Ari Miller and Laura Benitez contributed research to this blog.
In yet another alarming attack on free expression, multiple states have recently enacted or are considering bans on diverse flags in public schools or on government property. This year, flag ban bills have been proposed in 16 states – and Idaho, Montana, and Utah enacted four of them. Some of these bills contain financial penalties for displaying a prohibited flag, such as Utah’s, which imposes fines of $500 per day on institutions violating the law.
While Idaho and Utah’s laws are the first statewide flag bans enacted, the idea was first proposed in Congress in 2021 to try to codify a ban of non-United States flags on U.S. embassies imposed by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Multiple school districts, cities, and counties across the country have enacted local bans in recent years, which have also been increasingly introduced in state legislatures, too. One Texas school district has gone so far as to ban Virginia’s state flag (because of an illustrated breast).
Idaho’s first flag ban, signed on March 19, targets public schools, prohibiting the display of flags that “represent a political viewpoint, including but not limited to flags or banners regarding a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender, or a political ideology.” The bill goes on to specify what flags are permissible, restricting schools to official government and school flags. Likewise, Idaho’s second enacted flag bill bans government entities, other than schools, from displaying any flag that is not on the bill’s short list of permissible government, military, and school flags, rather than explicitly banning certain “political viewpoints” and “ideolog[ies]”.
Utah’s new flag ban law went into effect in March without Governor Spencer Cox’s signature. Similar to Idaho’s second bill, Utah’s HB 77 restricts public schools and government entities to flying flags from a short government-provided list. Montana’s HB 819 was signed by Governor Greg Gianforte in May and restricts flags that represent any “political party, race, sexual orientation, gender, or political ideology.”
States That Proposed or Enacted Restrictions on Diverse Flags in 2025
Students and educators ought to have the right to express their identity and values freely, even if it makes some people uncomfortable. But in each case, these laws’ characterization of certain flags as simply expressing “political viewpoints” rather than affirming the identities of LGBTQ+ people and people of color is being used to justify what is unquestionably an act of state-mandated erasure.
Indeed, many of these bills’ sponsors claim that they “[aren’t] stifling freedom of speech” and that the bills create a “neutral learning environment.” But make no mistake: these bills are deliberately targeting flags that represent marginalized communities, in particular LGBTQ+ pride flags, as well as Black Lives Matter flags, and certain international flags. Veiled language about “divisiveness” and anecdotes about parents’ or constituents’ complaints about these diverse flags have made it abundantly clear that censorship and erasure is a prime motivation behind these laws.
Advocates nationwide have expressed concerns about the potential impact of these bans on inclusion and free expression. In an era of increasingly hostile school environments, flags in schools that recognize or celebrate identities of students that have been historically marginalized can make those students feel a greater sense of belonging. Further, these flag bans raise such blatant First Amendment concerns that even the staff analysis of Florida’s now-failed flag ban bill dedicated a full page to explaining the constitutional issues.
Nonetheless, around the country, these flag bans are continuing to gain momentum. In Florida, this is the third year in a row that the state legislature has failed a proposed flag ban targeting “political viewpoints” on race, sexual orientation and gender. While several other states’ bills have stalled or died, Texas and North Carolina’s proposed bans are continuing to move, each having passed one chamber. And at the federal level, two bills have been introduced restricting which flags can be flown outside US-owned public buildings domestically and abroad.
Bringing hope to this situation are the number of communities resisting these bans, in some cases using loopholes in the laws. In multiple cities in Utah and Idaho, pride flags have been formally added to the lists of official city flags, in order to circumvent these laws. In Salt Lake City, for instance, rainbow pride, trans pride, and Juneteenth variations of the city’s flag were created; in Boise, pride flags were adopted as an official city flag.
Still, that multiple bills that have, or could, become law this year which seek to censor the symbolic representation of different identities reflects the alarming momentum of discriminatory attacks on freedom of expression in this country in 2025. Community efforts to push back speak to the power of resistance and will hopefully inspire other actions to stop the erasure of these flags nationwide.
