America’s shift towards authoritarianism is unfolding in the open, with a relatively free press documenting it. Donald Trump has targeted various institutions, and although his attacks on the press have been sporadic, a systematic assault may follow if his other efforts are unchecked. He could threaten media owners’ business interests to encourage self-censorship and use defamation lawsuits or alter tax exemptions for nonprofits to undermine journalistic independence. Despite these potential threats, the press remains constitutionally protected, and innovative, independent media may adapt better than legacy outlets. Vigilance and preparation are essential to safeguard press freedoms against Trump’s potential authoritarianism.
One of the peculiar aspects of America’s descent into a dictatorial regime is that it unfolds in plain sight and is covered by a still-independent press, often to Donald Trump’s dismay. In other authoritarian regimes, the first step taken by the dictator is typically to silence the opposing media.
As Trump seeks to undermine one free institution after another—universities, law firms, independent public agencies, trade unions—sooner or later, the press will likely be targeted. For now, his attacks against the media have been more petulant and weak than systematic.
He has vaguely attempted to limit access to the White House press room, which isn’t precisely an inalienable right. His vendetta against the Associated Press started when AP refused to comply with his ridiculous request to adopt his new name for the Gulf of Mexico.
He took a petty jab at CBS’s broadcast license, upset over the interview aired on 60 Minutes featuring Ukrainian President Zelensky, which critiqued the U.S. response to the Russia-Ukraine war. He has also threatened public broadcasting—which primarily relies on listeners and viewers—with funding cuts.
More from Robert Kuttner
Currently, these actions seem relatively minor. However, unless subsequent efforts toward dictatorship are curtailed by the judicial system, Trump is likely to pursue the press more methodically, employing several tactics.
One approach involves threatening the business interests of media owners, which could lead to self-censorship. This dynamic has already begun to surface with the content directives from Jeff Bezos to columnists and editorialists at The Washington Post, as well as the more overt censorship practiced by Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the L.A. Times.
Even more troubling is the false sense of neutrality being fostered at The New York Times by publisher A.G. Sulzberger and executive editor Joe Kahn. This approach often produces articles on outrageous Trump policies that exhaustively quote “experts” from both sides, as well as superficial features on Trump’s sycophants.
A recent article on Trump’s FBI chief, Kash Patel, who is evidently unqualified and alarming, was titled “A Different Kind of F.B.I. Chief: Jet-Setting Patel Loves the Limelight.” The subheading claimed, “Kash Patel’s embrace of the spotlight appears to be a break from the recent past, as his predecessors typically did the job with little fanfare.” Seriously?
A positive note comes from The Wall Street Journal. Despite being owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also controls Trump’s propaganda outlet Fox News, the Journal covers Trump without hesitation or bias, excelling in investigative reporting that often surpasses that of the Times, and in forthright editorials.
While Trump may have considerable influence over domestic policy, contrary to his delusions, he does not have sway over the entire world.
However, if Trump is not contained, he has various other tools at his disposal. I discussed one in a previous piece for Prospect last year. The progressive ecosystem relies heavily on tax-exempt status and foundation funding, which includes research institutions, advocacy groups, and many publications like ours.
Trump’s sudden attempts to eliminate the tax exemptions of entities such as Harvard University were blatantly unlawful. The law clearly prohibits a president from directing the IRS to target a specific institution. Due process is mandatory before an exemption can be revoked, and the reasoning cannot simply be political.
Moreover, many foundation-supported 501(c)(3) organizations often struggle to keep their operations separate from related (c)(4)s, which can take partisan positions within limits. (For clarity, the Prospect does not operate a (c)(4).) A Trump-led IRS could attempt to revise the rules, further limiting advocacy by (c)(3)s. Trump could also intimidate the foundations that provide funding for advocacy groups and media outlets. Since foundations also have tax-exempt status, cautious foundation trustees could potentially overreact, resulting in decreased legitimate funding.
I’m not letting any secrets slip: Trump is well aware of the power he wields. He may reportedly aim to revoke the tax exemptions for several environmental groups today, on Earth Day. However, this issue has yet to breach the nonprofit journalism sector, but it could.
The press is also susceptible to an influx of defamation lawsuits that could be financially backed by Elon Musk. Currently, the Supreme Court’s 1964 landmark ruling in Times v. Sullivan shields the press from losing frivolous libel lawsuits. This ruling established that a public figure suing a media outlet must demonstrate “actual malice” and “reckless disregard for the truth.”
However, smaller media outlets could face financial ruin due to legal fees, even if they eventually win. Times v. Sullivan has been a long-standing target for Clarence Thomas, and its provisions could be modified by a conservative Supreme Court majority or restricted through new legislation.
Another weapon that could be employed—common in many countries but not present in the U.S.—is an Official Secrets Act. In the U.S., if a journalist publishes information deemed confidential or classified by the government, the public official leaking that information risks prosecution, but the journalist does not. Under an Official Secrets Act, however, the journalist could also be held liable. Trump aims to keep as much information secret as possible.
Public broadcasting is an especially vulnerable target. NPR has produced some of the most thorough reporting on Trump. As mentioned, if Trump were to dismantle the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, dedicated listeners might compensate for any funding losses. Yet, in a full-blown dictatorial scenario, Trump could wield a more potent weapon. Radio and TV stations operate on public frequencies, and a Trump-controlled FCC could simply reallocate spectrum frequencies, effectively silencing stations.
AS A MEMBER OF THE PRESS, I feel compelled to emphasize that journalists are among the few professions specifically protected in the Constitution (along with lobbyists, unfortunately). The freedom of the press could play an essential role in defending the profession. We must resist passively submitting like some in the mainstream media.
An open secret is that Trump despises the press while simultaneously relishing it: relishing the spotlight, enjoying seeing his name in headlines, and exploiting the concept of an independent press to his advantage.
But it’s crucial to pose the question: How can we prevent this from occurring, and what actions should we take if it does? First and foremost, by shining a light on his actions.
Trump’s other dictatorial moves against universities, law firms, legal immigrants, government departments, and the global trade system must be curtailed before he turns his attention to the press. The more boundaries that are placed upon him, the less extensive his dictatorship is likely to be.
If he does initiate an all-out assault on the press, there are ways to defend against it. For example, even the Chinese Communist Party, despite their attempts to construct a “Great Firewall of China,” has struggled to block citizens from accessing the internet. Much of the free press, including local public broadcasting, may need to transition online, where a significant portion of news discussions already takes place.
Legacy media, which tends to be costly and more often owned by business moguls with varied interests, may prove more susceptible to these actions. In contrast, independent media, which tends to be more agile, might adapt with greater ease. The Prospect is shifting toward a model that relies almost entirely on reader funding (you can donate here).
And while Trump may exert control over a significant portion of domestic policy, his fantasies aside, he does not command the entire globe. Some of the finest English-language journalism originates abroad, such as from the Financial Times, The Guardian, the BBC, and the CBC. During World War II, media based in London successfully circumvented Nazi censorship. One could envision a scenario in which an American free press operates or broadcasts from exile.
Let’s hope it does not come to such extremes, but being prepared never hurts.