Vance Dismisses ‘Wrong’ Conservative Icon Scalia Over Flag-Burning

Vice President JD Vance has thrown his full support behind President Donald Trump’s latest executive order criminalizing flag burning, dismissing one of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s most famous First Amendment stances — and sparking a rare split inside the conservative movement.

The clash erupted after Trump signed a sweeping order on Monday directing the Justice Department to “prosecute to the fullest extent” anyone caught burning the American flag. Attorney General Pam Bondi has also been ordered to challenge the Supreme Court’s landmark 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which protected flag-burning as free speech.

“This isn’t about free speech,” Vance declared at a White House briefing. “This is about respect for our country. We’re not going to let far-left agitators desecrate the symbol of our nation under the false shield of the First Amendment.”

The move directly defies the 5-4 decision written by liberal Justice William Brennan — and famously supported by Scalia, one of the conservative movement’s most revered originalists.

In the 1989 case, the Court ruled that burning the flag, while offensive, was constitutionally protected as a form of political expression. Scalia, who died in 2016, later explained his stance bluntly during a CNN interview:

“If I were king, I would put every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag in jail,” he said. “But I am not king. The First Amendment says the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and that includes speech critical of the government.”

Now, under Trump’s directive, that precedent is under fire.

Trump’s crackdown has ignited a rare open feud within his own political base. While Vance and Bondi have embraced the move, other prominent MAGA-aligned voices are siding with Scalia.

Conservative radio host Dana Loesch blasted the executive order on X, writing:
“Flag burning is vile. But the government has no right to control speech or expression. We either defend the First Amendment for everyone, or we defend it for no one.”

Right-wing commentator Jesse Kelly went even further:
“I would never burn a flag,” he posted. “But if the government tells me I can’t, I’ve never been closer to lighting one up. I’m a free American citizen, not a subject.”

Even evangelical commentator Erick Erickson, typically a Trump loyalist, broke ranks:
“While I agree with the sentiment, it’s well-settled constitutional law that burning the flag is free speech,” he warned. “The executive doesn’t get to create crimes.”

Democratic leaders were quick to condemn the executive order, framing it as another attack on civil liberties under Trump’s second term.

“This is a direct assault on the First Amendment,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “If President Trump can criminalize symbolic protest, what’s next? Jailing journalists? Outlawing dissent?”

California Governor Gavin Newsom called the move “an authoritarian stunt designed to distract from Trump’s failures at home and abroad.”

The Justice Department is expected to file challenges in federal courts this week, setting up a high-stakes battle that could force the newly reshaped, Trump-friendly Supreme Court to revisit Texas v. Johnson.

With a 6-3 conservative majority, some legal experts believe the Court could overturn the 1989 ruling — a move that would fundamentally reshape First Amendment protections.

“Make no mistake,” said constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, “this isn’t just about flags. If this stands, the government’s power to police political expression will grow exponentially.”