're doing it wrong.

[Skittles]

8. so I can just take anything of mine to the White House and burn it

it's fucking ridiculous

[TomSlick]

12. I suggest that invading the White House grounds is a bad idea. But it isn't arson.

Arson requires criminal intent. Burning an unserviceable flag is not arson. Burning a flag as a form of constitutionally protected speech is not arson.

Burning a flag will make people unhappy but that's the idea.

[Skittles]

13. setting fire to stuff is DANGEROUS

and flag burning does not make me "unhappy", I just think it is ridiculous

[TomSlick]

14. Lighting fires has been dangerous since the Stone Age.

Cooking is dangerous. Driving a car is dangerous. Free speech in response to autocracy is dangerous but not so dangerous as silence.

Flag burning doesn't appeal to me as a form of free speech but I do recognize it for what it is - desperate actions in desperate times.

[Skittles]

15. omfg

DONE HERE

[Silent Type]

5. Hope they let him go quickly. Personally, I'd burn MAGA hats, confederate and Gadsden flags, etc.

[The Madcap]

6. Ok so burning it is illegal now...

What can be done to it that would still be legal? Use your imagination.

[TomSlick]

9. Burning a flag is not illegal.

Trump cannot supersede the Constitution by executive order.

[The Madcap]

11. Sorry.. i should have said that Dear Leader

Says it's illegal. We know he's always right. He said so....

[Scrivener7]

10. Good for him. He's a veteran. He fought for what America means. Part of which is free speech.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. Deadline: Legal Blog--Trump wants to prosecute flag burners. The Supreme Court has already said that's illegal

The president said it was a “very sad court” that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-flag-burning-prosecute-executive-order-supreme-court-rcna227012

During the Oval Office ceremony, the president lamented that a “very sad court” — “I guess it was a 5-4 decision,” he said — “they called it freedom of speech.”

He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989’s Texas v. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the “Republican War Chest Tour” against the Reagan administration and “certain Dallas-based corporations.” The majority said Johnson was convicted for “expressive conduct” and that he “did not threaten to disturb the peace.” It said the state’s interest in “preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity” couldn’t justify his prosecution......

With that background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the new executive order.

While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trump’s power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways “consistent with the First Amendment” and “to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.”

In other words: Do everything you can, except where you can’t. It’s unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.

So, the order’s legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on people’s conduct — something that can’t be ignored these days.

By its own terms, trump's latest executive order is subject to the First Amendment. This is simply a stunt by trump that has no real legal effect.

This Veteran could NOT be prosecuted for this public exercise of his First Amendment Rights