Jay Carey, a 54-year-old retiree with over 20 years of service, burned a flag in Lafayette Square, risking arrest to defend what he sees as a "sacred constitutional right." The "right" in question being committing arson in public spaces and disrespecting the symbol of the nation.
Newsweek reported that on Monday, Carey burned a flag in direct defiance of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that very day, urging the Justice Department to pursue prosecutions for such acts despite Supreme Court rulings protecting them under the First Amendment.
Carey, who traveled from North Carolina to Washington, D.C., for a veterans’ protest against National Guard deployments in the capital, saw his fiery gesture as a necessary rebuke.
“I realized that I needed to, that day, go and burn a flag in front of the White House to have the biggest impact,” he declared. Well, impact achieved, but at what cost when the law itself is on shaky ground?
This isn’t just any protester—Carey earned a Bronze Star in the Iraq War among a slew of honors, including two Meritorious Service Medals, during stints in Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Retired as a Sergeant First Class, he’s not shy about his motive: defending the very rights he fought for. His credentials beg the question—shouldn’t a hero’s protest carry extra weight?
Immediately after his act, Carey was detained by the Secret Service in Lafayette Park for igniting an object, then handed over to U.S. Park Police, who held him for about five hours before release.
A Secret Service spokesperson confirmed they “detained an individual in Lafayette Park” before transferring jurisdiction. It’s a swift response, but one wonders if it’s more about optics than justice.
Charged with violating a federal park rule against lighting fires, Carey now awaits a court summons by mail. Yet, the heat doesn’t stop there—he’s under investigation for further charges, with the Secret Service and Department of Justice reaching out to him and even his family. This feels less like due process and more like a message: don’t mess with the flag, or else.
Trump’s executive order admits the 1989 Supreme Court decision shields flag burning as free speech but pushes for prosecution if it incites lawless action or qualifies as “fighting words.”
“You burn a flag, you get one year in jail,” Trump insisted. But isn’t this just a flashy attempt to sidestep settled law for political points?
Carey isn’t backing down, aligning with a veterans’ group opposing what they call an occupation of U.S. soil by American troops.
He plans to keep protesting in D.C., monitoring ICE operations while challenging this policy. It’s a bold stance, but in an era where dissent is often labeled unpatriotic, his military record might be his strongest shield.
“Presidents don’t make law,” Carey fired back, arguing that no executive order can override the First Amendment. He’s got a point—constitutional rights aren’t suggestions, they’re bedrock. Yet, in today’s polarized climate, will that argument hold, or will it be drowned out by calls for “law and order”?
The day after his arrest, Carey got a call from someone claiming to be a Secret Service agent asking about the incident, while his wife and son received voicemails about an investigation into him. “We have voicemails from them saying that we’re looking into Jan Robert Carey,” he noted. It’s unsettling—why drag family into a public protest?
Carey suspects this is personal for the administration, musing, “It’s an ego thing for him.” He might be onto something; a direct challenge like this, right outside the White House, could sting more than a policy disagreement. Still, turning a protest into a family affair feels like overreach, even for the toughest law-and-order advocates.
Undeterred, Carey welcomes the legal fight, even up to the Supreme Court if needed. “I’m looking forward to going to the Supreme Court if necessary to fight this,” he said with conviction. It’s a gutsy play, banking on the judiciary to reaffirm free speech over executive fiat.
He’s confident in the outcome, stating, “I do have faith that when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution, they would rule in my favor.”
That optimism is refreshing, but in a time when cultural battles often trump legal precedent, it’s hardly a sure bet. The courts have upheld flag burning before, yet public sentiment can sway even the highest bench.