STAY UP TO DATE: The Effects of the US Foreign Aid Freeze on Freedom House
Expanding Freedom and Democracy
Freedom on the Net 2025

United States

Free
73
100
A Obstacles to Access 20 25
B Limits on Content 28 35
C Violations of User Rights 25 40
Last Year's Score & Status
76 100 Free
Scores are based on a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free). See the methodology and report acknowledgements.
United_States_hero

header1 Key Developments, June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025

The United States’ overall information landscape remained vibrant, diverse, and free, and the legal framework still provided some of the world’s strongest protections for free expression online. However, select aspects of internet freedom declined during the coverage period, as federal authorities exerted pressure on online speech and expanded digital surveillance following a change in government in January 2025. The government did not impose restrictions on internet connectivity, and the First Amendment of the federal constitution limited the government’s ability to restrict online content or block websites.

  • The administration of President Donald Trump sought to remove two Democratic Party members from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in March 2025, leaving the five-seat regulatory panel with just three members from the Republican Party, to which the president belongs. The fired commissioners sued, arguing that the removals were illegal, though one of them ultimately resigned (A5).1
  • Throughout 2025, the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) carried out investigations and enforcement actions that touched on forms of speech protected by the US Constitution’s First Amendment. For example, the FTC investigated several advertising and advocacy groups, including the Democrat-linked civil society organization Media Matters, over their efforts to convince advertisers to boycott social media platforms that allegedly failed to curb hateful content (A5).2
  • In January 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law that threatened the short-video platform TikTok with a ban unless it was divested by its China-based parent company ByteDance.3 Apple’s App Store and the Google Play Store removed access to TikTok and other ByteDance-owned applications for a brief period in compliance with the law. They reversed course after the Trump administration repeatedly extended its deadline for the divestment, enabling people in the United States to download the apps throughout the remainder of the coverage period (B2 and B3).4
  • In June and July 2024, the Supreme Court issued limited rulings in a group of prominent social media cases. In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the court considered state-level content moderation laws from Florida and Texas, respectively, and ruled that the appellate judges had not fully explored the First Amendment implications when evaluating the laws,5 effectively sending the cases back to the lower courts. The Supreme Court also issued a narrow judgement in Murthy v. Missouri, a case evaluating government communications with social media platforms about harmful content; the ruling found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, meaning it did not address the core issue of how federal agencies might engage with social media companies regarding content without running afoul of constitutional protections against government censorship (B3).6
  • Multiple reports indicated a rise in online self-censorship during the coverage period, including among noncitizens, journalists, academics, and medical researchers.7 Topics on which people said they were self-censoring included criticism of the Trump administration,8 views on the war in the Gaza Strip,9 and specific terms that the administration had sought to suppress, such as those relating to transgender identity and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives (B4 and B8).10
  • As part of the executive branch’s broader program to arrest and deport certain categories of noncitizens, federal authorities announced plans to deploy social media surveillance systems—assisted by artificial intelligence technology—to monitor the online activity of student visa recipients residing in the country, searching in particular for purportedly “pro-Hamas” views on the war in Gaza and vaguely defined “antisemitic activity on social media.”11 Federal agencies also investigated noncitizens who were identified on a private website dedicated to exposing people for allegedly expressing hatred of “the USA, Israel, and Jews” (B8, C5, and C7).12
  • Federal authorities detained a number of foreign nationals after revoking their visas over nonviolent online expression in support of Palestinian and other causes. The individuals—including Indonesian national Aditya Wahyu Harsono,13 Turkish national Rümeysa Öztürk,14 and Indian national Badar Khan Suri15—were released after one to two months in custody, when courts ruled that their detentions likely violated the First Amendment (C3).
  • Chinese state-backed hackers compromised major US telecommunications companies, including the systems used to fulfill wiretapping requests from US law enforcement agencies, in an operation that US investigators uncovered and disclosed in late 2024.16 The operation likely spanned years, may have stolen data from millions of Americans, and had high-profile targets including the devices of President Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance (C8).17

header2 Political Overview

The United States is a federal republic whose people benefit from a vibrant political system, a strong rule-of-law tradition, robust freedoms of expression and religious belief, and a wide array of other civil liberties. However, Freedom House research has found that its democratic institutions have suffered erosion in recent years and across presidential administrations, as reflected in rising political polarization and extremism, partisan pressure on the electoral process, mistreatment and dysfunction in the criminal justice and immigration systems, and growing disparities in wealth, economic opportunity, and political influence.1

This report has been abridged for Freedom on the Net 2025 due to ongoing budget constraints. Please consider making a donation to support future editions of this vital resource.

For additional background information, see last year’s full report.

A Obstacles to Access

A1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? 6.006 6.006
A2 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? 2.002 3.003
A3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? 6.006 6.006
A4 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? 4.004 6.006
A5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers and digital technology fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? 2.002 4.004

Score Change: The score declined from 3 to 2 because the FTC and FCC carried out investigations and enforcement actions that implicated constitutionally protected forms of speech, and because the administration attempted to remove FTC members who belonged to the opposition party.

B Limits on Content

B1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 6.006 6.006
B2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, content hosts, or digital platforms to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 3.003 4.004
B3 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 3.003 4.004
B4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 3.003 4.004
B5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a particular political interest? 2.002 4.004
B6 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are there economic or regulatory constraints that negatively affect users’ ability to publish content online? 3.003 3.003
B7 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? 3.003 4.004
B8 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do conditions impede users’ ability to mobilize, form communities, and campaign, particularly on political and social issues? 5.005 6.006

Score Change: The score declined from 6 to 5 because the administration’s crackdown on those expressing certain views and ideas, particularly noncitizens, had a chilling effect on digital activism.

C Violations of User Rights

C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? 6.006 6.006
C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
C3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 4.004 6.006

Score Change: The score declined from 5 to 4 because a number of foreign nationals were detained for one to two months after their visas were revoked for nonviolent online expression.

C4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption? 3.003 4.004
C5 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy? 2.002 6.006
C6 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy? 4.004 6.006
C7 1.00-5.00 pts0-5 pts
Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? 3.003 5.005
C8 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? 1.001 3.003

On United States

See all data, scores & information on this country or territory.

See More

Country Facts

  • Population

    333,300,000

  • Global Freedom Score

    84 100 free

  • Internet Freedom Score

    73 100 free

  • Freedom in the World Status

    Free

  • Networks Restricted

    No

  • Websites Blocked

    No

  • Pro-government Commentators

    Yes

  • Users Arrested

    Yes