The Trump administration’s campaign against press freedom has widened into a broad effort to influence speech in the United States, using federal agencies, legal action and control over access to government officials to target journalists, broadcasters and critics.
FBI agents have visited reporters’ homes to serve subpoenas and, in at least one case, displayed a warrant while seizing electronic devices. The Pentagon has removed the editor and publisher of Stars and Stripes, its traditionally independent newspaper, and restricted access for journalists who refused to sign reporting agreements.
Regulators have also been deployed against media organisations over their content, while the administration has withdrawn funding from public television and radio. The White House has taken control of the press pool that follows the president, deciding which outlets may participate.
President Donald Trump has additionally pursued lawsuits against major news organisations, comedians, broadcasters and individual journalists. The campaign has been driven by anger over coverage, concern about leaks and a determination to shape the political narrative in his favour.
Administration officials describe the approach as an attempt to hold the media accountable for biased or inaccurate reporting. Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said: “Biased reporting from the media is a disservice to the American people.”
He added: “We utilize every tool available to ensure that accurate reporting is provided to the public and the stain of those who knowingly peddle false information is held accountable.”
Free speech groups argue that the measures are intended to intimidate and silence dissent. Clayton Weimers, executive director of the North America division of Reporters Without Borders, said: “There’s not a week that goes by where they’re not taking a new step to curtail press freedom in the country. We have measured a substantial diminishment of press freedoms.”
When challenged in court, the president and his administration have often faced strongly worded rulings affirming First Amendment protections. But lawyers and media analysts warn that the cost of reaching a legal victory can still be severe, with organisations forced to pay substantial legal fees and absorb reputational damage.
Reporters Without Borders ranks the United States 64th out of 180 countries in its press freedom index, its lowest position since the index was established in 2002. Similar declines have been recorded by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the V-Dem Institute of Sweden.
Federal agencies turned against media critics
The administration’s use of regulatory power has been particularly prominent at the Federal Communications Commission, led by Brendan Carr. He has revived rules relating to alleged news distortion and investigated major broadcasters over their diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Mr Carr has said the FCC is requiring broadcasters to meet public-interest obligations that previous administrations failed to enforce. Critics, including former Republican FCC chairmen, argue that he has exceeded the agency’s authority.
Mr Trump has praised the chairman’s actions. At a private White House event, he described Mr Carr as “the most powerful man in the world” and said he was “keeping these crooked networks honest”.
After Mr Trump called for action against NBC host Kristen Welker over reporting he disliked, and suggested the FCC should punish the airing of “fake polls”, Mr Carr said the agency was considering “a lot of actions”, including action on “fake polls”.
ABC has been one of the administration’s most prominent targets. Mr Trump sued the network in 2024 over anchor George Stephanopoulos’s description of the verdict in the defamation case brought by E Jean Carroll, who accused the president of sexual abuse. ABC settled the case for $15 million.
During Mr Trump’s second term, the FCC opened an investigation into ABC’s diversity and inclusion hiring policies and revived a conservative group’s complaint about the network’s 2024 presidential debate. It also sought to require the daytime programme The View to comply with equal-time rules for political candidates, despite having previously agreed that the show qualified for an exemption.
In April, after Mr Trump and the first lady demanded that ABC dismiss late-night presenter Jimmy Kimmel over a joke, the FCC began an early review of the licences held by ABC stations. The agency said the move was prompted by ABC’s response to its inquiry into diversity and inclusion practices.
ABC has described the action as “deeply un-American” and accused Mr Carr of using enforcement proceedings to wage a “retaliatory campaign”. The network told a federal court that fear of further action had influenced its programming decisions, including its decision to broadcast online a prime-time speech by Mr Trump that it would not otherwise have carried.
The broadcaster also said it had avoided certain bookings and video clips on The View and had received extensive demands for internal documents, including staff communications and editorial policies.
Anna Gomez, the only Democratic FCC commissioner, said: “It’s unprecedented to seek these records because they are part of the editorial decision-making. It’s all a strategy, and tools, to intimidate broadcasters into submission.”
Mr Carr has called ABC’s lawsuit meritless. The FCC has asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing that the network is attempting to halt an agency investigation while overstating the impact on its speech rights.
Legal pressure on journalists and watchdog groups
The administration’s actions have extended beyond broadcasters. The Federal Trade Commission investigated Media Matters for America after Elon Musk sued the liberal media watchdog over an article concerning pro-Nazi posts appearing on his social media platform X alongside advertisements from major brands.
Republican state attorneys general in Texas and Missouri opened investigations into the group. Media Matters secured court injunctions blocking both inquiries, but after Mr Trump returned to office the FTC began its own investigation and demanded internal documents about the organisation’s methods and finances.
The agency said it was examining whether groups that identify online disinformation had colluded with advertising firms to direct spending away from disfavoured outlets. Conservatives had described the issue as part of a so-called “censorship industrial complex”.
A federal judge in Washington later found that the FTC’s investigation of Media Matters was “a straightforward First Amendment violation”. The group said the proceedings had nevertheless been costly and that it had self-censored some articles to avoid further scrutiny.
The FTC also investigated NewsGuard, which rates the reliability of online information. NewsGuard said it had attracted attention partly because it gave the conservative website Newsmax a low rating.
The agency later reached an agreement with the newly merged advertising company Omnicom Interpublic Group that restricted the broad use of ratings such as those produced by NewsGuard to withhold advertising from certain websites. NewsGuard said the provision effectively placed it on a blacklist and caused it to lose business.
The FTC ultimately dropped both investigations, saying it had protected free speech through agreements with advertising firms and had acted against anti-competitive behaviour that “distorted the marketplace of ideas”.
Dan Schneider, vice-president for free speech at the conservative Media Research Center, defended the actions. “Please, let’s not forget history and rewrite everything that went on before,” he said.
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner dismissed by Mr Trump, described the agency’s conduct differently, calling it “a perversion of the FTC’s authorities in order to punish the speech of perceived enemies and reward perceived allies”.
Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said government attempts to subpoena journalists and chill their reporting through threats were at their highest level since his organisation began tracking such incidents in 2017.
Judges challenge restrictions on the press
Several of the administration’s measures have been challenged successfully in court. In January, the FBI searched the home of a Washington Post reporter and seized devices during an investigation into a contractor’s handling of classified material.
Judge William B Porter barred the government from immediately reviewing the material, saying that doing so would be “the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of The Washington Post’s henhouse.”
The Justice Department also withdrew subpoenas seeking phone records and testimony from journalists at The New York Times after a judge questioned government lawyers about the demands. The reporters had written about the security capabilities of a new Qatari-donated Air Force One jet.
In another case, a judge considering Mr Trump’s personal lawsuit against The Des Moines Register over a 2024 Iowa poll that showed him trailing expressed concern that allowing the claim to continue could have “a massive, chilling effect”.
The president has also brought legal actions against the Guardian, journalist Bob Woodward and the Pulitzer Prize board. Many of the lawsuits have been financed by his donor-funded political action committee.
A judge ruled in favour of The New York Times in a challenge to restrictions on journalists at the Pentagon. Judge Paul Friedman wrote that the authors of the First Amendment believed national security required “a free press and an informed people” and that such security was threatened by government suppression of political speech.
After the newspaper initially won in court, Pentagon officials introduced further limits on journalists’ access. An appeals panel allowed one key restriction to remain temporarily, requiring reporters to be escorted inside the building where they had previously been able to move freely.
Longtime First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said that, despite the strength of constitutional protections, the threat created by the administration’s actions remained real until the courts had ruled on them.
“It’s one thing to say there’s an extraordinarily powerful First Amendment, but unless and until courts rule on these matters, the threat is very real,” he said.
