...
By Khaleda Rahman
National Correspondent
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump and America's traditional news media have long had an adversarial relationship.
But in recent weeks, Trump and his administration ramped things up a notch: punishing an outlet for its editorial decisions, attacking reporters by name, and removing without explanation video from an online archive used by media organizations to cover January 6.
One senior press executive alleged the First Amendment had been broken, while media analysts told Newsweek the acts were attempts to "force the media into compliance," rewrite history, and could have a "chilling effect and lead to some self-censorship."
Read More
Donald Trump Won. But the Biggest Loser Was the Mainstream Media.15 min read
Adam Penenberg, a journalism professor at New York University, told Newsweek: "News organizations are facing unprecedented external pressure, but the real test is how they respond. Will they bend to power out of fear? Or will they do their jobs and hold this administration accountable?"
Such spikiness from Trump is not out of nowhere. He has long criticized liberal bias in the media, which has been losing Americans' trust while battling flaws in its business model.
One free speech lawyer told Newsweek the new Trump White House should also be praised for helping rebalance coverage by giving more access to less traditional and more Trump-friendly media outlets.
"To the extent President Trump's White House is newly affording access to reporters that haven't had it in the past, and that may represent outlets that align with his views, that's great. It's a more-speech, more-transparent approach," First Amendment attorney Alex Morey, the vice president of campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said.
The White House has been contacted for comment.
...
The AP's dispute with the Trump administration stems from an executive order he signed on his first day back in office, when he renamed the Gulf of Mexica the Gulf of America.
The AP—which crafts a stylebook used by newsrooms around the world and is aligned to the left per AllSides, a public benefit corporation that says it serves news consumers—said last month that it would continue to refer to it as the Gulf of Mexico, while noting Trump's decision to rename it. The AP said the gulf has carried that name for more than 400 years and that, as a global news agency, it must ensure place names are easily recognizable for all audiences.
This month, the Trump administration began barring AP reporters from the presidential events at the Oval Office, Air Force One and other areas.
AP's senior vice president and executive editor, Julie Pace, said on February 11 the AP had been warned that its reporters would be barred from the Oval Office if it "did not align its editorial standards with President Donald Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the move the following day, saying "if we feel there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable."
...
Now the dispute is in court. The AP filed a lawsuit on Friday, suing for its access be restored. The suit names three Trump officials—Leavitt, White House chief of staff Susan Wiles and deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich—as defendants. On Monday, federal judge Trevor N. McFadden declined to immediately rule in AP's favor, saying it had not proven harm requiring an immediate restraining order. The next hearing is scheduled for March 20.
In response, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said "we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a fundamental American freedom."
'Hold Fake News Accountable'
The White House said asking the commander-in-chief questions in presidential locations was a "privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right" and it stood by "our decision to hold the Fake News accountable for their lies."
"President Trump will continue to grant an unprecedented level of access to the press. This is the most transparent Administration in history," it added.
Penenberg called the White House's actions "state propaganda in real time."
"Barring an Associated Press reporter from the Oval Office for refusing to adopt state-mandated language is not just pettiness; it's an attempt to force the media into compliance," he said. "If a president can control the words used to describe reality, he controls reality itself."
Several news outlets and journalists have called out the Trump administration's actions toward the AP, with the New York Times saying it stands with the agency in "objecting to governmental retribution for editorial decisions that the government disagrees with."
Dylan Housman, the editor-in-chief of the right-wing Daily Caller, said he didn't like "the precedent of the White House trying to influence journalist's terminology at the granular level this way."
Others noted that the incident recalled when the Obama administration sought to exclude Fox News from a pool interview with a Treasury Department official—and the other major television networks in the pool said they would not take part, leading the Obama administration to relent.
'More Transparent Approach'
Leavitt has publicly committed to allowing more influencers and reporters from less-traditional outlets more access to the White House briefing room. The Trump administration has also evicted several news organizations from their workspaces at the Pentagon to rotate in more Trump-friendly outlets.
It's a good idea, says free speech attorney Morey. But she warned, "going on to bar access for any journalist that doesn't agree with him, or is going to ask tough questions, or won't parrot the administration's views, is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."
Meanwhile, Trump and his close ally, billionaire Elon Musk, have recently attacked reporters by name on the social media platforms they own.
Trump called for The Washington Post to fire Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson "immediately" in a post on his Truth Social platform on February 14, calling him "incompetent." It came after Robinson wrote an op-ed that accused Republicans of "cowardice" as Trump "vandalizes the federal government and trashes our vital international alliances."
That same day, Musk targeted Wall Street Journal reporter Katherine Long after she—in her first article since joining the title—revealed a key staff member in Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, Marko Elez, was linked to a now-deleted social media account that advocated for racism and eugenics. Elez, who did not respond to the WSJ, resigned shortly after, only for Musk to announce he would be rehired.
Musk on his X platform called Long "a disgusting and cruel person" and said she should "be fired immediately."
It's clear the Trump administration "want to find every way possibly, both legally and illegally, to target journalists who they believe are prone to be critical of them and their policies," Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told Newsweek.
"When people in positions of enormous power make public statements threatening journalists that is likely to have a chilling effect and lead to some self-censorship."
'Thin-Skinned Press?'
Penenberg added: "This isn't just about calling out 'fake news' anymore. It's about creating a hostile environment where reporters risk their careers, safety, and even their freedom if they challenge the administration."
But Stern said that "just because we've got a thin-skinned president doesn't mean we need to have a thin-skinned press."
"Trump is allowed to say what he wants, as long as it's not accompanied by unconstitutional legal actions," he said. "Journalists hopefully got into the profession because they wanted to be courageous and wanted to rise to moments like these. I would hope that they've got enough resilience not to be scared away by some bully mouthing off at a press conference."
Stern argued that a bigger threat to the freedom of the press is the government's removal of records and resources that journalists rely on to do their job.
Last week, a group of news organizations, which included NPR, The Associated Press, CBS and the Wall Street Journal, said evidence used in the sentencing of a man convicted in the January 6, 2021, protests at the Capitol had "disappeared" from an online government platform. The outlets had fought for and won access during the Jan. 6 cases.
The group launched a lawsuit last Tuesday against the government for the exhibits' return after it said requests for an explanation had gone unanswered.
"Not just January 6, there are a lot of government websites and a lot of government records going offline," Stern said.
"That, I think, has the potential to be as damaging or more damaging to journalists' rights than the more egregious headline-grabbing rhetoric that comes from the president. That's all kind of being done in the background at the administrative level, and is quite concerning."
It's "another clear attempt to rewrite history," said Penenberg. "Authoritarians understand that controlling the past means controlling the future. If video evidence of an insurrection can disappear today, what stops them from erasing court records, altering news archives, or punishing journalists for reporting the truth tomorrow?"
First Amendment attorney Morey said: "We've certainly seen other administrations make free press missteps. They're usually corrected quickly. I think it's fair to say we've not seen this kind of open disdain for the free press. Not on this scale."
The Trump White House' recent treatment of the press is "concerning from both a constitutional and democracy standpoint," said Francesca Procaccini, an assistant professor of law and Vanderbilt Law School.
"Constitutionally, it shows how precarious our press rights are and the need for more robust access and protection for journalists from government intimidation and retaliation," Procaccini told Newsweek.
"Any healthy democracy requires a robust freedom of the press and the free flow of information—especially truthful information that is unfavorable to the government or that criticizes or contradicts the government's messages."
Penenberg argued that the "real test" is how the media will respond. "Let's be honest: the press has caved before," he said.
He pointed to the media's justification for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the uncritical reporting of racist government propaganda during Operation Wetback in the 1950s, as well the media's amplification of false claims about weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq War rather than challenging the narrative pushed by George W. Bush's administration.
"Every time the press surrendered its role as a check on power, the consequences have been deeply destructive," he said.
"This is not just a Trump problem. It's a media problem."
Update 2/27/25, 5:20 a.m. ET: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Dylan Housman's last name.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines