Press freedom under siege in Trump's first 100 days

Express Tribune

16-05-2025

In a nation long regarded as a global standard-bearer for free speech, the first hundred days of Donald Trump's second presidency have marked an ominous turning point for the American press.
A new report by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 'Alarm Bells: Trump's First 100 Days Ramp Up Fear for the Press, Democracy', lays bare a landscape increasingly hostile to independent journalism, in which reporters are being sidelined, public broadcasters undermined, and regulatory agencies turned into tools of intimidation.
For newsrooms across the country, the report paints a very grim picture. Media outlets and practitioners now face both overt pressure and subtler constraints—pressures that risk tipping into full-fledged self-censorship. Major networks including CBS, NBC, NPR and PBS have been subjected to federal scrutiny. Journalists covering issues central to the Trump White House agenda—immigration and national security—face intense scrutiny and the possibility of retribution for their reporting.
'It is concerning to see how quickly this administration has taken actions that limit journalists' First Amendment rights,' Katherine Jacobsen, CPJ's US, Canada, and Caribbean program coordinator, told the Express Tribune. 'We chose the title Alarm Bells because we believe it's vital—not just for journalists, but for the American public and the international community—to take stock of what's happening in the US and consider the potential consequences,' she added.
That warning carries international weight. The United States has long been seen as the gold standard for press freedom—a democratic superpower with the First Amendment enshrined in its Constitution and a global reputation for protecting independent journalism. But as Jacobsen points out, when the US falters, others take note.
'The US—for better or worse—has long presented itself as a promoter of press freedom. So when the US falls short, it becomes much harder to advocate for press freedom abroad,' she said. 'The Trump administration's actions serve as a kind of permission structure for other leaders… It sets a tone globally, like it or not. And that's deeply troubling.'
At home, the Trump administration has increasingly curated its media environment, bringing in right-leaning influencers and fringe bloggers to White House briefings—figures who often frame questions to elicit sympathetic responses and reinforce the president's political narrative. The result is a corrosive distortion of the press pool's traditional role.
'What Trump and his allies have done very effectively is tap into one particular media ecosystem in the US—not necessarily a journalistic one, but still a media space,' Jacobsen said. 'And that's really concerning. Because journalism is fundamentally about holding power accountable. If the people in that space aren't asking hard or meaningful questions, it disrupts the flow of information,' she added.
The CPJ report suggests the chilling effect is already taking hold. Some newsrooms, hoping to avoid the fate of the Associated Press—which faced exclusion and regulatory scrutiny—have begun 'quietly bending' to White House preferences.
Asked how she distinguishes between cautious strategy and institutional self-censorship, Jacobsen acknowledged the nuance—but flagged the danger. 'When someone less traditional is in power—someone with unconventional methods, which Trump himself often touts—people look to journalists to help them make sense of what's happening,' she said. 'That's a core role of journalism, and it becomes even more important in uncertain times. People pay closer attention when they feel something is shifting.'
But the shift now seems tectonic. Public funding for outlets like NPR and PBS is under threat. International broadcasters such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—once key instruments of US soft power—have been silenced. Meanwhile, support for independent media overseas, once backed by the US Agency for International Development and other federal channels, has been quietly slashed, leaving fledgling democracies and authoritarian regimes with fewer avenues to access credible reporting.
In parallel, threats to journalist safety have surged. The New York-based media watchdog reports a marked increase in requests from American newsrooms for hostile-environment training and legal support—measures more commonly associated with reporters operating in conflict zones or under autocratic regimes. The language employed by the White House—branding the press as 'the enemy of the people'—has not only normalised public contempt but, in some cases, incited violence. Some experts have even described the Trump administration's tactics as 'Nixon on steroids,' referencing former President Richard Nixon's well-documented contempt for the press.
The concern, Jacobsen cautioned, is that the current climate might not be temporary. It could calcify into a generational redefinition of journalism's role and remit. 'This isn't just an American problem,' the CPJ report concludes. 'The White House's posture toward the press sets an example for the world.'