FCC’s Brendan Carr
PBS defunding reversed — March 31 — A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration’s federal funding cuts for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.
Pentagon press policy unconstitutional — March 20, 2026 — A federal judge struck down the Pentagon’s prior restraint press policy from September 2025, saying that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
More Threats — March 14-15 2026 — President Trump and FCC chair Brendan Carr threaten to revoke broadcast licenses over what they claim to be incorrect news items. This followed a Trump social media post March 14 and March 15 claiming that damage reports from a minor incident were deliberately distorted. “Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts!” Trump wrote. “They are truly sick and demented people that have no idea the damage they cause the United States of America.” (Note: First Amendment advocates have repeatedly warned that Trump’s “rage rhetoric” is dangerous. )
Is it constitutional to threaten revocation of licenses? In NRA v Vullo, a unanimous May 30, 2024 Supreme Court decision, Justice Sotomayor wrote for the court:
A government entity’s threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. .
Pete Hegseth was not flattered. AFP / Pool photo.
Unflattering photos — March 10 — Defense secretary Pete Hegseth ordered photojournalists barred from Pentagon press conferences. Sources said Hegseth was upset over “unflattering” photos, although its difficult to understand which might have flattered him in the first place.
Deaths of soldiers only reported to make Trump look bad — March 4 — During a press briefing on March 4, Pete Hegseth claimed that the press was only reporting on the deaths of American soldiers in order to “make the president look bad.” Despite his time as a Fox news anchor, Hegseth clearly does not understand the role of the media.
Interview blocked — Feb 17, 2026 — An interview with Texas democratic candidate for senate James Talarico, was blocked from the CBS broadcast of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert under (supposedly) the Equal Time Rule.
Threats — Jan 17, 2026 — The White House threatens a lawsuit against CBS if it edits a Trump interview. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told a CBS producer that the network news program had to run a full interview with Donald Trump, without edits, or CBS would be sued. “Not long ago, the notion of a White House press secretary’s casually threatening a lawsuit if a journalist does not obey her orders would be shocking,” the New York Times said in a news article about the threat. “But Mr. Trump has made abundantly clear that he is serious about pursuing legal or regulatory action against media outlets whose coverage displeases him.”
The litigation Trump threatens is nearly always frivolous, capricious, and lacking an any serious merit whatsoever. When not “settled” out of court by media organizations under Justice Department pressure for merger approvals, the suits are thrown out of court. This is an entirely abnormal and unprecedented use of executive power to oppose the spirit and letter of the First Amendment.
Reporter’s home searched — Jan 13, 2026 — FBI agents executed a search warrant on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, whose beat included a wave of firings and layoff of federal workers. The search may well be illegal under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. UPDATE: Feb. 24 — The judge who approved the search warrant chastised prosecutors who did not tell him about the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law that limits ex-parte search warrants of newsrooms or reporters working files.
An ominous year for the media — Jan 10, 2026 — (PBS) “Traditional journalism outlets buffeted on all sides by misinformation, weak-kneed ownership and a hostile White House will struggle to earn back public trust even as the need for fair, accurate reporting grows. Smaller groups of wealthy businesspeople control larger swaths of the country’s information ecosystem, pitting their overall corporate interests against the public’s desire for accurate journalism challenging powerful institutions in society. And the biggest media deal of recent years is looming over everything, with ominous consequences for streaming, journalism, the film industry and consumers — no matter who finally closes on a purchase.”
Musk decries ‘censorship’ in AI deepfake controversy — Jan. 9, 2026 — Elon Musk, owner of X (Twitter), says the outcry over non-consensual sexual AI deepfakes is just an “excuse for censorship.” Musk’s xAI company is under fire for allowing its AI platform Grok to create images of real people, without consent, in sexual scenes or nude poses. These images have been posted on X which is closely linked with Grok. Posting non-consensual sex images (sometimes called ‘revenge porn’) is illegal in the US, EU, UK, Brazil, India, and Australia, but how the laws will be applied in this new situation is unclear. For now, X has pulled the image generating function for Grok back behind a paywall. (Also see US v Williams, 2008; Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 2002).
Trump sues BBC — Dec. 15 — Donald Trump sued the British Broadcasting Corp. for $10 billion, accusing the news organization of a “defamatory … depiction of President Trump.” He also claimed it was an “attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The 33-page brief is essentially a litany of opinionated complaints without much of a legally grounded argument about defamation. There is only a half-hearted attempt to meet the Sullivan actual malice standard, for example (p 15). The main argument is that selective editing of a video of Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021 gave the impression that he called for violent action in the hours before the violent takeover of the US Capitol by his followers.
In order to prevail in court, plaintiffs in defamation cases must prove that the defendants knowingly published a falsehood or were in reckless disregard for the truth. For example, in the Dominion v Fox case settled in April 2024, text messages exchanged between news anchors and producers showed clearly that they did not believe the allegations they were required to repeat on the air. No similarly strong evidence is cited in the Trump v BBC lawsuit.
Trump “media bias” tracker — Nov. 28 — The White House installed a database that (in the words of its press release) “drop(s) a flamethrower on the Fake News Media.” It is supposed to catalog “the avalanche of lies, deliberate distortions, and manufactured hoaxes…” For example, an NBC report that ICE arrested 75,000 with no criminal records is rebutted with the notion that “ALL illegal aliens have broken the law.” This is obviously an apples-to-oranges comparison. Bottom line: plenty of media bias watchers existed before Trump decided to weigh in, and they did a far better job without spending taxpayers money.
First AI libel suit dismissed — Nov. 21 — A Georgia state court granted a motion to dismiss a case brought by radio broadcaster Mark Walters against OpenAI, an artificial intelligence developer of ChatGPT. Walters alleged that ChatGPT had libeled him with false information about supposed financial fraud. In its Walters v OpenAI decision, the court noted that the service uses a disclaimer: “ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.” Walters also testified that he was not harmed by ChatGPT and that he had not contacted the service and asked it to withdraw the false information.
Federal Judge William Young’s Sept. 30 decision in the AAUP v Rubio case (involving deportations of students following campus protests) is an indictment of the Trump administrations attempts to undermine the First Amendment. Young said:
This case—perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court—squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence.
Trump re-files lawsuit against the NY Times — Oct 16 — President Trump has renewed his lawsuit against the New York Times after a federal judge rejected the initial $15 billion defamation suit on Sept. 18. Although smaller and somewhat less effusive in its praise for Trump, the lawsuit simply repeats the newspaper’s criticism of the president without attempting to demonstrate any knowing falsehoods or instances of reckless disregard for the truth, which would be required in a legitimate defamation lawsuit.
Trump issues executive order against flag burning — Aug 25 — The order acknowledges the Texas v Johnson 1989 case which held that flag burning was Constitutionally protected symbolic speech. However, the Trump order claims to be against the “imminent lawless action” that flag burning might provoke.
Legal fallout from 2020 election fraud claims: Smartmatic v Fox –– Aug 22 — Private messages between Fox hosts reveal a contrast between on-air statements and private discussions. On air they supported Trump’s claims. Privately, Sean Hannity referred to Sidney Powell’s assertions as “insane,” and Laura Ingraham called Powell a “complete nut.” Maria Bartiromo also shared claims about Smartmatic with colleagues while acknowledging they were “not verified” Dominion Voting Machines v Newsmax — Aug. 15 — A right-wing news organization has agreed to pay $67 million to a voting machines company that sued for libel over claims that vote tallies in the 2020 election were fraudulently altered in favor of Joe Biden. The settlement was smaller but similar to the one that took place in Dominion v Fox, in April of 2023. Newsmax also settled with Smartmatic voting machines for $40 million March 13, 2025.
First Ladies and libel — Melania Trump says she will sue Hunter Biden Aug. 13 over allegations she and Donald were introduced by Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, Brigitte Macron, wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, said on July 23 that she is suing a right wing blog host for alleging that she is male not female.
Stanford Daily newspaper files censorship suit against Trump administration. — Aug 6 — The university’s daily newspaper sued alleging violations of free speech rights of foreign students who have been deported or threatened with deportation for expressing views contrary to Trump administration policies. The suit reads (in part): “In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion. That is because America’s founding principle, core to who and what we are as a Nation, is that liberty comes not from the benevolent hand of a king, but is an inherent right of every man, woman, and child.”
Trump also sued CBS over its editing of a video interview of Kamala Harris. (CBS paid $16 million to settle the frivolous lawsuit in order to clear its legal path to a merger). He also sued ABC over over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ supposedly inaccurate remarks about his conviction for sexual assault. (That suit was settled Dec. 14, 2024). He also sued the Des Moines Register newspaper over a poll that supposedly put him in a bad light. (That lawsuit will stay in federal court as of July 2). And there are more. The lawsuits are part of a broad strategy to weaken First Amendment protections according to legal expert Sam Martin.
Coomer v Lindel — June 16 — A Denver jury awarded $2.3 million to Eric Coomer, a former executive with Dominion Voting Machines, who sued Trump supporter Mike Lindel for defamation over allegations of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Gavin Newsom v Fox — June 6 — The California governor sued Fox News for allegedly misrepresenting a dispute with President Trump.
Associated Press access to White House — April 8 — The Trump White House can’t punish the The Associated Press for news coverage and geographic terminology that Trump dislikes, a federal judge said Tuesday. The injunction by Judge Trevor McFadden was a major blow to the administration’s efforts to curtail the AP’s access to the White House. (CNN, AP, NPR ). The Trump administration appealed the decision Nov. 24, 2025, and the case (by end of April 2026) still being appealed. AP Executive Editor Julie Pace explained what’s at stake in the set of lawsuits.
Court won’t reconsider Sullivan — March 24 — The Supreme Court denied certiorari to a petition brought Steve Wynn, a former casino owner and Republican party figure. The petition asked the court to overturn the 1964 Supreme Court defamation ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark libel case that makes it difficult for a public figure to pursue a defamation claim. Wynn had argued that the Sullivan standard “is a relatively new feature of libel law.” (Reuters)
FTC is blocked from pressuring Media Matters analysis group. — Aug. 15 — The Federal Trade Commission began looking into the liberal watchdog group’s research critical of Elon Musk and his social media platform, X, in May following allegations of antisemitic content being promoted on X.
Other recent libel cases include: Donlon v. Adams in which a former NYPD Commissioner sued Mayor Eric Adams for defamation, alleging Adams questioned his cognitive abilities; Ellis v. Influencer: A National Guard pilot sued an influencer for falsely identifying her as the captain of a helicopter involved in a collision; Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Newsweek Magazine LLC, dismissed from a New York state court for failing to meet Sullivan standard burdens of proof;
