3 hours ago

The US used to be the gold standard for press freedom. Not any more | Kai Falkenberg

This week is World Press Freedom Day. That used to be a time when we pointed fingers at governments that kept journalists from doing their jobs – places like Turkey, where reporters are imprisoned for libel, or Saudi Arabia, where government censorship is a part of daily life. From our privileged perch here in the US, we highlighted the struggle of journalists suffering under authoritarian rule. But this year, the ones suffocating aren’t halfway around the world – they’re right here at home.

In my 20 years as a media lawyer, I’ve always seen the United States as the gold standard for press freedom – a model admired by journalists around the world. But in just a few short months, the Trump administration has severely undermined those protections, creating a chilling effect on independent reporting and public dissent. Today, the White House is waging an increasingly hostile campaign against the press, pushing to control coverage in ways that go far beyond anything we saw during the president’s first term.

Borrowing tactics from press-repressive regimes, the attacks have come from all sides – billion-dollar lawsuits, government investigations, blocked access and outright withdrawal of funding. All of it is unfolding at a time when public trust in the media is at an all-time low, emboldening juries to hand down record-breaking verdicts.

Trump has long used lawsuits to intimidate the press, but what has changed is the judicial landscape. He has appointed over a quarter of all active federal judges, and he has been strategic in making sure cases targeting the media end up in courtrooms that lean his way.

Take his $20bn lawsuit against CBS News, for example – a staggering figure tied to how 60 Minutes edited its interview with Kamala Harris. He claims the segment defrauded viewers in Texas under the state’s consumer protection laws. So why file in Texas? The case was brought in Amarillo, a district with just one judge – and yes, he’s a Trump appointee.

It’s a far-fetched, fantastical claim – yet CBS is reportedly considering a mediated settlement. Why back down from a case they could probably win? It’s a cold, calculated decision – one that others in Trump’s crosshairs have also made. Just weeks after his election, ABC News settled a defamation suit with him for $16m. It was a defensible case. But Disney, ABC’s parent company, knew any major business deal over the next four years would need the administration’s blessing. So they did the math: better to stay in the good graces of a president known for holding grudges than risk jeopardizing future profits.

It wasn’t just Trump they feared – it was the prospect of facing a Florida jury. After years of Trump branding legitimate investigative reporting as “fake news”, we now have a deeply polarized country where juries can be swayed by political rhetoric, posing real threats to the survival of major news outlets.

In a recent libel case against CNN, filed in a Florida district that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, the trial foreshadowed what his promised crackdown on the press would look like in his second term. The plaintiff’s argument echoed Trump’s relentless attacks on the press, urging jurors to punish the so-called “lamestream” media.

After an unfavorable ruling on liability, CNN ultimately decided to settle, afraid of what the jury might do. When the case ended, the jury forewoman revealed she would have pushed for $100m in damages had the trial continued. A verdict that large would have caused serious harm – and there was nothing in the case that justified it.

Beyond the risk of huge jury verdicts, several news organizations are now under government scrutiny. Comcast, Verizon and Disney are all facing FCC investigations over allegedly unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Companies like Yahoo and Gannett have already begun rolling back their diversity initiatives. Meanwhile, executive orders targeting law firms raise serious free speech concerns, sending a chilling message to attorneys who might otherwise support or work with the press.

That support has never been more essential. In a blatant attempt to shape media coverage, the White House banned Associated Press reporters from the press pool after the outlet refused to follow an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico. AP’s lawyers argued that punishing a news organization for not using government-approved language is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination – and the judge, a Trump appointee, agreed. The court ordered the White House to reinstate AP’s access to the press pool and related events. Instead, the administration eliminated the spot reserved for wire services entirely and openly defied the court’s order. Now, the government plans to take the case to the supreme court. Fortunately, AP’s legal team is standing firm.

As AP’s chief White House reporter Zeke Miller testified, the government’s actions have already had a chilling effect on the press. Since the AP was banned, the tone of questions directed at the president has noticeably softened. Reporters also say that sources — not just in politics, but in science and other fields — are now more hesitant to speak publicly. Some outlets are already facing leak investigations, and with Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinding the Biden-era policy that discouraged subpoenas against journalists last Friday, even more legal pressure is expected. That includes the very real prospect of criminal prosecution.

The administration’s strategy of using funding as leverage is also having a serious effect on the media. It has pulled financial support from the US Agency for Global Media, which backs broadcasters such as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia – a move that undermines US efforts to promote democracy and fight disinformation abroad. After a congressional hearing last month, the administration is proposing to eliminate nearly all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR, PBS and local public media outlets. Such a loss could severely affect the sustainability of these essential sources of news and information.

All of this is happening at a time when longstanding legal protections for the press are under renewed attack. Opponents of media freedom are actively seeking to dismantle New York Times v Sullivan – the landmark supreme court decision that has safeguarded journalists for decades. That ruling established that public officials must prove “actual malice” to succeed in a libel suit, recognizing that the press needs breathing room to report freely, even if it sometimes gets things wrong. Under Sullivan, media outlets are only liable in cases brought by public figures if they knowingly publish false information or act with reckless disregard for the truth.

Now, that precedent is being directly challenged. Sarah Palin, who this week lost the retrial of her libel suit against the New York Times, has openly stated her intent to use the case as a vehicle to overturn Times v Sullivan. It’s unclear whether enough justices on the current court are prepared to go that far. Even if the decision stands, the legal landscape for journalists has become far less forgiving. With trust in the media at historic lows, judges are increasingly willing to let even the weakest defamation cases proceed – prolonging litigation, draining resources and placing a heavier burden on the press.

It takes real courage to keep holding power to account in the face of growing legal threats. But it’s more important than ever that we do – and that we draw strength from the example of journalists around the world who have been reporting under pressure far greater, and for far longer, than we have.