By Mary Jones | Monday, May 19, 2025 | 4 min read
What once passed as bluster from Donald Trump has curdled into something far more dangerous: a calculated campaign to muzzle the free press. The president’s long-running feud with the media has escalated beyond Twitter insults and “fake news” tirades. Now, with the machinery of government in his grip once again, Trump is going after journalists with subpoenas, regulatory crackdowns, and open threats—actions that feel less like politics and more like authoritarianism in motion.
From Rhetoric to Retaliation
We’ve seen this movie before. In 2016, Trump turned the press into a punching bag for his rallies. Reporters were heckled, corralled, and vilified. But that was theater compared to the current reality. This time, the stagecraft has become statecraft.
In his second term, Trump has moved from mockery to weaponization. His Justice Department has reportedly expanded its ability to subpoena journalists and unmask sources. One student at Tulane University was even detained over a pro-Gaza editorial—an ominous signal that dissent is no longer just discouraged, but potentially criminalized. Then came the calls to defund NPR and PBS—dismissed as “radical left monsters”—and an outright declaration that CNN and MSNBC are “illegal propaganda arms” of the Democratic Party. Think about that. A sitting president publicly flirting with the idea that critical journalism should be outlawed.
A Billionaire Backslide
Just as chilling is the quiet compliance from some of the media’s most powerful owners. Jeff Bezos, once cast as a foil to Trump, has now backed away from political confrontation. The Washington Post pulled its endorsement of Kamala Harris, pivoted its editorial stance toward a libertarian-lite market focus, and greenlit Amazon’s jaw-dropping $40 million investment in a documentary about—of all people—Melania Trump.
Over at the Los Angeles Times, billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong allegedly told the editorial board to ease up on Trump coverage. Pre-approval of political editorials has become the new norm, insiders say. The implication is clear: when profits are threatened, principles get shelved.
The FCC: From Watchdog to Attack Dog
The Federal Communications Commission, once a bureaucratic referee, now looks like Trump’s personal enforcer. Brendan Carr, the Trump-loyalist chair, has used the agency to investigate networks that run afoul of the president’s narrative—while conveniently giving Fox News a free pass.
Carr’s FCC went after CBS for its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, accusing the program of “news distortion” in a segment experts widely deemed credible. Though the claims were legally flimsy, they created real pressure—especially with a CBS merger hanging in the balance. The head of 60 Minutes, Bill Owens, resigned shortly afterward. Coincidence? Maybe. But chilling nonetheless.
Small Outlets, Big Targets
This crackdown isn’t just aimed at the cable news titans. Local newsrooms are feeling the heat too. KCBS, a respected San Francisco radio station, was hit with an FCC probe for reporting on an ICE raid—something dozens of outlets also covered using public information. Yet only KCBS drew fire. Carr alleged their story “endangered agents,” a claim legal scholars dismissed as absurd. But that didn’t stop the intimidation.
The message is clear: cover immigration, climate change, protest movements, or government overreach—and you might get a knock at the door.
Democracy Doesn’t Survive Without a Free Press
This is the playbook. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán gutted press independence before eroding the judiciary. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte used fear to muzzle journalists and consolidate power. Once the press folds, the collapse of democratic checks and balances is not far behind.
Maria Ressa, the Nobel-winning journalist who stood up to Duterte, said it plainly: “Without facts, you can’t have truth. Without truth, you can’t have trust. Without trust, you can’t have democracy.”
We should take that warning seriously.
No Room for Compromise
What’s needed now isn’t polite disagreement. It’s resistance. News organizations must be willing to go to court, to absorb losses, to stand by their reporters. Yes, legal battles are expensive. But the cost of surrendering the press is far greater.
Media owners like Shari Redstone, who once said press freedom “must constantly be defended,” are going to have to put their money—and their reputations—on the line. The public, too, must show up. Subscribe. Donate. Speak out. Because a silenced press doesn’t come back easily.
And once it’s gone, who will be left to tell the story?
Copyright 2025 FN, NewsRoom.
