What happens when the experts aren't experts?

 Hey everyone, I just had the pleasure of reading this New York Times article about an interview Trump did with NBC. I highly recommend watching the clip; it's about 3 minutes. But the tldr is this -- Trump responded to the question about whether or not he agreed with Marco Rubio's statement that everyone, regardless of citizenship, deserves due process with "I don't know, I'm not a lawyer". He then follows up by saying that due process would impede his deportation efforts, which was what he was elected to do. The interviewer responded by asking, "But isn't it your duty to uphold the constitution of the United States of America as President?" To which Trump again says, "I don't know, but I have brilliant lawyers that work for me...". 

 Trump is definitely in an expert position in the government, and yet his answer of "I don't know" if everyone should have due process makes it seem like he is not, in fact, an expert. So, do the additional burdens of the truth come with actually being an expert, or just being in a position in which someone would expect to find an expert? To me, the impacts of an expert lying/culpably misrepresenting/critiquing something without the correct context seem more tied to the position than the person. The speech ties to a position can use the position as a platform to spread so it will reach a larger audience. So when we look at regulating expert speech, the people in expert positions should be held to a higher standard, as opposed to regulating everyone with a PhD. There are, however, incompetent people in expert positions all the time. That could be responded to by saying that incompetent people can be fired instead of trying to address their speech. The possibility of someone incompetent in an expert position is also unlikely, so it's not a pressing issue when dealing with expert speech. A counter to that response could be Shiffrin's point about corporations, where their goal is not the betterment of society. That shift in goal means that businesses, if successful, often looked at as experts within their fields, could be viewed as "incompetent" at communication as a means of social development, instead communicating as a means of making a profit. This would mean that there are plenty of people tied to positions of expertise who would simply make mistakes (including speaking with the motivation of profit); not intentionally lie, mislead, or have a reckless disregard for the truth. Instead, they might simply not know. 

The larger point I'm trying to unpack here is a feeling that we need to strike some balance between allowing people to make mistakes and allowing people to make reasonable mistakes. I completely believe that it's important to protect false speech that has good intentions. But I think there needs to be an additional line drawn between strong convictions that an expert believes are correct, or a lack of conviction that is regardless viewed by society as wrong and dangerous (such as the president not needing to uphold the constitution) but then again, I'm very aware of the fact that popularity of a thought does not make it true or harmless. So in some ways, I think even more speech should fall under the umbrella of unprotected and/or regulated speech, but that is a very loosely held belief.