Trump, allies pursue multipronged campaign against the press

President Donald Trump, in one of the first executive orders of his new term, extolled the importance of “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship.” Yet, from the outset of his second presidency, Trump’s appointees and allies in Congress have joined him in doing the opposite by routinely targeting the press.

Whether by limiting access, withdrawing federal funding, threatening legal action or targeting sources, the White House is leading a multipronged assault on journalists and the First Amendment.

Limiting media access

Trump has continued patterns established during his first administration, in which he excluded journalists from his press briefings and threatened to revoke the press credentials of those who covered him unfavorably before halting regular press briefings entirely.

His administration’s relationship with the media remains fraught, and from the first days of Trump’s second term that hostility has transformed into a deliberate campaign of extreme measures to control the narrative and limit critical coverage of the administration.

For example, the White House has wrested control of the press pool from the White House Correspondents’ Association and barred Associated Press journalists from participating in it in retaliation for the wire service’s editorial policies.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt justified the AP’s exclusion by claiming that the news wire was pushing “lies” in continuing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico despite Trump’s renaming. (Leavitt made similar assertions about the trustworthiness of journalists who list pronouns in their email signatures when justifying an apparent policy of ignoring their queries.)

Efforts to dictate coverage continue to escalate: In early April 2025, the White House censored two press pool reports, opting to not disseminate the reporters’ coverage through official channels. A week later, the White House eliminated the permanent wire service seat in the presidential press pool, a move the AP condemned as an attempt to circumvent a court order mandating its access to White House events.

The message from the White House is clear: Journalists and media organizations that fail to align with the administration’s views face retaliation, and reports that contain information the administration finds unflattering or troublesome will not be tolerated.

Pulling federal funding

Through another of his executive orders, Trump gutted the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America and provides funding for multiple private international broadcasters.

In a March 15 news release, the White House railed against “The Voice of Radical America,” and said Trump’s executive order “will ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.” Trump’s first administration also accused VOA of promoting foreign propaganda, asserting that “VOA too often speaks for America’s adversaries—not its citizens.”

A federal judge ordered the administration to halt efforts to fire or furlough employees at the news agency at the end of March, and another judge reversed VOA’s closure April 22, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” Kari Lake — whom Trump had appointed to lead VOA — appealed the ruling two days later, blocking operations at the outlet from restarting after more than six weeks of silence.

Trump and his allies have similarly accused NPR and PBS of spreading “propaganda,” and are now working to revoke federal funding to the government-backed Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees funding for the public broadcasters and their local affiliates.

Just hours after he was sworn in for his second term, Trump loyalist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene attacked PBS News on social media, writing that she looked forward to making it justify its use of taxpayer funds before her House subcommittee.

Greene then summoned executives from PBS and NPR to testify at a March 26 hearing during which she lambasted the outlets as “un-American” and “radical, left-wing echo chambers.” In her closing statements, Greene announced that the subcommittee would call for the dissolution of the CPB, which provides around 16% of PBS’s budget and 1% of that of NPR, though its member stations receive an average of 10% of their funding from the nonprofit.

The following day, Rep. Ronny Jackson — also a staunch Trump supporter — introduced a bill to eliminate all direct and government funding for the outlets, which the Trump White House took one step further in April by drafting a recision request that would cancel $1.1 billion in funding already approved for public broadcasting.

Pursuing investigations and lawsuits

While commercial broadcasters are safe from direct funding threats, Trump and his allies have leveraged governmental authority and legal tactics to punish critical reporting and undermine their financial stability.

At the forefront of this campaign is Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, who has reopened and launched investigations into broadcasters for alleged bias against Trump and nonadherence to his administration’s policies.

The FCC is investigating ABC, CBS and NBC for their programming in the lead-up to the 2024 election; NPR and PBS over their advertising and sponsorship practices; NBC and ABC over their parent companies’ diversity programs; and a California radio station for its coverage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.

Carr told Semafor that he aims to hold broadcasters to their obligations to the public. “If you are a broadcast, and you don’t want to serve the public interest, you are free to turn your license in,” he said.

Most of the news outlets under investigation have also been the target of barbs and, in some cases, lawsuits from Trump. In October, for instance, Trump followed through on threats to sue CBS News over the same “60 Minutes” interview with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris that is at the heart of Carr’s investigation.

Since his first term, Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of “loosening” libel laws to make it easier for powerful figures to sue journalists and media organizations for critical reporting.

While he filed multiple defamation lawsuits against the press after he left office in 2021, Trump’s recent legal filings have included allegations of copyright infringement, election interference and violations of consumer protection laws.

Others in Trump’s circle have followed his playbook, including his campaign co-chief Chris LaCivita, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, state attorneys general Ken Paxton and Andrew Bailey, and Republican megadonor Steve Wynn.

Such suits can have a chilling effect on the news media, discouraging reporters from pursuing potentially controversial stories due to fear of governmental retribution, financial ruin or even criminal charges.

Indeed, in a speech at the Department of Justice in March, Trump said that critical news coverage of his administration “should be illegal and it probably is illegal in some form,” and during his first term allegedly encouraged the director of the FBI to consider jailing journalists.

Targeting leakers

At the time, former FBI Director James Comey recounted that Trump’s suggestion was specifically to use incarceration to coerce journalists into disclosing sources behind the confidential leaks plaguing his first administration.

Trump’s current administration has demonstrated a similar obsession with identifying and punishing leakers. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Noem have each announced aggressive investigations into the source of leaks to the media.

On April 23, Gabbard said she had asked the Justice Department to investigate alleged leaks by two individuals she characterized as “deep-state criminals,” adding that a third referral was imminent.

The New York Times reported that, while Gabbard has promised action against the leakers and not the newsrooms that publish the leaks, it signals an effort to chill national security reporting.

“Leak investigations threaten the free flow of information that the public needs to hold the government accountable, especially in the national security context,” Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Times. “This is true from administration to administration.”

Further, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has reversed Biden-era policies that protected journalists from subpoenas for their records and communications.

“This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people,” Bondi wrote in her April 25 memo.

Under Trump’s first administration, the DOJ secretly obtained or attempted to obtain records from at least nine journalists in connection with leak investigations. Such subpoenas endanger both the targeted journalists and the foundation of investigative journalism, which relies on source protection.

During the first Trump administration, the DOJ charged eight individuals with leaking classified information or lying to the FBI about their communications with journalists, the same number prosecuted during President Barack Obama’s two terms. Only one individual — an IRS consultant — was charged with leaking information under the Biden administration.

Just 100 days into Trump’s second term, he and his allies have launched a multipronged campaign against journalists, media organizations and their sources, pushing a narrative that questions the legitimacy of critical reporting and seeks to suppress dissenting voices.

How the news media responds to these challenges — and how American institutions and the public rally to defend press freedom — could well shape the future of journalism in the United States.