Purpose: Grounded in the scholarship addressing teacher self-censorship around controversial topics, this paper aims to investigate a three-part research question: How do secondary English language arts (ELA) teacher--candidates (TCs) in the penultimate semester of their undergraduate teacher education program position political texts/speeches, interpret high school teens' political standpoints and view the prospects of discussing political texts/speeches with students? The study findings provide insights to the ways some TCs might position themselves as novice ELA teachers relative to political texts/speeches, students, colleagues and families in their future school communities. Design/methodology/approach: Audio-recorded data from whole-class and small-group discussions were coded for TCs' positioning of political texts/speeches, interpretations of teens' political standpoints and viewpoints on discussing with students President Obama's speech, "A More Perfect Union" ("A.M.P.U.") The coded data set was further analyzed to identify themes across the TCs' perspectives. Findings: The data set tells the story of a group of TCs whose positionalities, background knowledge and practical experiences in navigating divergent perspectives would influence both their daily selection and censorship of political texts/speeches like "A.M.P.U." and their subsequent willingness to guide equitable yet critical conversations about controversial issues in the secondary ELA classroom. Originality/value: In advance of the 2018 midterm elections, this paper considers how the common core state standards' (CCSS) recommendations to include more nonfiction documents in ELA instruction positions ELA teachers to provide interdisciplinary support in helping students think critically about political issues. It expands on the body of scholarship that, thus far, has been primarily grounded in the research on social studies instruction.