In a move that has reignited debates over free speech and media bias, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order in 2025 titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidisation of Biased Media.” This directive eliminated all federal funding for the four largest national public broadcasters. This even extended to prominent nonprofits such as National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Critics contend that this move violates core democratic tenets and is an affront to free speech. They warn against Trump’s continued attempts to shape the narrative in media.
Freedom and democracy have long been core messages of Trump’s own brand. Free speech is often described as “central” to America’s democratic truths by him. His actions suggest a different approach. This isn’t the first time Trump has tried to silence those who speak out against him. This recent executive order continues that unfortunate trend. He’s filed lawsuits against several national news outlets. In a high-profile defamation lawsuit, he vindicated his right and went on to slay a Miss Universe contestant who alleged the pageant’s results had been rigged.
In retaliation, in late 2024 Trump has begun a multi-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. A federal judge threw out the suit, deeming the attempt “decidedly improper and impermissible.” Even still, he advances his personal vendetta against the few media outlets he sees as hostile. Most recently, he attacked late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, saying Kimmel had been “fired for lack of talent.” Trump went on to imply that any broadcaster who criticized him should be punished — with the implication being that their licenses should be revoked.
Trump’s relationship with media has been tumultuous. First, during his 2016 run for president, he required all campaign workers to sign non-disclosure agreements. Yet this year, those agreements were nullified as a result of a legal settlement. He has gone to media outlets with his complaints. He claimed that NBC would be violating the Federal Communications Commission’s “equal time” rule by showing Saturday Night Live with Kamala Harris right before the 2024 presidential election.
Critics like Dr. Emma Shortis, a political analyst, assert that what Trump is doing is part of a menacing precedent. She states, “Trump has always attempted to silence people who say things he doesn’t like. The difference now is that Trump and his supporters have levers of power that allow them to actually cancel people.” This feeling is shared by many who see his methods as more and more dictatorial.
Brendon O’Connor, a media scholar, echoed these concerns, stating that “these late-night comedians who have a lot of negative things to say about Trump have been under attack from the administration and their supporters.” He argued for the critical role of satire in democratic discourse. “If that place of satire is no longer available in the United States on mainstream television, then I think it does tell us about the character of American democracy and American free speech,” he remarked.
Trump continues to assert that the Fourth Estate spins unfair stories around him. He calls the shots, and he labels any coverage that doesn’t suit him as “illegal.” He stated, “They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad. See, I think it’s really illegal, personally.” This statement is a perfect example of his belief that bad press is the same thing as a violation of his First Amendment rights.
The stakes of Trump’s media policies go far beyond policy differences over coverage. Pen America has described his actions as indicative of “a new level of capitulation and censorship of speech more redolent of autocracies than democracies.” The nonpartisan organization warns that Trump’s destructive and retaliatory actions against America’s public broadcasters pose an existential threat to journalistic integrity. They equally threaten the most fundamental aspects of American democracy itself.
“It’s all part of the Trump administration’s broader assault on American democracy and has to be understood as such,” she asserts. This perspective highlights how Trump’s executive order may be seen as part of a systematic effort to reshape public discourse and limit critical viewpoints.
While Trump has framed his initiatives as necessary to combat what he perceives as biased reporting, many argue that they threaten the very principles he claims to uphold. As discussions about free speech and media integrity continue to unfold, the impact of Trump’s actions remains a focal point for advocates concerned about censorship and democratic accountability.
