A U.S. Court of Appeals has suggested it may pare back a Washington, D.C. law that imposed a gag order on President Donald Trump. The law, known as the D.C. Gag Order Statute, was enacted in January 2019 to restrict the president from making “statements or tweets” that threatened public safety or interfered with the D.C. government. A three-judge appeals court panel heard arguments in a challenge to the law brought by the right-wing group Citizens United and conservative commentator Lucian Wintrich. The challenge argued that the statement limiting statute violated the First Amendment, claiming that the order was overly broad and effectively blocked the free exchange of ideas. In response, the appeals court suggested that the District Court reconsider its finding and narrow the scope of the statute. The court stated that the law should focus more on dangerous or threatening statements, as opposed to more general remarks critical of the city government. The court also commented that enforcement of the statute should not be so stringent that it prevents critics from expressing their views. It remains to be seen whether the District Court will revise the gag order as the appeals court suggested. The law is controversial due to the sweeping nature of its language, as critics claim it infringes on free speech rights. The appeals court, however, may have provided a framework for recalibrating the law in a way that still provides protection for D.C. authorities while also preserving the right to free expression. This ruling has the potential to affect not only the D.C. Gag Order Statute, but also similar laws in other states. The ability to freely criticize the government is a fundamental right, and the appeals court’s decision to focus the statute on more specific threats indicates that it is willing to prioritize this essential right.