Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s 15 Attacks on Press Freedom Mark an Unprecedented Crisis

A 16‑month pattern of legal threats, access bans, and censorship signals a deepening press crisis.

Opinion

​Reporters and members of the media raise their hand to ask a question to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Reporters and members of the media raise their hand to ask a question to U.S. President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House on April 25, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Al Drago / Getty Images

“Freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy, and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. President

Throughout America’s 250 years, the tension between the White House and the press is as old as the republic itself. Several presidents haven’t necessarily tried to repeal the First Amendment (which protects the press), per se, or the Fifth Amendment (which protects journalists’ confidential sources). Instead, some have tried to control the narrative and limit press access.


Let’s try to understand why restricting freedom of the press by the current president should be of concern, as FDR so eloquently stated back in 1940.

The President’s and the media’s constitutional friction

The First Amendment clash: Some presidents view media scrutiny as an obstruction to governing and/or a threat to national security, whereas the press views executive branch secrecy and access restrictions as a direct assault on the right to inform the public.

The Fifth Amendment clash: When the government uses surveillance and/or the threat of jail time to force journalists to reveal confidential sources, it creates a battle over federal overreach and the rule of law.

The most significant reason why a few presidents push back against the press is that, since the failed Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and media coverage escalating to round-the-clock news, some leaders have realized that unhindered media access swayed public opinion against their administrations.

Historian scholar Harold Holzer’s work on the presidency reveals that many leaders treat journalists as political threats rather than democratic partners. They fear, not revere, the press (The Presidents vs. The Press, 2021).

There are 15 specific examples where freedom of the press has been challenged during the 16 months of Trump’s 2.0 presidency. Here’s a capsule summary of the incidents:

Direct legal and financial attacks:

1) On Sept. 15, 2025, a $15 billion defamation lawsuit was filed against The New York Times and four journalists for their reporting on the book titled Lucky Loser.

2) A $10 billion suit against the BBC over the editing of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was filed on Dec. 15, 2025.

3) And on July 18, 2025, a $10 billion lawsuit was filed against The Wall Street Journal for reporting the president’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Access restrictions:

1) In February, 2025, Associated Press reporters were indefinitely banned from press events after refusing to use the president’s preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.”

2) In 2025, news outlets CNN, NPR, NBC News, The Hill, Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post were denied Pentagon office space.

3) In September, 2025, the Department of Defense required reporters to sign a pledge promising not to use material even if it was unclassified.

4) On March 4 and 10, the Pentagon barred Associated Press, Reuters, and Getty Images photographers from attending Iran War briefings.

Regulatory coercion and censorship:

1) The administration used FCC regulatory approval for the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger as leverage, which led CBS to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

2) On May 1, 2025, executive orders were issued to cancel NPR and PBS federal funding; a congressional request occurred on June 3.

3) On March 14, 2025, the administration attempted to shut down Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.

4) On April 6, 2026, regarding a leak about a U.S. rescue operation in Iran, Trump told journalists to “give [the source] up or go to jail.”

5) The administration launched an official government tool – White House Bias Tracker – to track and publicly flag “media bias,” which serves as a state-sponsored blacklist for journalists.

Personnel targeting:

1) Notable reporters, like Don Lemon and George Fort, were arrested on Jan. 29 while covering public protests.

2) On Oct. 3, 2025, Atlanta-based Spanish-language journalist Mario Guevara was deported to El Salvador following critical reporting.

3) On Jan. 14, the FBI raided the residence of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post journalist, allegedly to uncover the source of a government contractor leak.

Citizen caveat emptor and Congressional oversight

Fifteen attempts by President Trump to restrict freedom of the press in 16 months of his second presidency are unprecedented and should be a clarion call to every American to demand action. Bipartisan congressional oversight is long overdue.

It’s time to seriously reflect on the breadth, depth, and scope of GOP President Ronald Reagan’s Oct. 6, 1983, historic comment: “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life. The economic freedom that has earned us such great bounty and the precious freedoms of speech and assembly would have little meaning or be totally nullified should freedom of the press ever be ended.”


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states.


Read More

Democratic Presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds his first presidential campaign rally at Brooklyn College on March 02, 2019 in Brooklyn, New York.

A lobbyist who worked for both Bernie Sanders and Fortune 500 clients explains what democratic socialist wins mean for business, and how to prepare.

VIEW press/Getty Images

I Campaigned for Bernie Sanders Then Lobbied for Amazon

In 2016, my political outreach company, Firehouse Phones, worked on the presidential campaign of a democratic socialist. It was one of many campaigns my firm touched, but that one stays on my resume for a reason: it taught me more about how persuasion actually works than any client engagement before or since.

Today I run Ohio River South, a government affairs firm focused on the nation's fastest-growing region — the American South. Over the past decade we've advocated for nearly two dozen Fortune 500 companies — Amazon in my earlier lobbying years, and later growing a client roster that included Alphabet, Microsoft, General Motors, United Healthcare, and Capital One.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less