By Mark DaCosta- Since his re-election President Donald Trump has swiftly moved from criticising media, he perceives to be anti-him, to actively restricting press freedoms, marking a significant escalation in his long-standing battle with the media and journalists that do not pander to him.
What was once campaign trail rhetoric has now become government policy in the United States, with his administration taking concrete steps to limit access to information, intimidate news outlets, and reshape the media landscape to align with his agenda. This shift has raised alarm among press freedom advocates, who warn that these actions undermine democratic principles and the public’s right to know.
One of the most striking examples of this crackdown occurred on February 11, when Associated Press (AP) reporters were barred from covering White House events for two consecutive days. The reason? The AP refused to adopt Trump’s newly coined term, “Gulf of America,” for the body of water traditionally known as the Gulf of Mexico.
Trump had renamed the Gulf via executive order, but the AP, adhering to its style guide, continued to use the original name. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision, stating, “It’s a privilege to cover the White House,” and questioning why news outlets resisted the new terminology.
This incident is part of a broader pattern of actions targeting media organisations. At the Pentagon, several established news outlets, including NBC News and National Public Radio (NPR), were ousted from their workspace as part of a new “annual media rotation programme.”
Their spots were given to far-right outlets such as One America News Network, which has close ties to Trump’s allies. Katie Couric, a renowned journalist, criticised the move, stating it would hinder journalists’ ability to cover the Pentagon effectively.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), now led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, has also been weaponised against the press. Under Carr’s direction, the FCC has launched investigations into public broadcasters NPR and PBS over allegations of running commercials, which both organisations deny.
Federal funding for these broadcasters is contingent on their not airing commercial content, making these probes potentially damaging. Additionally, the FCC reopened investigations into CBS and ABC, accusing them of “news distortion” and mishandling presidential debates.
Trump’s administration has also taken steps to limit public access to government information. Thousands of pages have been removed from federal websites, including those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Journalists have been denied access to White House pool reports, which detail the president’s daily activities, while pro-Trump propagandists, podcasters and social media influencers have been granted credentials.
Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, condemned these actions, stating, “Coming into office and immediately deleting webpages, hiding government data, and interfering with journalists’ access sets a dangerous tone.”
Legal threats have also been a key tool in Trump’s anti-media arsenal. He has sued multiple outlets, including ABC News and CBS, over their coverage. In one case, ABC agreed to pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit after anchor George Stephanopoulos referred to Trump as having been “found liable for raping” writer E. Jean Carroll. While a court had found Trump liable for sexual abuse, it did not rule on rape, leading to the legal dispute.
Trump’s long-standing threat to change libel laws to make it easier to sue media organisations has not materialised, as libel laws fall under state jurisdiction. However, his rhetoric has had a chilling effect. Heidi Kitrosser, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University, noted, “The mere threat of such action, backed by the power of the State, impinges on the ability of the press to report freely.”
Critics argue that these actions reflect a broader disdain for a free press. Rebecca Hamilton, a law professor at American University, stated, “Their view is that any media outlets that don’t align themselves with Trump’s agenda are the enemy.” This sentiment has led some to draw parallels between
Trump’s tactics and fascism, a political ideology characterised by authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, and control over information. While Hamilton did not explicitly label Trump a fascist, she warned that his actions reflect “a fundamental disrespect for the principles underlying a democratic commitment to a free press.”
According to one Guyanese commentator: in Guyana, where freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, these developments serve as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding democratic values.
As our nation should rightfully strengthen its institutions, the erosion of press freedoms elsewhere underscores the need for vigilance. The role of the media as a watchdog, holding those in power accountable, remains vital to the health of any democracy.
Trump’s actions, from barring journalists to launching investigations into media outlets, represent a significant shift from rhetoric to reality. As these measures unfold, the world watches closely, aware that the stakes extend far beyond the borders of the United States.
