If you’re being very specific, you’re correct. But context matters. And the context here is the libel/slander laws, which are very much influenced by the constitution, and by previous precedent, and that in a loose way most would include a broader grouping when saying “free speech”. And specifically here, a key component is what is a public figure. Because a public figure, often a government one, must show a higher degree of knowledge and malice to prove slander. The question has become are internet/social media one-hit wonders, or single issue campaigners, public figures, and therefore have less slander protection?
So you’re right that it won’t be technically the free speech laws that will be changed, it will be the libel/slander legal interpretations.
I read a piece recently that explained why a Space Force - as a dedicated branch of the military, not necessarily the image in Trump fans brains - is a good idea.
Essentially it boiled down to the US military being entirely dependent on GPS satellites and that Russia and China have been developing weapons to take them out. The Air Force currently receives funding to develop US defences against this, but routinely diverts these funds to traditional areas (shiny planes).
So the argument goes that you strip the funding, create a new branch that is focused on the task and it doesn’t cost anything extra.
I don’t mind the idea and I think that the US should have been heavily investing in R&D in the area. I mean, I imagine comparing NASAs budget to the Military budget wouldn’t make for pretty reading.
But I wouldn’t want Trump - or any Republican - to be in charge of it. The thought of it makes me think of Dr Evil’s moon laser.