Dozens of veteran journalists suddenly faced the loss of their credentials and had to petition for “exceptions.” Trump critics like Dana Milbank found their exceptions denied – Milbank wrote, “I strongly suspect it’s because I’m a Trump critic”, noting the move fit Trump’s pattern of punishing outlets he disliked cjr.org . Indeed, nearly the entire White House press corps was converted to serving “at the pleasure” of Trump’s press team, who could remove them at any time for any reason cjr.org cjr.org . “This is what dictators do,” protested Senator Patrick Leahy as news broke, calling the mass credential purge “un-American and needs to be reversed ASAP” cjr.org . The message to journalists was chilling: fall in line or lose your access.
Trump also threatened legal and regulatory retribution against media companies. On the 2016 campaign trail, he vowed to “open up our libel laws” so public figures like him could sue news organizations more easily politico.com . “When The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace… we can sue them and win money… We’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” Trump told a rally, explicitly promising to weaken press protections established by New York Times v. Sullivan politico.com politico.com . As president, he repeatedly floated the idea of making it easier to sue the media for defamation. While he did not succeed in changing libel law (libel standards are set by the courts and largely beyond a president’s unilateral control), Trump’s rhetoric emboldened a flurry of defamation lawsuits intended to harass or silence news outlets. In 2020, his campaign filed libel suits against major papers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN over critical opinion columns firstamendmentwatch.org . These suits strained credulity – one federal judge dismissed the claims outright in early 2023 for failure to show any actual malice firstamendmentwatch.org firstamendmentwatch.org . Legal experts noted the campaign’s arguments were “foolhardy” and had little chance of success firstamendmentwatch.org . The real purpose, observers suggested, was to intimidate journalists and create a chilling effect. Trump’s litigious posture continued after his presidency as well: he sued CNN in 2022 for its coverage of his election falsehoods, and even as late as 2024 he was reportedly “suing the Des Moines Register for inaccurately forecasting” an election result firstamendment.mtsu.edu . No modern U.S. political figure has used the courts as blatantly to bully the press.
Beyond lawsuits, Trump frequently leveraged the powers of his office to retaliate against media he disliked. In one striking episode, he threatened to have the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) challenge broadcast licenses for major networks. The provocation came after NBC News ran a report in October 2017 that Trump’s Secretary of State had called him a “moron” and that Trump wanted a massive increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Enraged, the President tweeted: “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” reuters.com . He went further the same day, suggesting “network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked” reuters.com . Coming from the nation’s chief executive, those words carried weight despite the legal hurdles. Industry leaders and free-speech advocates reacted with alarm. The head of the National Association of Broadcasters rebuked Trump, saying “it is contrary to this fundamental right for any government official to threaten the revocation of an FCC license simply because of a disagreement with the reporting” reuters.com . Even Trump’s own FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, indirectly pushed back, emphasizing the FCC would uphold the First Amendment and “not how it works” regarding pulling licenses reuters.com reuters.com . Nonetheless, the threat alone was seen as damaging. Members of Congress warned that even “this threat alone could intimidate the press and lead to skewed and unfair reporting” reuters.com .