President Trump spent much of his first term skirmishing with the press. In his second term, it could become all-out war.
Unrestrained by a compliant Republican Congress, unconcerned about re-election, unimpeded by cautious advisers—the proverbial “adults in the room”—Trump seems poised to use the powers of the presidency to harass and hobble the news organizations he has repeatedly called “the enemy of the people.”
To be sure, Trump’s war on the press will be a strange and somewhat contradictory one. Trump feeds off as much attention as the media lavishes upon him. His fame was forged in the heat of tabloid front pages, and later primetime TV. Whatever conflict he desires, it will be with a beast he has a deeply symbiotic relationship with.
ADVERTISEMENT
During his first term, Trump toyed with banishing the press from the White House grounds (he didn’t). He occasionally banned reporters he deemed noxious (courts overruled him and sent them back).
In contrast to an otherwise laissez-faire approach to antitrust enforcement, his Justice Department sued to block a merger sought by CNN’s parent company, a deal Trump explicitly opposed (the suit failed). He periodically suspended daily press briefings, at one point going more than a year without one.
He also sought to end government funding of NPR and PBS, and to remodel federally funded news organizations, such as Voice of America, into Trump-friendly organs (he failed in those efforts, too).
Proving that nothing has changed since then, Trump has kicked disfavored reporters out of his campaign rallies and events, sued news organizations he believed had wronged him, and demanded the licenses of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC be revoked for various perceived slights (the networks don’t have licenses, but no matter). On Friday on Truth Social, Trump called for investigations into those who propagated rumors he was interested in selling shares in the platform.
How does all this square with Trump, the showman, who lambasts the press, even as he bathes in the glare of flashbulbs? Quite simply, Trump plays it both ways—the star of his own show commanding headlines, while also the anti-news media hardman out to avenge anyone he feels has done him wrong, or been too inquisitive.
Bashing the press has been a Trump signature since he declared for president in 2015. But his rhetoric has grown darker and more menacing since then. “In 2016, I declared: I am your voice,” he said in kicking off his campaign last year. “Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.” In the waning days of the campaign he mused about not minding if a would-be assassin shot at him “through” the press gallery at his rallies.
There’s little reason to doubt he’ll be even more emboldened in a second term, given that he has already declared his victory in the Electoral College and popular vote “a mandate” for his agenda.
Screen burn
What might Trump have in mind? The worrisome outlines are contained in “Project 2025,” the 922-page collection of policy proposals published by the conservative Heritage Foundation last year.
The document became so notorious during the campaign that Trump disclaimed knowledge of it and rarely mentioned it. But considering it was written by dozens of operatives likely to be appointed to prominent positions in the new Trump Administration, it would be naïve to dismiss Project 2025 as merely a think tank’s wish list.
Among its prescriptions are some that Trump has already tried, such as defunding VOA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency that passes federal money to PBS and NPR stations. Trump “zero’ed out” CPB funding in all of his proposed budgets during his first term; Congress routinely ignored his preference and appropriated the money—a streak that may not last in a Congress more loyal to Trump than any previous one.
Project 2025 added a few new suggestions, such as yanking the security clearances of former intelligence officers who speak to the press, and unleashing the Justice Department to investigate journalists who publish stories based on classified information.
One of Project 2025’s more obscure recommendations could be one of its most consequential: Limiting pharmaceutical ads on TV. The ads have been a key source of revenue for news programs ever since the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on prescription-drug advertising in 1997, as Joshua Benton of Harvard’s Nieman Foundation noted in a report about the proposal. Restricting or curtailing these ads would likely cripple TV newscasts.
Project 2025 asserts, without evidence, that the FDA’s decision to allow these ads has bought pharma companies “considerable influence in the newsroom—whether media companies acknowledge this or not”—and that it “distorts independent reporting on public health issues.” It recommends the FDA or Congress regulate “where and how” pharma ads appear, “especially on media outlets.”
Trump’s anti-media agenda includes urging Congress to “open up” libel laws to make it easier to sue and win defamation cases against media outlets—a suggestion that has gained some traction with the Supreme Court’s two most conservative judges. Trump himself has a long history of unsuccessful lawsuits against reporters and news organizations. But the notion of liberalizing libel laws cuts both ways. In January, a jury agreed that Trump had defamed writer E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $83.3 million (Trump is appealing).
Trump has darkly mused about jailing reporters, particularly those who refuse to reveal their sources of sensitive government information. In 2022, he suggested the threat of being raped in prison would offer a compelling reason to cough up a name. “When this [journalist] realizes that he’s going to be the bride of another prisoner shortly, he will say, ‘I’d very much like to tell you who [his source] was.’”
Trump’s hostility toward the news media is matched by his allies and aides. Kash Patel, a Trump acolyte who is likely to hold a senior position in his administration, told fellow Trump adviser Steve Bannon on Bannon’s podcast last year, “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media. We’re going to come after you.”
Framing journalists as “conspirators” and threatening them with prison might foster the most powerful restraint of all—self censorship. So-called “anticipatory obedience” could have a chilling effect on the media’s behavior. We won’t know what doesn’t get reported.
A complex dance
While the First Amendment prevents the most crude and draconian government decrees—revoking a broadcast license is difficult and almost never happens, for example—Trump doesn’t need to do anything extraordinary or extra-legal to bully the press. As New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger wrote recently, merely pulling the banal levers of government will accomplish the same result.
Sulzberger cited the example of Hungary under authoritarian prime minister (and Trump favorite) Viktor Orbán. “His country is a democracy, so he can’t simply close newspapers or imprison journalists,” Sulzberger wrote. “Instead, he sets about undermining independent news organizations in subtler ways—using bureaucratic tools such as tax law, broadcast licensing and government contracting. Meanwhile, he rewards news outlets that toe the party line—shoring them up with state advertising revenue, tax exemptions and other government subsidies—and helps friendly businesspeople buy up other weakened news outlets at cut rates to turn them into government mouthpieces.”
Trump is wise to this playbook, too. During his first term, his administration intervened to stop the Department of Defense from awarding a $10 billion contract to a subsidiary of Amazon. Trump also publicly called for the Postal Service to raise the rates it charged Amazon for package deliveries.
Both actions had a nexus: Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and the owner of The Washington Post. Trump, long irritated by the Post’s coverage, has accused Bezos of using the newspaper as “a tool for political power,” and as a means to promote Bezos’ business interests (none of that appears to be true). Trump plainly saw Amazon as a pressure point for the Post and Bezos.
Unlike Sulzberger, Bezos has generally refrained from explicit criticism of Trump. He has sometimes laughed off Trump’s threats (“Finally trashed by @realdonaldtrump,” he tweeted in late 2015; he added, referencing his space exploration company, “Will still reserve a seat for him on the Blue Origin rocket. #SendDonaldto space”), but otherwise endured Trump’s taunts without responding.
The dance between Trump and the media—depending on what that media is, and who owns it—may be a complex one, as either side seeks to assert their own versions of control and independence.
Lately, Bezos has seemed even less willing to poke the bear: 11 days before Tuesday’s election, he spiked the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, writing that presidential endorsements “create a perception of bias” (the decision was widely denounced and has led to an avalanche of canceled subscriptions). On Wednesday, Bezos made his overtures to Trump more explicit, offering him “big congratulations” for his election victory in a rare post on X.
Bezos‘ words of congratulation may provide a guide to the future: a mogul trying to box as clever as possible around a fellow mogul, the latter now holding the reins of supreme political power. Will Bezos playing nice be followed by other media outlets and magnates—and what does that mean for the news media they and others control? Will journalists continue to be able to report fully? Will self-censoring take place?
Or is Bezos simply being magnanimous and diplomatic? Maybe. When Trump eventually occupies the Oval Office, it will pay to be on his good side. In the meantime, it will take more than just a few kind words to combat the gathering threat.
