Between Editions: Free Speech Under Fire
The fallout has been swift and far-reaching in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination
President Trump and his allies spent years lambasting progressive “cancel culture,” warning that conservatives were being censored and silenced. Now, in power and fueled by grief and anger over the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the movement is enforcing its own strict speech codes — punishing critics, reshaping workplace rules, and redrawing the boundaries of public discourse.
Anyone who minimizes Kirk’s death, criticizes his politics, or even shares old clips of his controversial remarks is being cast as complicit in violence. Hundreds of people have lost jobs. Federal employees have been dismissed. Sports teams, airlines, and media outlets are under pressure to purge staff. And the administration is moving to codify these crackdowns into law, raising alarm among civil libertarians who warn that free speech itself is being redefined in America.
The Rise of a New Speech Code
In the days after Kirk was gunned down while giving a campus speech on free expression, digital vigilantes mobilized with unprecedented force. A website first branded “Expose Charlie’s Murderers,” now operating under the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation, claims to have logged more than 60,000 names of alleged offenders. Cabinet secretaries and conservative influencers have amplified the list, and firings quickly followed.
Attorney General Pam Bondi declared, “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.” She vowed prosecutions against those accused of “targeting anyone with hate speech.” Legal experts responded that no such carveout exists in the First Amendment.
For MAGA leaders, Kirk’s death has become a test of loyalty. Six NFL teams faced online fury for declining to hold a moment of silence during Sunday’s games. Local governments were attacked for failing to lower flags as Trump ordered. Vice President J.D. Vance, hosting a memorial edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, urged listeners to report anyone making “celebratory” remarks. Elon Musk, who once promised to defend fired workers on X, now supports the crackdown.
Behind the scenes, strategists view the killing as a rallying point. Conservative author Kurt Schlichter wrote bluntly on X: “It’s very clear that a substantial number of Democrats want to literally murder us.” The narrative is becoming not just one of mourning, but of mobilization.
Companies Move to Purge
The pressure has spread beyond politics into the workplace. Dozens of firings have been reported across airlines, media companies, sports teams, and federal agencies. Delta, United, and American Airlines suspended employees over the weekend for their social media activity. “Employees who promote such violence on social media were immediately removed from service,” American said in a statement. United added: “We’ve been clear…there’s zero tolerance for politically motivated violence or any attempt to justify it.”
In the public sector, teachers, municipal workers, and community officials have been disciplined or dismissed. Employers are citing increasingly detailed social media policies, many drafted after the Hamas attacks of 2023, which prohibit employees from making statements that contradict company values or appear to incite violence.
“These situations are very fact specific and really depend on what the individual said and the context in which they said it,” said Ellen Davis, senior managing director at consulting firm August. But she added that condoning violence is almost always grounds for termination.
The firings may be legal. Most U.S. employment is “at will,” meaning companies can dismiss workers for nearly any reason short of explicit discrimination. Some states, such as California and Colorado, provide protections for political speech. Union contracts may also limit punishment. But legal scholars say the speed and scope of these firings mark a cultural shift. “The robust free speech protections that we think of in this country are somewhat lesser in the context of employer-employee relationships,” noted G.S. Hans, a Cornell Law professor.
Democracy in a Fragile Moment
The crackdown is unfolding at a time when America’s democratic system already feels brittle. Political violence is no longer rare: from the 2022 assault on Paul Pelosi to the foiled 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, both parties have seen leaders targeted. The murder of Charlie Kirk has further deepened the cycle of fear, grievance, and retaliation.
Trump has framed the killing as proof of a radical leftist threat while ignoring violence directed at Democrats. He has vowed retribution not just against perpetrators but also against organizations accused of “funding and supporting” them. Already, the administration has blacklisted law firms from federal contracts, revoked visas for immigrants accused of praising Kirk’s death, stripped $1.1 billion in funding from NPR and PBS, and signed an executive order attempting to criminalize flag burning.
Critics see these moves as a break from the kind of unifying leadership shown after past tragedies. After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, President Bill Clinton urged Americans to reject the “dark forces” of extremism. Today, Democrats say that Trump’s choices are widening the divide. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz argued, “It’s becoming much more personal,” warning that the president is already stepping outside the bounds of law.
Scholars caution that when both sides see each other as existential threats, unstable individuals are more likely to act violently. Social media only accelerates this cycle. As George Washington University historian Matthew Dallek put it, “the ecosystem itself is radicalizing people.”
A Nation Redrawing Its Boundaries
Employers have fired workers for speech before — often when social media posts were deemed offensive or inflammatory. But what feels new is the combination of grassroots surveillance, political direction, and corporate enforcement all working together. For constitutional lawyers, that blurring of lines between state and private power is what makes this moment distinct.
David Super of Georgetown Law noted that federal workers face unique hurdles: their wrongful termination complaints are supposed to be heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board, but the White House has removed some of its members, effectively disabling the process. “Trump officials can fire government employees for openly political grounds knowing that their actions are not subject to review,” he said.
Civil liberties advocates warn that the administration is pushing the country toward a dangerous precedent, where grief and outrage become the justification for reshaping long-standing speech norms. Cornell’s Hans summed it up: “It seems quite at odds with what we think about as being the free speech tradition of a country. That’s not an absolute protection, but it’s certainly a cultural one.”
Bondi, speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity, defended the purge: “It’s free speech, but you shouldn’t be employed anywhere if you’re going to say that. Employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people.”
That sentiment — echoed in the halls of power and boardrooms alike — suggests America has entered a new era. Conservatives who once railed against cancel culture now wield it as a governing tool. Companies that once hesitated to police private speech are acting without delay. And the space for dissent is narrowing, fast.
EV Industry Splits: Ford’s Cushion vs. Rivian’s Gamble
The American auto industry is no longer marching in lockstep toward an all-electric future. Instead, it is splintering into two camps: legacy giants such as Ford, with the financial strength to absorb years of uncertainty, and younger startups such as Rivian, which must live or die entirely on their ability to make EVs work.
On one side, Ford is pressing ahead with a $2 billion conversion of its Louisville Assembly Plant, a project CEO Jim Farley has called the company’s “Model T moment.” On the other, Rivian has broken ground on a $5 billion factory in Georgia, even as it continues to hemorrhage money and faces an uncertain consumer market.
Meanwhile, some of the world’s biggest manufacturers — General Motors, Volkswagen, and Stellantis — are tapping the brakes. Pauses in production, canceled models, and furloughs at EV plants reflect a more cautious approach. The result is an uneven landscape, with automakers staking very different bets on what the long run will bring.
A Market That Has Hit a Wall
The context is sobering. EV sales in the United States grew only 1.5% in the first half of 2025, a dramatic slowdown from the double-digit surges of recent years. Tesla continues to dominate with a 45% share. Rivian, despite its stylish R1T pickup and R1S SUV, accounts for only about 3%.
Policy headwinds compound the slowdown. The $7,500 federal tax credit for EV buyers expires Sept. 30, and President Trump’s legislation this summer eliminated penalties that once let companies like Rivian sell emissions credits worth roughly $100 million a year. That change alone strips away a vital revenue stream.
Automakers have adjusted quickly. GM will idle EV output at its Spring Hill, Tennessee, plant this fall, pausing Cadillac’s Lyriq and Vistiq crossovers for weeks at a time. Volkswagen will furlough 160 workers at its Chattanooga facility while it cuts production of the ID4 crossover. Stellantis has scrapped its planned electric Ram pickup entirely.
The companies all describe the same rationale: align production with weaker demand. “This is a market-driven decision, based on aligning our production volume to market demand,” a VW spokesperson said. GM called its decision a “strategic adjustment” tied to slower EV industry growth.
Rivian’s High-Risk Path
Against this backdrop, Rivian stands out by pushing forward. The company broke ground this week on a $5 billion plant east of Atlanta. The factory is supposed to launch Rivian into the mass market with the R2 SUV, priced from $45,000 in 2026, and the smaller, cheaper R3 crossover in 2028. Planned capacity is 200,000 vehicles annually, with the option to double.
But Rivian has never made a profit. Losses totaled $1.66 billion in the first half of 2025 alone. Since its IPO in 2021, it has burned through more than $17 billion, and its share price has collapsed more than 80%. Deliveries are trending down, from 52,000 in 2024 to a projected 40,000–46,000 this year, as the company diverts resources to the next generation of models.
The current lineup — the upscale R1T and R1S and delivery vans for Amazon — sits at the high end of the market. Rivian knows it must move downmarket, but that requires enormous upfront investment. With cash reserves shrinking, the Georgia plant is both a promise and a risk: without it, Rivian cannot grow; with it, the company is betting heavily on consumer demand that may or may not materialize.
CEO RJ Scaringe insists Rivian’s strategy is not about chasing subsidies. “I didn’t start this company and plan to scale the business because of that credit,” he said. Still, the company’s ability to weather losses is nothing like that of a Detroit giant. “Rivian continues to push forward when other competitors are pulling back,” said Ben Kallo of Robert W. Baird. “But persistence only works if the runway holds.”
Ford’s Cushion
Ford’s path looks similar on the surface — a bold multibillion-dollar bet on EVs — but the underlying dynamics are entirely different.
The Louisville Assembly Plant has produced gas-powered vehicles for seven decades. By 2027, it will turn out a midsize four-door electric pickup for global markets, priced at about $30,000. Farley cast the overhaul as transformational: “In our careers, as automobile people we’re lucky if we get to work on one, maybe two, projects that really change the face of our industry. And I believe today is going to light the match as one of those projects.”
The vehicle will use lower-cost batteries from a new Ford facility in Michigan, part of a $3 billion expansion of U.S. supply chains. A reengineered “assembly tree” will reduce complexity and cut assembly time by 15%.
For Ford, the project represents strategy, not survival. Profitable gas-powered trucks and SUVs will continue to roll off lines across North America, ensuring a steady flow of cash even if the Kentucky venture takes longer than expected to pay off. As Farley put it: “We’re not in a race to build the most electric cars. We’re in a race to have a sustainable electric business that’s profitable, that customers love.”
Legacy automakers such as Ford enjoy advantages that startups like Rivian can only imagine, and those advantages make the risks of electrification manageable rather than existential. At the most basic level, the steady revenue from gasoline and hybrid vehicles continues to generate billions of dollars in profit each year. Those profits can subsidize years of losses in EV divisions. Rivian, by contrast, has no fallback stream. Every dollar lost on electric models comes straight out of its limited cash reserves.
The legacy players also benefit from dealer networks that blanket the country. Those dealerships not only sell vehicles but also generate consistent, high-margin income from service and repair work. Rivian’s direct-to-consumer approach may appeal to buyers who dislike haggling, but it leaves the company without that steady, dependable source of revenue.
Supply chains are another advantage. Ford and GM have spent decades cultivating volume purchasing relationships that give them leverage over suppliers, keeping costs lower and logistics smoother. Rivian, as a small player, cannot command the same terms and often pays more for parts and batteries.
Financial arms and brand loyalty provide yet another cushion. Ford Credit and GM Financial offer lending and leasing programs that produce steady profits, while customer loyalty built over generations ensures repeat buyers even in difficult cycles. Rivian, still a young brand, has yet to build the same trust.
Finally, legacy automakers can cross-subsidize. When an EV program loses money—as almost all do in their early years—Ford can offset the red ink with profits from F-150 pickups, Explorers, or other high-margin vehicles. Rivian lacks such a safety valve, meaning its EV operations must eventually stand on their own.
For Ford, these cushions mean electrification can be treated as a long-term strategic project. For Rivian, there is no margin for error. The company must succeed at mass-producing EVs or risk collapse.
The divergence is stark. Rivian must succeed with EVs or risk collapse. Ford can absorb setbacks, delay rollouts, or rethink models without threatening the company’s existence. GM and Volkswagen are choosing a third path — slowing investment until the policy environment and consumer demand look stronger.
Federal and state backing still plays a role. Rivian secured a $6.6 billion loan from the Biden administration and $1.5 billion in incentives from Georgia. Volkswagen invested $5.8 billion in a technology partnership. Yet such targeted support contrasts with the fading national subsidies for consumers, exposing the entire sector to greater risk.
Survival vs. Strategy
For Rivian, electrification is not a choice; it is the only business model it has. For Ford, it is a necessary transformation, but one cushioned by the continued success of gasoline vehicles.
The Georgia plant is Rivian’s wager that scale will bring costs down and mass adoption will follow. Ford’s Kentucky overhaul, meanwhile, is its effort to ensure it stays relevant in a shifting market while continuing to bank steady profits from traditional models.
Investors and policymakers are left with a sharp question: will the future belong to lean startups who bet everything on EVs, or to legacy automakers who can take their time, endure setbacks, and win by attrition?
Rivian’s situation highlights the perils of being all-in on a technology transition that may unfold more slowly than once imagined. Its groundbreaking in Georgia is not just another expansion. It is a test of whether a startup can survive long enough to reach scale in an industry where scale is everything.
Ford, by contrast, has room to maneuver. It can wait for consumer demand to catch up, confident that the F-150 and Explorer will keep the balance sheet healthy. GM and Volkswagen can hedge, slowing down today to conserve capital for tomorrow.
In the uneven EV landscape of 2025, the bets vary. For Ford, electrification is strategy. For Rivian, it is survival.
###
Between Editions is a free midweek feature of The Rising Tide, my weekly Substack newsletter exploring the collision of politics, markets, and technology, published every Saturday. Paid subscribers get exclusive access to behind-the-scenes reporting, sharper analysis, and context we can’t publish for free. If you want the full story behind the headlines — and to support independent journalism — subscribe now.
Bonus: Paid subscribers to The Rising Tide also get our sister newsletter, Barber’s Mexico Business Report, at no extra cost.