Exploring the legality of ‘trolling’ on social media within the Executive Branch
By Harry Shaevsky
In the midst of his 2020 reelection campaign, President Donald Trump proclaimed at a campaign rally “we do a little trolling.” On July 11, 2025, the White House and POTUS social media accounts posted “Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we can’t post banger memes” accompanied by a poster on the north grounds of the White House’s “Pebble Beach”—home to the news media—that reads in mockery alternating caps “oMg, diD tHe wHiTE hOuSE reALLy PosT tHiS?” Within the last few weeks, the White House created a satirical MySpace to blame Democrats for the federal government shutdown: “A meme of Jeffries wearing a Mexican sombrero and mustache, which President Donald Trump previously posted, is used for the profile picture.”
There is nothing illegal about these actions. Supreme Court rulings on social media and free speech concentrate on unlawfully restricting engagement with state-sponsored posts. The Hatch Act does not restrict Executive Branch officials, and has few exceptions for other federal employees on the use of social media. As social media continues to dominate political campaigning and public communication, it is important to note the legal distinction between what official government accounts post and if they let others comment and engage.
The Supreme Court has not been afraid to hear issues of free speech and censorship. Early in President Trump’s first term, the Knight Institute filed a lawsuit against the 45th President and others for “blocking seven people from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account based on their criticism of his presidency and policies.” The main argument centered on the claim that the “@realDonaldTrump account is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, from which the government may not exclude people based simply on their views.” In Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that “some aspects of Mr. Trump’s account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum.” The Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and did not address the merits of the case, given President Trump was no longer in office. Nevertheless, Justice Thomas used the opportunity to focus on how “today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors.” He also noted the “concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.”
In 2014, James Freed created a personal Facebook account, and he later changed his account to reflect his role as City Manager in Port Huron. Kevin Lindke came across his page and posted criticism of certain policies; Freed “deleted the comments and ultimately ‘blocked’ Lindke.” In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court sought to answer the question “When does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment?” Unanimously, the Court ruled that “a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.” While some may dislike the material posted by the White House and President Trump, there have not been any reports of the Trump Administration preventing comments or engagement with the state social media accounts.
The Supreme Court’s vacated judgement in this case came on April 5, 2021, in the wake of President Trump being banned from then-Twitter in 2021. In July 2021, President Trump filed a class-action lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Google, arguing his free speech rights were violated. In October 2021, President Trump launched TRUTH Social with the goal of “stand[ing] up to Big Tech.” The platform quickly exploded into the central source of information from the President. Since its launch, campaign statements, endorsements, and even a post depicting President Trump as the Pope have appeared on his TRUTH Social page. Twitter seemed like an afterthought, and while President Trump returned to the site after two and a half years to post his mugshot accompanied by “ELECTION INTERFERENCE. NEVER SURRENDER!” he quickly clarified “I LOVE TRUTH SOCIAL. IT IS MY HOME!!!” Nevertheless, in February 2025, after Elon Musk took control of now-named X, the social media giant agreed to pay President Trump $10 million over his 2021 account suspension. Despite President Trump using TRUTH Social to announce actions as President, several of his postings reflect personal use, while accounts like @POTUS and @WhiteHouse on X and Instagram reflect government-sponsored accounts.
While the aforementioned Supreme Court cases discuss issues relating to freedom to post, comment, and engage, there has been little discussion about the legality of what is posted. Passed in 1939, the Hatch Act seeks to “ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.” In order to ensure compliance with the Hatch Act in digital mediums, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) released “Hatch Act Guidance on Social Media.” The OSC gives clearance for all federal employees to utilize social media except in three—sometimes four—cases: (1) “On Duty or in the Workplace Prohibition – Employees may not engage in political activity while on duty or in the federal workplace. (2) “24/7 Prohibition – Employees may not knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution for a political party, candidate in a partisan race, or partisan political group.” (3) “24/7 Prohibition – Employees may not use their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election.” However, it is important to note that “most federal executive branch employees (except those listed under Further Restricted Employees) are considered Less Restricted under the Hatch Act. Less Restricted employees may take an active part in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns.” Consequently, while there are some key restrictions on federal employees, most federal executive branch employees are able to partake in political activity on social media platforms, which is critical for many of these politically-connected individuals.
Therefore, regardless of some critics arguing the White House and POTUS official social media accounts should not engage in playful banter online, such action neither violates the Hatch Act nor rulings like Lindke v. Freed since critics are free to respond and engage with such postings. So long as the digital age of campaigning, lobbying, and governing continues to grow, the type of speech coming from official governmental accounts will be a point of attention for the media. Nevertheless, President Trump and the White House can continue to post online freely.
