President Donald Trump on 25 August signed an executive order entitled “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag,” telling the Justice Department to give top priority to cases in which flag desecration accompanies other offences such as open-fire violations, property damage or hate crimes. While the text does not set a mandatory term, Trump said during the signing that those convicted should face “one year in jail,” and he authorised agencies to revoke visas or other immigration benefits for foreign nationals involved. The order argues that flag burning can be punished when it constitutes “fighting words” or is likely to incite imminent lawless action, positions that appear designed to carve out an exception to the Supreme Court’s 1989 Texas v. Johnson ruling, which protects flag desecration as political expression. It also instructs the attorney general to pursue test litigation that could invite the current Court to revisit that precedent. Conservative legal scholars, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s son Christopher, and commentators such as Jonathan Turley and Casey Mattox, quickly questioned the order’s constitutionality. Others, among them Vice-President JD Vance, defended the measure while urging the Court to overturn Johnson. The Chicago Tribune, ABC and Reuters noted that the initiative clashes with long-standing First Amendment doctrine. Hours after the Oval Office ceremony, U.S. Park Police arrested Army veteran Jay Carey for setting fire to a U.S. flag in Lafayette Square; authorities said he was charged with starting an illegal fire, not with flag desecration itself. Separate flag burnings were reported in Los Angeles and Portland as protesters challenged the new policy. Legal analysts expect swift court challenges, arguing that the order’s content-based rationale will be difficult to sustain. Even if parts of the directive prove unenforceable, supporters see the move as a political statement, while critics warn it risks eroding First Amendment protections that the flag itself symbolises.