In response to President Trump's recent executive order targeting flag burning, federal charges have been filed against Jay Carey, a North Carolina Army veteran, who was arrested for setting fire to a U.S. flag in Lafayette Park as a form of protest.

Carey pleaded not guilty to federal charges including igniting a fire in an undesignated area and damaging property, with a court date scheduled for December 1 and a motion to dismiss due by October 17.

The incident, captured on social media and widely shared, has sparked debate over free speech, veterans' rights, and the limits of protecting national symbols.

Carey and other veterans traveled to Washington to protest the deployment of the Army National Guard, which they and others view as a military occupation, adding context to his act of protest.

Legal support for Carey has poured in, with law firms willing to fight the executive order in court, and the incident has garnered media attention.

This controversy is part of a larger debate over flag desecration laws, free speech rights, and the symbolism of the American flag.

The White House has not commented on the incident, while Carey's legal team plans to challenge the charges as unconstitutional, asserting they violate the First Amendment.

Carey's lawyer, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, criticized the charges as an attempt by the Trump administration to suppress dissent and free speech, framing it as a violation of constitutional rights.

Carey, a decorated Army veteran who served from 1989 to 2012 with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, stated his actions were a protest against what he perceives as illegal government actions, emphasizing his constitutional oath.

The executive order aims to restore respect for the flag and prosecute desecration, but it has received mixed reactions among veterans and free speech advocates, with some supporting a constitutional amendment and others defending free expression.

The charges were filed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a Trump appointee, citing laws against burning on federal property, though critics argue this infringes on free speech rights.