America Debates the Meaning of Dissent as Free Speech Concerns Recede and Resistance Language Rises

Free Speech Narratives Decline as Both Absolutism and Restrictive Arguments Fade

Perscient's semantic signature tracking language asserting that free speech in America is absolute dropped by 68 points over the past month, falling from an index value of 89 to 20. While this represents a substantial moderation, the narrative remains above its long-term average. At the same time, our signature tracking language arguing that hateful, offensive, or dangerous speech must be banned or restricted fell even more steeply, declining by 87 points from 81 to -6, placing it below average for the first time in recent memory.

This parallel decline suggests that media discourse has moved away from the philosophical debate about speech boundaries altogether. Commentary in The Spokesman-Review observed that society has "morphed into a segregated form of free speech that erodes the very essence of such freedom," pointing to universities creating designated "free speech zones" while suppressing certain viewpoints. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has noted that nearly 65 percent of top schools earned an "F" grade for free speech friendliness, a finding that has drawn attention on social media from commentators concerned about foreign financial influence on academic discourse.

Yet the current conversation appears less concerned with these abstract questions than with concrete government actions. The ACLU has stated that "the Trump administration is enthusiastically abusing its power to intimidate anyone who criticizes its policies, and to silence those who won't fall in line." One Cato Institute analysis described "an unconstitutional assault on the First Amendment," specifically regarding attempts to criminalize those who observe and record ICE activities. At a Clark County Council meeting, speakers expressed fear that federal agents might label protesters as terrorists, with one veteran saying he is scared to exercise First Amendment rights.

One social media commentator drew historical parallels, noting that "courts have held that observing and recording the police is legal. But ICE calls these behaviors 'obstruction' and arrests people anyway." Another drew darker comparisons, arguing that current press freedom concerns echo tactics used to suppress journalism in earlier authoritarian contexts. The decline in both signatures may reflect that Americans are less interested in debating whether speech should be free and more focused on whether their government is respecting the freedoms they already possess.

Resistance Narrative Strengthens as Government Loyalty Language Weakens

The shift from abstract speech debates to concrete questions of government power finds its clearest expression in narratives about civic resistance. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language stating or implying that it is patriotic to resist a bad government rose by 21 points to an index value of 75, placing it well above the long-term mean. Conversely, our signature tracking language stating or implying that citizens need to stand behind their government in times of crisis fell by 25 points to -46, indicating that calls for government loyalty have become weaker than average. This divergence represents one of the most pronounced narrative shifts in the current data.

The January 23, 2026 Minnesota general strike stands as the most visible manifestation of this shift. Described by Wikipedia as "the first general strike in the United States in 80 years," the action brought tens of thousands into the streets in subzero temperatures to oppose expanded federal immigration enforcement operations. CNN reported that "restaurant tables sat empty, business windows went dark and students' desks were abandoned in several cities across the country" during a subsequent nationwide solidarity action.

Social media has framed these protests in explicitly patriotic terms. "Minnesota people are standing up," wrote one observer. "Even in the bitter cold. Even despite the arrests. Even after the deaths of their own. They are standing for themselves and for us. This is patriotism." Another described Minnesota as "currently giving the nation the blueprint on how to resist." The Guardian reported that the resistance "is built on a longstanding culture of civic engagement, workers unions and a sprawling infrastructure of community-led groups," with one organizer declaring, "We're fighting for the soul of the country."

This framing aligns with academic traditions that distinguish patriotism from nationalism. As Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia notes, "one can oppose one's country's government in the name of the country's true character, history, and aspirations." A professor of American studies at Macalester College observed that "if you study the history of the United States of America, we've only made the gains that we've made through resistance." The Atlantic characterized what is happening in Minnesota as "part of a long and successful historical tradition: dissidence."

The data suggests that media narratives are increasingly framing civic resistance as consistent with American values rather than as disloyalty. Senator Tina Smith captured this sentiment: "That's why it's been so important that Minnesotans have stood up and said: 'You can't bully us. We're not going to put up with this. You can't scare us. We're going to stand tall and stand strong.'"

Healthcare Autonomy Narratives Fade as Policy Debate Shifts to Cost and Coverage

While debates over speech and resistance center on constitutional principles, healthcare discourse has moved in a different direction—away from rights-based framing entirely. Perscient's semantic signature tracking language advocating individual medical autonomy in America fell by 26 points to an index value of -54, now well below the long-term mean. Our signature tracking language arguing that restrictive public health laws are important also declined by 22 points to -53, similarly below average. Both healthcare freedom narratives declining in parallel suggests that media attention has moved away from the autonomy-versus-mandate framing that dominated earlier debates.

The current conversation is focused on premium costs, subsidy expiration, and Medicaid cuts. As STAT News noted, healthcare "figured prominently in the first year of President Trump's second term, and it'll likely play an even bigger role leading up to the 2026 midterm elections." The Republican tax law "cuts more than $1 trillion from health insurance spending over a decade, mostly from Medicaid," according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. KFF Health News reported that "millions of Americans are facing enormous increases in their out-of-pocket costs for ACA coverage," with 1.2 million fewer people signing up for Obamacare plans compared with last year.

UPI reported that a month after enhanced premium tax credits expired, "consumers are feeling the squeeze of increased costs with many downgrading or canceling healthcare coverage," with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that 4 million people are projected to lose coverage. Since 2014, premiums in Affordable Care Act plans have increased twice as fast as employer plan premiums and three times as fast as overall inflation. Average deductibles in exchange plans are now more than twice as high as employer plans.

CalMatters reported that Representative David Valadao's decisive vote for Medicaid cuts "could cost him his California seat," given that nearly two-thirds of his constituents are enrolled in Medi-Cal. NPR noted that health care costs were Americans' top affordability concern, more than groceries or utilities, with a significant share saying that healthcare costs will play a major role in their midterm voting decisions. One Alaska representative noted that "health insurance costs just spiked for thousands of Alaskans. DC is crushing working families."

The administration's response remains skeletal. Forbes characterized the White House's healthcare framework as "more a call to action than an actual plan," noting it "raises more questions than answers" and would require congressional action. Reason magazine acknowledged that the plan "rightly recognizes that American health care needs reform" but called it "skeletal."

Archived Pulse

January 2026

• A New Battlefield Emerges over Narratives of Economic Freedom
• Fatigue Around Narratives of Emergency Powers Abuse Sets In
• Immigration and Content Moderation Sparking Nuanced Free Speech Debates

December 2025

• Free Speech Narratives Gain Strength Amid Transatlantic Comparisons
• Emergency Powers and Due Process Language Shifts Downward
• Economic Critique Narratives Rise While American Exceptionalism Weakens

November 2025

• Due Process Concerns Reach Historic Prominence Amid Immigration Enforcement Debates
• Competing Visions of Patriotism and Government Loyalty
• Economic Freedom Narratives Show Divergent Trends

Pulse is your AI analyst built on Perscient technology, summarizing the major changes and evolving narratives across our Storyboard signatures, and synthesizing that analysis with illustrative news articles and high-impact social media posts.