When Government Officials Post Racist Content: What the Law Allows

Last updated 2 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

On Thursday night, February 5, 2026, at 11:44 PM ET, President Donald Trump posted a 62-second video to Truth Social showing former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama with their faces placed on top of the bodies of apes. The video was removed on Friday (February 6, 2026). The song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” played in the background.

When reporters asked Trump about it on Air Force One, he said he’d only watched the beginning—the part about false 2020 election claims—and wouldn’t apologize.

The condemnation was bipartisan. And yet: no legal consequences followed.

What can a president legally post on social media? Can racist or dehumanizing speech by the chief executive violate civil rights laws, or does the First Amendment protect this speech completely? What remedies exist when the highest office in the land disseminates discriminatory imagery?

The answers reveal a significant gap between what most Americans think the law prohibits and what it does.

First Amendment Protection for Offensive Speech

The First Amendment says Congress can’t limit freedom of speech. That protection extends to government officials, even when they’re exercising power derived from their public position. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment makes no exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Court protected by an 8-1 vote the hateful speech of Westboro Baptist Church members who picketed military funerals with signs declaring “God hates fags.” Federal courts have similarly protected neo-Nazis and white supremacists, even when their messages provoke visceral revulsion.

The reasoning: protecting only agreeable speech provides little protection at all. The First Amendment must shield the thoughts that people hate, or it shields nothing.

For public officials, the Supreme Court developed a legal test that weighs the government employee’s interest in speaking on matters of public concern against the government’s interest in operating efficiently and maintaining workplace harmony. Courts have generally given presidents broader latitude, recognizing the special nature of the office.

How American Hate Speech Law Differs Globally

The Trump video incident highlights something distinctive about American free speech law. The United States provides less legal protection against hate speech than most other developed democracies.

This means racist imagery, dehumanizing rhetoric, and hateful speech that strips individuals of dignity generally can’t be criminally prosecuted simply because they’re offensive or harmful to the targets of that hate.

The First Amendment isn’t absolute. The Supreme Court has carved out specific types of speech that aren’t protected: directly pushing people to break the law right now, true threats of violence, fighting words, and speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace. Under a legal standard established by the Supreme Court, the government can punish speech only if it’s “directly intended to cause immediate illegal activity and likely to succeed.”

The imagery that strips people of their humanity in Trump’s video—depicting the former president and first lady as apes—draws from a long history of racist tropes used to strip Black people of their humanity. Scholars and historians have shown how depictions of African Americans as monkeys or apes served as tools of slave traders and segregationists to justify enslavement and dehumanization. Yet despite this deeply troubling history, the imagery itself—without threats or calls for immediate violence—is likely protected by the First Amendment under current law.

Many democracies have laws against hate speech by government officials. Germany’s constitution, written after the Holocaust, bans speech that incites hatred based on race, religion, and similar traits. Canada’s Criminal Code bans hate speech against protected groups. The UK has laws against inflammatory speech by public figures. America’s approach trusts that bad speech can be defeated by good speech, so it protects even hateful expression.

Civil Rights Law Offers Limited Recourse

While the First Amendment may protect hateful speech by government officials, other bodies of law limit discriminatory conduct and speech that promotes discrimination. Federal law prohibiting employment discrimination bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

For federal government employees, discriminatory conduct or speech by high-ranking officials—including the president—could theoretically create a workplace where discrimination makes it hard to do your job. When government speech or conduct shows hostility or contempt toward a group protected by law, it can facilitate private discrimination, deter members of that class from participating in government, and degrade the civic status of affected groups.

But the EEOC can’t clearly investigate or punish the president. A legal rule protects the federal government from many lawsuits that private citizens could bring against private employers. The federal government has argued in past litigation that the EEOC lacks authority to investigate or sanction the president for conduct related to official duties.

Another way to hold presidents accountable is through equal protection rules. If a president intentionally discriminates based on race and that leads to government discrimination, it may violate equal protection rules. But racist remarks alone, without actual discriminatory actions or policies, usually don’t violate equal protection rules. The Equal Protection Clause requires a showing that the government meant to discriminate. Policies that affect different races differently aren’t unconstitutional absent evidence that the government acted with discriminatory intent.

Impeachment as the Constitutional Remedy

If the First Amendment protects racist speech by the president and civil rights statutes provide limited recourse, impeachment remains the mechanism the Framers provided for addressing presidential misconduct.

Using impeachment to address what a president says is extremely difficult. It removes the president from office, which is the most serious action Congress can take. It requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate to convict and remove.

Trump was impeached twice during his first presidency—for abuse of power related to his dealings with Ukraine and for incitement of insurrection related to January 6. He wasn’t convicted and removed by the Senate either time. The bipartisan condemnation of the February 2026 racist video didn’t translate into impeachment proceedings.

The White House Defense and Accountability Problem

The White House initially called the racist video an “internet meme” depicting Trump as “the King of the Jungle” and Democrats as characters from The Lion King. The administration argued that the negative reaction constituted “fake outrage” rather than legitimate concern.

Later, the administration shifted its explanation. A staffer had “erroneously” posted the video without Trump’s knowledge or approval—despite the fact that Trump acknowledged providing the video to staffers for posting.

This explanation shows the problem of accountability in the digital age. Today, the president uses social media for official announcements and diplomacy. If the president isn’t responsible for what he posts, even when he approves it, there’s almost no way to hold him accountable for racist posts.

Research shows that hateful political speech increases discrimination and hostility against targeted groups. When the president posts racist images on official accounts, it affects how people treat each other and how Americans—especially Black federal employees—feel about their government.

Contradiction in the Administration’s Approach to Race

The Trump administration banned federal agencies and contractors from teaching about racism and gender issues. The administration says that talking about systemic racism is un-American and should be stopped.

Simultaneously, the administration was posting racist imagery of Black leaders to millions of followers via the president’s official social media account. This contradiction—banning talk about racism while posting racist images—shows confusion in the administration’s approach to race.

Historical Precedent for Presidential Racism

This seems to be the first time a sitting president has posted dehumanizing images of a former president and first lady. But this isn’t the first time a president has been racist.

President Andrew Johnson opposed Reconstruction and used his power to block civil rights for freed slaves. Johnson was impeached in 1868, but his racism wasn’t officially listed as the reason.

President Woodrow Wilson promoted racist policies. Wilson praised the KKK, showed a pro-KKK film at the White House, and segregated federal offices. Yet despite his openly racist conduct and policies, Wilson was never impeached for racism or removal from office.

The Platform Problem: Owner as User

Private platforms must decide what to do with government officials’ posts. Truth Social is private, so the First Amendment doesn’t limit what it can do. Truth Social’s rules ban hate speech and dehumanizing content.

But Trump’s relationship with Truth Social is unusual—he owns it. Trump owns and created Truth Social partly because Twitter removed him. This creates a conflict: the owner is also the main person posting political messages. Removing the owner’s posts would look like the owner censoring himself.

The Trump administration has also attacked social media platforms over content moderation. Trump ordered the Attorney General to investigate how government agencies handle free speech and to recommend ways to limit legal protections for social media platforms. The administration sees fact-checking and content moderation as censorship.

This creates a contradiction: the administration attacks platforms for moderating content, but the president posts racist content, and it’s unclear what platforms should do. Platforms face a dilemma: they have policies against hate speech, they fear government punishment for moderating, and removing the president’s posts looks biased.

Possible Legal Reforms

The February 2026 incident has sparked debate about whether laws should be changed to address racist speech by the president.

One approach would be to clarify what counts as impeachable wrongdoing. Congress could pass a resolution saying that racist speech by the president through official accounts is grounds for impeachment. This approach has obvious political problems and would be very partisan.

Another approach would give the EEOC power to investigate the president for discrimination. Congress could pass a law saying the president must follow discrimination laws and that federal employees can complain if the president’s actions make their workplace hostile. But courts might say this limits the president’s power too much.

A third approach would change how presidents use social media. Congress could require that all presidential posts be saved as public records or set ethics rules for presidential social media, like it does for other officials. But this might violate the First Amendment and limit presidential power.

Platforms like Truth Social could create independent review boards to decide whether the president’s posts violate their rules. But since Trump owns the platform, it’s hard to trust that any review would be fair.

Voters are the ultimate check on presidential power. The Constitution assumes voters will judge candidates based on what they say and do, including racist speech.

The Legal Reality

The February 5, 2026 incident shows that the law allows something many Americans think it shouldn’t. The First Amendment protects hateful speech, so the president’s racist post probably isn’t unconstitutional. Civil rights laws don’t help much against the president. Impeachment is possible but has rarely been used for speech, and it’s hard to do because of partisan politics.

This approach has benefits: it stops the government from silencing critics, protects unpopular voices, and trusts voters to reject bad speech. But it also means a president can post racist images and face no legal punishment unless he directly calls for immediate violence.

Trump refused to apologize, lied about watching the video, and faced no punishment. This shows that without new laws, presidents can post racist content.

Real change would require either changing the Constitution to limit free speech protections, which is unlikely, or Congress passing new laws to punish racist presidential speech. Until that changes, the First Amendment lets the president post racist content. The only remedy is political, not legal.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.