Trump’s Attacks on the Press Underscore Power Struggles Over Media Control, FCC Independence
Donald Trump has once again targeted the press in an explosive campaign speech. He unleashed his signature vitriol, stating, “The fake news are back there… cameras rolling. Their light will go off any second now. They’re crooked as HELL! They’re Fake News… One of my better terms,” to enthusiastic cheers. “The only problem is, it’s not strong enough. Fake? It’s CROOKED, CORRUPT, DISGUSTING news. But we’ll have to do with Fake!” These remarks encapsulate his relentless hostility toward the media.
Trump’s words reflect more than mere insults. They signify a calculated strategy aimed at consolidating presidential control over the media landscape and regulatory institutions like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). His consistent push for tighter control over the press hints at a dangerous shift in the balance of power.
Throughout his presidency and now again as a candidate for 2024, Trump has voiced ambitions to regain oversight of agencies like the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission. In a striking statement from 2023, he declared, “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies… back under Presidential authority.” He appeared unfazed by the implications of such control, asserting, “When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total.”
Legal precedents bolster this ambition. The Communications Act of 1934, particularly Section 706, endows the president with significant authority over media during times of war or national emergencies. This grants the executive branch latitude to determine what constitutes a crisis, leaving the door open for potential overreach.
As a recent Congressional Research Service report points out, the powers tied to these laws hinge on how the sitting president interprets his authority. Trump’s incendiary statements elevate the stakes, suggesting a willingness to employ these legal tools to silence dissent.
In addressing the press’s role, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel emphasized the importance of protecting First Amendment rights: “The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.” Yet, Trump’s ongoing rhetoric undermines that assurance.
He has labeled the press “THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!” and called for the media to “pay a big price for what they have done to our once-great Country.” Likewise, he expressed agitation that his term “fake news” was insufficiently strong to capture his disdain.
In tandem with his inflammatory words, Trump’s actions suggest a calculated approach. During his time as president, he initiated a $1.1 billion proposed funding cut to public broadcasters like NPR and PBS, accusing them of bias. He filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, signaling his intent to retaliate against negative coverage. His administration even expelled the Associated Press from White House coverage, a decision later overturned by the judiciary.
Furthermore, there have been claims that Trump’s administration pressured the FCC to investigate media outlets, allegedly aiming to pressure networks to shift away from specific editorial policies. As a troubling response to regulatory scrutiny, some media companies have caved to demands, exemplified by Paramount’s withdrawal of various diversity initiatives after facing FCC challenges.
Trump’s rhetoric at rallies has often crossed into dangerous territory, as he joked about needing to “shoot through the fake news” while disparaging journalists as “bloodsuckers.” Such statements do more than entertain; they lay the groundwork for a narrative that undermines journalism critical of his administration.
Critics contend that these aggressive tactics serve to delegitimize media that challenges Trump’s narrative. By labeling news outlets as “fake,” “corrupt,” or “crooked,” he arouses his base while potentially laying the groundwork for media suppression under emergency powers.
Trump’s presidency revealed a preparedness to wield national emergency powers to circumvent legislative authority. Legal experts caution that this approach could extend to media control. By declaring a “national security” emergency fueled by alleged conspiracies or misinformation, a renewed Trump administration could leverage Section 706 to seize assets and exert control over media narratives.
There have been reports of White House officials withholding critical information on the so-called “Doomsday Book,” fearful that Trump might misuse such powers. Yet as a candidate, he openly endorses a sweeping vision for executive authority that raises alarm bells.
This ongoing tension places the FCC in a pivotal role amid a constitutional tug-of-war. Traditionally seen as an independent regulatory body, its ability to safeguard a diverse media environment is at risk. Chair Rosenworcel has asserted the FCC’s neutrality, but the consolidation of power through executive declarations could fatally weaken First Amendment protections across all forms of communication.
In a July 2024 congressional panel, legal scholar Michael Gerhardt reinforced the peril: “The danger is not only theoretical. When you concentrate media authority under the executive, especially someone hostile to the free press, you’ve paved the way for direct censorship.”
The implications of these developments extend beyond national broadcasters. Smaller outlets, local affiliates, and rural public radio stations could feel the weight of new pressures, particularly if they depend on federal licenses or funding administered by the FCC.
As Trump’s campaign unfolds, it straddles the delicate line between provocative rhetoric and actionable strategies. His disparagement of the “corrupt” media fuels enthusiasm in some quarters while risking serious implications for press freedoms. The combination of inflammatory rhetoric, executive orders, defamation lawsuits, and regulatory pressure promises to reshape the media landscape and the relationship between the government and the press in the United States.
Trump asserted during a 2023 event, “I have Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” That interpretation of presidential power, coupled with existing emergency laws, places the authority to undermine press freedoms perilously close.
"*" indicates required fields
