Trump and the Book Ban Deniers
For Donald Trump and his allies, 'freedom' is no longer a universal right, but a selective privilege, argues The Bear
Last weekend, I had a fascinating exchange on the social media platform previously known as Twitter (and now more commonly referred to as “that post-apocalyptic hellscape owned by Trump’s emotional support billionaire”, or X). The topic? Book bans. Or, more specifically, the increasingly tortured mental gymnastics some people will perform to insist that books aren’t really being banned, despite the fact that they have been quite literally removed from schools and libraries by state mandate.
The argument, in its most absurdly distilled form, goes like this: A book isn’t banned if you can still buy it on Amazon.
There is a sort of bleak ingenuity to this line of reasoning. It’s the same logic that says poverty isn’t real because there are billionaires, or that healthcare in America is accessible because technically, hospitals exist. It reduces everything to a transactional marketplace where access is purely a matter of individual means. If you can afford it, it isn’t banned.
If you can’t, well, that’s just your problem, isn’t it?
The Luxury of Access
At the heart of this argument is the fundamental American conflation of legality with accessibility. It’s an idea that’s been baked into the country’s economic and social structures for decades: nothing is ever outright forbidden, merely priced out of reach. Want higher education? Get ready for decades of student debt. Need life-saving insulin? That’ll be hundreds of dollars a month, if not more. Want to read a book that’s been pulled from your school’s library? No problem – just go buy it yourself.
This kind of thinking only works if you ignore the fact that millions of children don’t have the disposable income to casually purchase books, nor the means to access them outside of their school system. If a state removes a book from a school or public library, for the overwhelming majority of students, that book might as well not exist. But in the American economic mind, where everything is viewed through the lens of the free market, it isn’t censorship – it’s just a redistribution of access.
It’s worth asking who benefits from this framework. Because, as always, the rules don’t apply evenly. No one is pulling Shakespeare off the shelves. No one is scrambling to protect children and young people from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or 1984 (ironically, the latter frequently cited by the very people trying to erase books from public institutions). The books being targeted – the ones that require this kind of linguistic acrobatics to justify their removal – almost always focus on race, or gender and sexuality, or histories that complicate the neat, patriotic narratives preferred by reactionary politicians.
This is not an accident. The point isn’t to ban books outright in the traditional sense, where possession of them is illegal and punishable. The point is to make access difficult enough that only the privileged can afford to bypass the restrictions.
Selective ‘Freedom’
What is particularly revealing is that the same people who insist these books aren’t banned are often the ones loudly proclaiming that their own “freedom of speech” is under attack. They scream censorship when social media platforms enforce content moderation but will happily endorse the state’s removal of books from schools. They rage against the “tyranny” of fact-checkers but have no issue with government-mandated book removals.
It’s a remarkable double standard – one that only makes sense when you realise that, for these people, “freedom” isn’t a universal principle but a selective privilege. They don’t want free speech; they want speech that aligns with their own worldview to be dominant and uncontested. Removing books from public institutions isn’t a violation of freedom in their eyes because the people most affected – the students who lose access – don’t count in their equation.
It’s also why they rely on the “just buy it yourself” argument. Because in their world, the only voices that matter belong to those who can afford to be heard.
When Power Decides What is ‘Appropriate’
The other rhetorical sleight of hand in this debate is the insistence that these books haven’t been “banned” – they have merely been deemed age-inappropriate. But who decides what is appropriate?
Florida, for instance, has pulled books discussing civil rights, LGBTQ+ identities, and even The Hill We Climb by Amanda Gorman, arguing that these books are somehow harmful to children. But the same school districts continue to allow books filled with graphic violence, war, and American exceptionalist propaganda. The “appropriateness” standard isn’t based on protecting children – it’s based on ensuring they are only exposed to a narrow, curated set of ideas.
A book that discusses racism? Far too dangerous.
A book that glorifies war? Perfectly fine.
The goal is less to protect kids from harm, more to ensure they don’t encounter ideas that might make them question the worldview of the people in power.
Censorship by Economic Gatekeeping
This brings us back to the fundamental issue: when does a ban count as a ban? If a government or institution deliberately removes access to information for the vast majority of people, what else can you call it?
If a book is available only to those who can afford it, and deliberately withheld from those who can’t, then it is functionally banned for an enormous portion of the population. The fact that someone, somewhere, can still buy it online doesn’t change the material reality for students who will never see it in their school libraries or classrooms.
This is what makes the “not banned, just unavailable” argument so disingenuous. It’s an attempt to have it both ways – to control what students read without admitting to outright censorship. It’s the same kind of linguistic trickery that authoritarian governments have used for centuries: make something inaccessible, but never technically illegal, so you can claim the moral high ground while achieving the same result.
Call It What It Is
Banning books isn’t just about restricting access to paper and ink – it’s about controlling the narratives that shape the next generation. And in a country where wealth already determines so much – healthcare, education, legal justice – it should come as no surprise that access to knowledge is now being subjected to the same economic gatekeeping.
The argument that “you can still buy it” doesn’t hold water. If a state strips a book from schools and libraries, they are banning it from the very institutions designed to provide free and equal access to knowledge.
So let’s call it what it is: not just a ban, but a transparent attempt to ensure that only the privileged get to decide what’s worth reading.
And if that isn’t censorship, then what is?
The Bear, also known as Iratus Ursus Major (Big Angry Bear), is a commentator known for dissecting ideology, news and politics with a blend of wit, sarcasm, and just a dash of frustration. He is the author of Bear Necessities of Politics and Power: Decoding the Chaos of Modern Politics, One Ideology at a Time. (Byline Supplement readers can buy the book with a discount of 10% by entering the code HURRY10 at the Great British Bookshop checkout.)