SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
press freedom
Trump's Diversionary Assault on the First Amendment
As the many disasters of his presidency pile up, President Donald Trump turned to a familiar foil and a proven strategy: Attack the press to distract public attention from his failures.
Sep 26, 2026
President Donald Trump is in trouble and he knows it.
- He promised “no more foreign wars,” but started a war with Iran that he has lost.
- He promised to tame inflation, but tariffs and his war of choice have made it worse.
- He promised to deport only the “worst of the worst” illegal immigrants. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement has terrorized American cities as agents sometimes arrested, detained, wounded, or killed US citizens.
- He promised to make the United States the most respected country in the world, but he has destroyed America’s reputation and alienated its allies.
- He calls himself the best president in history, but his approval rating has dropped to the mid-30s—his lowest ever and approaching President Richard Nixon’s final approval rating of 24% shortly before his resignation in 1974.
- He tells his audiences to pretend he’s on the ballot in November, but many Republican congressional candidates are distancing themselves from him.
- Sen. John Curtis (R) from ruby-red Utah is not up for reelection, but he has urged an investigation into the Trump family’s financial dealings and the potential for corruption.
- Trump promised lower interest rates on home mortgages, but 30-year fixed-rate mortgages now exceed 7%—the highest since May 2024.
- He promised gasoline below $2.00 per gallon, but the price has soared to an average of $4.50 per gallon. The price of diesel has increased even more dramatically—to a record-shattering $6.50 per gallon.
The list goes on and on. So Trump turned to a familiar foil and a proven strategy: Attack the press to divert public attention from his failures.
Same Old Playbook
CNN, MSNOW, and Politico won the first round in Trump’s latest attempt to subvert the First Amendment. But Trump’s shiny object consumed the media. His goal now is to extend the controversy.
Act I
While many of his most senior advisers were away at 3:00 pm on Friday, September 18, Trump announced on social media that he was banning CNN, MSNOW, and Politico from the White House. At first nothing happened, but by Saturday morning the press passes for reporters at those organizations no longer allowed them past White House security.
On Monday morning, September 21, the news organizations sued the Trump administration for violating their First Amendment right to a free press and their Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.
On Tuesday, September 22, the White House sent the organizations what it purported were notices of the revocations, giving them until Friday to respond.
Act II
At a court hearing on Wednesday, September 23, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted the laughable argument that the White House letter sent to the news organizations on Tuesday, September 22—days after Trump revoked the press passes—somehow satisfied the Fifth Amendment requirement of due process prior to any revocation.
The DOJ also told the judge that amorphous “national security” concerns justified revoking the passes. But Trump’s own statements of his reasons for the revocation undercut that argument.
Without reaching the First Amendment issues, the court based its constitutional ruling on Trump’s failure to provide due process. Judge Timothy J. Kelly—a Trump appointee—granted a temporary restraining order requiring Trump to restore the revoked press credentials immediately.
Act III
Judge Kelly issued his opinion around 1:00 am on Thursday, September 24. But as the business day began, the affected reporters’ press passes were still disabled, prompting the news organizations to file an emergency motion before Judge Kelly. The Justice Department responded with a declaration stating that press access had been restored at 9:55 am, so the judge cancelled the hearing.
But that evening, reporters for CNN and MSNOW were turned away from the state dinner arrivals at the White House, where Trump was hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Act IV
To satisfy Trump, government attorneys are probably working on a new strategy. Here’s one possible scenario:
- The White House imposes less drastic restrictions on its disfavored press outlets. Slow walking the reinstatement of press passes and preventing CNN and MSNOW reporters from covering arrivals at the state dinner for President Xi Thursday night could be previews of coming attractions.
- The White House gives the news organizations new notices and an opportunity to be heard before suspending their press passes again. The notices would concoct arguments, probably with a focus on Trump’s favorite phrase for justifying his consolidation of power—“national security.”
- The White House would then revoke the press passes.
- The news organizations would file another lawsuit challenging the revocation.
- Trump would lose again, but he would press ahead in the hope that eventually the US Supreme Court would bail him out. If Trump loses in the DC Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court probably would refuse to take the case—leaving his loss in place.
- If the Supreme Court accepted the case, I predict it would issue a 7-2 opinion—with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting—confirming that the First Amendment still means what it says.
- All of this will take time. And most importantly, it will remain a big news item that diverts at least some attention away from the broader failures of Trump’s presidency.
“The People’s House”
Trump has been eager to tear down the East Wing, reshape the White House grounds, turn the interior into a gilded spectacle, and otherwise impose his dramatic construction ideas at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yet shortly after revoking the press credentials of CNN, MSNOW, and Politico, he told reporters: "It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stuff.”
In the next sentence, he revealed himself: “Now, if they want to write them, that's fine. But I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house."
Trump thinks the White House belongs exclusively to him. But his lease ends in two years, and no security deposit is sufficient to cover the profound damage he is inflicting on the nation.
Meanwhile, it is vital to beat back Trump’s repeated assaults in the Constitution. But it’s also important to remember that among the most important underlying goals of his most outrageous actions is diverting Americans from the mess that he has made of the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Restores Access to Politico, MS NOW, CNN Reporters Hours After Judge's Order
Journalists from each of the outlets were barred from entering the White House complex just hours after a Trump-appointed federal judge ordered the president to reverse his ban.
Sep 24, 2026
Update (1:30 pm ET):
Journalists from Politico, MS NOW, and CNN said their access to the White House has been restored, hours after they were denied access to the complex despite a federal judge's Thursday morning order temporarily reversing President Donald Trump's ban on the outlets.
The director of the White House's press operations attested in a court filing that the administration had restored the outlets' access:
BREAKING: White House attests that access for POLITICO, CNN and MSNOW was restored as of 9:55am.https://t.co/32pQuZ1NmB pic.twitter.com/CZTqpJQeb9
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 24, 2026
Earlier (8:40 am ET):
Trump administration officials denied Politico, MS NOW, and CNN reporters access to the White House complex on Thursday morning, in blatant violation of a federal judge's decision ordering President Donald Trump to immediately reverse his ban on the three outlets.
US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, ordered the White House in an early Thursday ruling to "immediately return, reinstate, and restore" press passes to reporters from the three outlets.
Politico reported that its journalist had "his press credentials confiscated" upon trying to enter the White House complex hours after Kelly's ruling.
Laura Barrón-López, a White House reporter for MS NOW, said she was also denied access to the White House. She said a Secret Service agent confiscated her press badge after it failed to scan properly.
Barrón-López said it is "not clear, based on the interaction that I had, whether or not this is a defiance... of the court order, or it's some kind of incompetence or lag in the system where they have not updated our press badges."
Watch her account:
MS NOW reports that their White House reproter was denied access to the White House this morning despite a court order demanding she have access pic.twitter.com/wqUiB413jV
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 24, 2026
According to CNN, one of its reporters and a photojournalist were "denied access to the White House grounds" early Thursday.
"There was no reason provided for the refusal and CNN will continue to try to gain access as regular business hours start," the outlet added.
Earlier:
A federal judge on Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to immediately restore White House access to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, prominent media outlets that the president banned last week.
Timothy Kelly, a Trump-appointed judge for the US District Court in Washington, DC, granted the media outlets' request for a temporary restraining order as the legal fight continues. Kelly ruled that the outlets showed "a likelihood of success" on their claim that the president's ban and revocation of reporters' press credentials violated the Fifth Amendment's due process protections.
The judge rejected the Trump administration's claim that the president's ban on the three outlets was necessary to protect national security.
"The court is skeptical—at least on this record—that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes," Kelly wrote. "The record lacks factual support for defendants’ contention that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds."
Trump's initial announcement of the ban, on September 18, said nothing about national security. The president vaguely accused the outlets he has long attacked of publishing "FICTION and LIES."
In letters submitted to the court as part of the ongoing legal fight over the ban, the White House press office cited examples of reporting from the three outlets that it claimed damaged US national security.
In its letter to CNN, the White House points to the outlet's reporting on "construction details related to the East Wing bunker" and a story on the US military's bombing of an Iranian elementary school.
Ted Boutrous, the lawyer representing the news outlets, welcomed Kelly's decision to grant the temporary restraining order, which will be in effect for 14 days.
"This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process, and the rule of law," Boutrous said. "We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action."
Kelly ordered the Trump administration to "immediately return, reinstate, and restore" White House press passes to reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.
It's unclear how swiftly the news outlets will resume their typical coverage of the White House following the judge's order. Earlier this week, a White House event was broadcast with no audio after the administration dropped CNN from its TV press pool duties, prompting other major networks to ditch pool coverage in solidarity with CNN.
On Wednesday, when Trump greeted Chinese President Xi Jinping upon his arrival in the US, no major TV network captured the moment.
"Other television outlets whose crews were present, according to signs on their tripods and cameras, were NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News, and LindellTV," The Associated Press reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Claims in Court Filing That Press Coverage of Trump Is a 'Privilege,' Not a Right
"This is about the First Amendment, not White House access," said one legal expert.
Sep 23, 2026
At an emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump is set to hear three media outlets' request for a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's denial of press access to the White House—and is likely to hear from government lawyers the "dangerous" argument officials have made to defend the ban on news coverage.
"Access to the White House is a privilege—not a right," government lawyers wrote in a court filing on Tuesday evening, in response to a lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico after journalists with the three outlets had their press passes confiscated by White House officials and were denied access to the government building.
The administration claimed in the filing that the decision to block reporters from covering the president at the White House was "lawful under the First Amendment" because Trump "has 'compelling interest[s]' in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national security information."
The president had concluded that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico had failed to "maintain basic minimum 'standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including' by 'publishing sensitive or classified information," reads the filing.
Letters attached to the filing cite specific news stories in which the outlets were accused of endangering national security, including CNN's reporting on "‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker" that is part of Trump's $400 million ballroom. MS NOW was accused of endangering national security when it reported in June that “a source said that President Trump ‘underestimated the willingness of Iran to resume conflict.’”
The news outlet MeidasTouch said the arguments made in the filing were "deeply embarrassing and un-American."
"The Trump regime is afraid of the American people learning the realities of the failed war in Iran and Trump’s disastrous presidency," said MeidasTouch.
While claiming CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have threatened national security with their reporting, Trump also said last week when he first announced he was planning to ban the outlets that they “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.”
Legal expert and political commentator Harry Litman called on US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated in 2017 by Trump and who in 2018 rejected the president's attempt to bar then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House grounds, to grant the outlets the restraining order.
"When an administration punishes the outlets that scrutinize it, it is dismantling a safeguard," wrote Litman on Substack. "The state is perfectly free to express its own preferences (though limits come in—as we’ve found honored in the breach—with false speech by government). But it can’t use the machinery of the state to punish the people who hold the view it dislikes. It’s the difference between persuasion, which is fine, and coercion, which is a fundamental abuse of government power, the classic tactic of authoritarian government."
"In sum, viewpoint discrimination is forbidden because it betrays an illegitimate government motive and because it uses the coercive power of the state to suppress speech that a free society depends on to keep government honest," he wrote.
In the lawsuit the three news organizations filed on Monday, they argued that the ban “brazenly discriminates based on editorial viewpoint,” and violates their First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process, as they were not permitted to contest the ban when their reporters were blocked from entering the White House on Saturday.
"The idea that fundamental rights are a 'privilege' granted at the whim of the king is dangerous," said former US Attorney Joyce White Vance, who is now a law professor and MS NOW legal analyst. "This is about the First Amendment, not White House access."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Event Broadcast With No Audio After He Booted Press Pool Members
A host on the Trump-friendly Newsmax network said it seemed his exile of the press was "backfiring just a little bit.”
Sep 21, 2026
It turns out that President Donald Trump may not have thought through all the consequences before he banned some of his most hated news outlets from the White House.
After Trump declared CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "fake news" and exiled them from the White House grounds on Friday, the other networks that make up the White House press pool—including ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Fox News—agreed to boycott their pool duties on Monday in solidarity with the banned outlets.
"There will be no replacement pool put in place," wrote Bryan Boughton, Fox News’ Washington bureau chief and chair of the White House television pool, in an internal notice to news organizations obtained by Politico.
It became clear exactly what that meant when the White House attempted to broadcast a ribbon-cutting ceremony for Trump's new helipad on the White House lawn on Monday afternoon.
The president's voice could be heard faintly. But his words were inaudible over the whir of a helicopter parked nearby.
"There's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there," explained Bianca de la Garza, who was covering the event for the Trump-friendly outlet Newsmax.
The anchor said this was maybe "one example" of the president's attack on the media "backfiring just a little bit."
As of Monday afternoon, there is no reported effort by the White House to find a new press pool. This may prove problematic for Trump as he attends the United Nations General Assembly this week.
Meanwhile, the three outlets banned by Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday, arguing that their removal from White House grounds violated the First Amendment. Previous attempts by the Trump administration to ban news outlets from covering its activities have been shot down in court.
Aidan McLaughlin, the Washington correspondent for Vanity Fair, suggested on social media that, at the rate things are going, a lawsuit may not even have been necessary.
"He’s gonna lift the ban by the end of the week," he predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Effectively a Boycott’: Major TV Networks Ditch Pool Coverage of Trump in Solidarity With CNN
"There will effectively be no TV coverage of Trump's UN visit or other presidential events," said one media reporter. "This is a very big deal."
Sep 21, 2026
The major US television networks launched what was described as a boycott against TV pool coverage of President Donald Trump on Monday after the White House dropped CNN from the network's scheduled pool assignment, escalating the administration's assault on the country's most prominent media organizations and press freedom.
CNN was set to act as the television pool network accompanying the president during his trip to the United Nations General Assembly this week, but the administration stripped the network of its assignment shortly after Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, prompting a retaliatory lawsuit from the three outlets.
The major television networks typically rotate responsibility for traveling video coverage of the president. Bryan Boughton, Washington, DC bureau chief for Fox News and current chair of the TV press pool, said Monday morning that "effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the president."
"This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties," Boughton added. "There will be no replacement pool put in place."
Scott Nover, a media reporter with The Washington Post, noted that "it's effectively a boycott by the fellow members—ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX."
"There will effectively be no TV coverage of Trump's UN visit or other presidential events, though I imagine smaller networks may take the White House's own feed," Nover wrote on social media. "This is a very big deal and one only possible because of solidarity from the whole pool."
The TV press pool developments unfolded as CNN, MS NOW, and Politico announced early Monday that they intend to sue the Trump administration for banning them from the White House. The outlets argued that the ban, which Trump announced late last week, endangers press freedom and "the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference."
CNN, MS NOW and Politico announced the lawsuit in a joint statement, describing the legal action as an effort to "protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes."
"Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists' credentials because it objected to our reporting," the news organizations said. "Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom."
The lawsuit came after journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied access to the White House grounds early Saturday, hours after Trump announced in a social media tirade that he was banning the outlets. Trump, without providing any examples, accused the three outlets of publishing "fiction and lies when they're covering the president of the United States"—and suggested other news outlets could also be banned in the near future.
When Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House on Saturday in the wake of Trump's social media post, Secret Service denied her access and confiscated her press pass. Journalists from the other two outlets reported similar experiences.
"We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House," Jonathan Greenberger, Politico's global editor-in-chief, wrote in response to the incident involving Haslett. "We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights."
The media outlets' lawsuit is set to be filed Monday in a federal district court in Washington, DC. The suit aims to restore the outlets' White House access and alleges that Trump's ban violates free press and due process protections.
"The president's ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House is a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of due process," said Ted Boutrous, an attorney for the outlets. "The president has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration. This ban on the free press harms the American people, who are entitled to rigorous, fact-based coverage of the president of the United States. The law is on our side across the board, and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the court as soon as possible."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, applauded the news outlets' lawsuit and said his organization would support them in court. The Knight First Amendment Institute has previously supported The Associated Press and other news outlets in successful legal fights against the president, who has shown blatant disdain for press freedom during his two terms in office.
"We’re glad to see that these news organizations are suing," said Jaffer. "The president’s decision to bar them from the White House for the content of their reporting is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. It’s an attack both on press freedom and the public’s right to independent information about the government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook': Trump Bans CNN, MSNOW, and Politico From White House
One press freedom advocate said it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment."
Sep 18, 2026
In one of his most direct assaults on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump announced in a Friday afternoon tirade that he would ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.
"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" the president wrote in a rambling Truth Social post.
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added, though he did not specify any particular reports he objected to. He added that bans on "Other Fake News Media Outlets" would soon follow.
Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a defender of free speech, has taken unprecedented actions to censor news outlets during his second term, including threatening networks' broadcast licenses through the Federal Communications Commission over unfavorable programming.
As of Friday afternoon, it's unclear whether Trump actually plans to follow through on his White House ban.
Reacting to the news on the air, CNN anchor Brian Stelter said that the network's reporting team "remains at the White House working just like a usual normal Friday afternoon." He added that "right now, there is no indication that the administration is taking any steps to actually follow through on his threat."
"Certainly, if there is an attempt to remove journalists from the White House, well, our cameras are rolling. I think viewers will see it happen," he said.
"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the network said in a statement following news of the ban. "We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."
Bruce D. Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Common Dreams in an email Friday that simply banning news organizations from the White House over the content of their reporting "would be flatly unconstitutional."
"The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting," he said. "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged."
Federal courts have previously struck down attempts by Trump to bar certain press outlets on First Amendment grounds. Last year, a judge ruled that Trump's removal of the Associated Press from the White House press pool for its refusal to adopt the name "Gulf of America" for the Gulf of Mexico was an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rule banning reporters from obtaining information not authorized by the Pentagon, which led dozens of journalists to turn over their press badges and walk out of the building in protest, was also struck down as a violation of press freedom.
In light of these previous failures, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expressed bewilderment that Trump was once again trying to ban news outlets from the White House.
"With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now," he said in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government."
"It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move," he said. "The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public."
He added that the press must "fight back to protect their rights, not only to access the White House but to access the public records and whistleblowers this administration so desperately wants to keep from them."
Trump's announcement was met with outrage from Democrats in Congress, who described it as an assault on a basic constitutional freedom.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
"Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. "Trump’s administration is doing all of that."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was "straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Finds Global Deterioration in Democracy—With US Under Trump Named 'Patient Zero'
"In 2025, the global challenges to democracy and the difficulty in stemming its erosion were both exemplified and compounded by political developments in the United States."
Sep 15, 2026
An annual report released Tuesday found that key indicators of strong democracies have fallen to record lows globally, including judicial independence, freedom of expression, and access to justice—and the US under President Donald Trump was named as "patient zero" for the crisis in global democracy.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA)'s annual report is considered the world's most comprehensive accounting of democratic performance, covering 174 countries and examining the state of press freedom, election credibility, and the rule of law around the world.
This year, researchers found "global deterioration in the rule of law" and suggested an undeniable link between the decline and Trump's attacks on free expression, the press, and judicial independence.
"In 2025, the global challenges to democracy and the difficulty in stemming its erosion were both exemplified and compounded by political developments in the United States," reads the report. "There, President Donald Trump quickly amassed power in the executive branch and wielded it to further a narrow set of personal goals and pursue retaliation against perceived enemies."
"In that environment, which is marked by constricted space for both public expression and institutional checks on power, resistance is increasingly unsafe," it continues. "The results have been far-reaching, undermining the rule of law domestically and internationally and testing long-standing alliances and multilateral cooperation."
The report comes more than a year-and-a-half into Trump's second term, which has been marked by his violent crackdown on immigrants and those who have protested his far-right agenda. At least 11 people, including three US citizens, have been killed by federal agents carrying out anti-immigration operations, while journalists have been arrested for covering anti-Trump protests.
Beyond the violence that has unfolded on the streets of several US cities since January 2025, International IDEA found the nearly half of the 30 indicators it uses to measure democracy strength have fallen to their lowest levels in the US, including economic equality, an effective legislature, access to justice, freedom of expression, free press, and judicial independence.
"Comparing 2025 to 2020, the change in the quality of US democracy was entirely negative: the country experienced seven statistically significant declines across multiple measures of representative governance, civil liberties, and the rule of law," reads the report. "There were no corresponding advances."
Economic inequality in the US has "persisted for decades," notes the report, but has been worsened by the Republican Party's cuts to Medicaid and healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and other part of the social safety net, including federal food assistance—following an election in which tech billionaire Elon Musk became one of the largest political donors in history, giving Trump's campaign at least $250 million.
"In 2025, the bottom 50% of US households held 2.5% of the country’s wealth, while the top 1% held more than 30%," reads the report.
The report noted that while the United States' democratic decline "has manifested most spectacularly during the second Trump administration, the roots of these declines reach far deeper and stem from unresolved conflicts over questions of equality, social hierarchies, and economic distribution."
Trump's contributions to declining democracy domestically and internationally have also been marked by his attacks on judicial independence, with the president targeting Justice Department officials who have worked on investigations into his conduct, and dozens of judges nominated by Trump refusing to state that he had lost the 2020 election.
International IDEA also pointed to the US Congress' refusal to use its authority to rein in Trump as a key indicator of a severely weakened democracy, with the trend "most starkly apparent with regard to hostilities in Iran," where the president launched an unprovoked war in February.
"Comparing 2025 to 2020, the change in the quality of US democracy was entirely negative."
"In May 2026, after eight attempts to advance a bill that would have removed the US military from Iran without specific congressional approval, the Senate voted to advance the legislation," reads the report. "This situation appears to flout clear legal stipulations in both the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which empower only Congress to declare war and limit unauthorized force to 60 days, respectively."
"Congress has also been unwilling to push back against the executive’s usurpation of its power of the purse, use of emergency powers, and flouting of subpoenas and court orders," said International IDEA.
The decline in democracy in the world's wealthiest, most powerful country cannot be disentangled from the international deterioration of judicial independence, credible elections, and freedom of expression, said the watchdog. Numerous key indicators of healthy democracies are at their lowest levels in at least three decades.
The rule of law was found to be the weakest area globally, with 71 countries—nearly half of those covered by the report—ranked as low-performing, and 29 countries displaying downturns.
“Whatever happens in the US goes global. There is now an epidemic of election denialism, of which the patient zero is the current occupant of the White House,” Kevin Casas-Zamor, secretary general of International IDEAl, told The Guardian.
The report pointed to former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's attempt to remain in power after losing the 2022 election, and the storming of government buildings by his supporters—exactly two years after Trump rejected the results of the 2020 election.
Other leaders' anti-democratic actions have carried echoes of Trump's, said the report.
"In Serbia, officials referred to Trump’s claims of mismanagement at [US Agency for International Development] to justify raids on [civil society organizations]," said International IDEA. "Argentinian President Javier Milei has also resorted to executive decrees to roll back progress in areas such as environmental protection and LGBTQ+ rights."
The report pointed to examples of youth-led protests in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, which have sparked "hopes for democratic renewal" and given way to peaceful elections as well as the potential for parliamentary reform.
“I am not willing to say the deterioration of the quality of democracy is inevitable or permanent. It can be reversed,” Casas-Zamor told The Guardian. “We live in a volatile world and that means things can happen which create very positive political openings.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jimmy Kimmel Pulls Talarico Interview From Broadcast, Moves it to YouTube, Amid Trump FCC Threats
"Another day, another chilling effect on broadcast speech," said one free speech advocate, who added that "nothing about the FCC’s actions is normal—or legal."
Sep 10, 2026
Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel told viewers Wednesday night that his show was pulling an interview with Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico from ABC stations amid threats from President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission, which press freedom groups are describing as another effort by the administration to "chill" the speech of the president's critics.
“Out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense, my interview tomorrow with James Talarico will not air on television,” the host said on Wednesday’s episode of “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”
He added that the interview “will be posted on YouTube instead. It will not be on TV.”
It's the second time a major US network has opted to spike a late-night interview with Talarico following FCC pressure. In February, CBS lawyers preemptively stopped Stephen Colbert from conducting an interview with the candidate over what they said were fears of retaliation from the agency, whose chair, Brendan Carr, has threatened to strip broadcast licenses from networks that give Trump unfavorable coverage.
Carr has confirmed that the FCC had opened an investigation and started an "enforcement proceeding" into ABC over whether Talarico's appearance on "The View" violated the equal-time rule, which requires that broadcast stations that host political candidates must give their opponents an equal opportunity to appear as well.
Late-night shows have long been considered exempt from this rule as “bona fide news interview” programs. But a public notice issued by the FCC Media Bureau in January stated that programs that advance “partisan” goals, including talk shows, would no longer be considered as such. Carr has said programs he considers to be “fake news” may not qualify for an exemption.
Kimmel on Wednesday emphasized the "unusual circumstances" of his network's decision to cancel the interview with Talarico.
"For the whole 20-plus years of our show, I've been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all... from Hillary Clinton, to Ted Cruz, to Donald Trump himself," he said.
Kimmel noted that when he interviewed Trump during his first presidential run in 2015, he seemed to have no issue with political candidates appearing on his show and eagerly returned for more interviews.
"For some reason, and I can't seem to figure out what that reason is, something has changed," Kimmel joked. "Now that he's president, his FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations—based on simple, traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings it would seem they don’t like."
For that reason, he said, if viewers "want to learn about a candidate for the Senate tomorrow, you will have to go to the 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' YouTube channel."
"Thank goodness we have that," Kimmel said. "Because in the America we have right now, that is the best that we can do, until November, of course."
In August, ABC parent company Disney sued the FCC on First Amendment grounds following the agency’s unusual request for its eight ABC stations to submit their broadcast renewal requests several years in advance, which it described as part of a “retaliatory campaign” against the network's negative coverage of Trump.
The complaint notes that ABC has felt compelled to alter its editorial judgment in order to avoid further retaliation, including passing on interviews with several other political candidates it felt would invite Trump's ire and choosing to air a lie-filled Trump address about supposed election fraud, which it noted it "ordinarily would not have done."
Last September, ABC briefly removed Kimmel from the air following direct threats from Carr to strip ABC stations of their broadcast licenses, which came after a critical monologue from the late-night host about Trump and Republicans in the wake of the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The complaint notes Carr’s use of explicit coercion to pressure ABC to remove Kimmel, including telling the network that it could proceed “the easy way or the hard way."
Kimmel emphasized what he said was the political nature of the pressure campaign against him and the network, which has continued even after he was reinstated. Republicans, he said, "are very nervous about the midterms and very rightly so," as they are "in serious danger of losing 'bigly.'"
"They are in danger of losing a Senate seat in Texas of all places," he said to cheers from the crowd, "where James Talarico is leading a piece of human silly putty named Ken Paxton there," according to several recent polls.
Press freedom and civil liberties organizations described Carr's threats to networks as part of an effort to chill critical speech on behalf of the president, one that is ratcheting up as the midterms approach.
Timothy Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press, told Common Dreams that Carr's "unconstitutional crusade against a free press has a clear bias against individuals and outlets that President Trump doesn't like."
"Combine that with Trump's desperation in the face of electoral polling that shows people ready to change political course come November, and you can see the real reason driving Carr's reckless fixation with silencing opposing views," Karr said.
Karr argued that networks were unnecessarily casting aside their rights to editorial judgment out of fear of retaliation.
"For years, the FCC has been very clear that bona fide news interviews, including on late-night talk shows, are entitled to editorial discretion," Karr said. "Carr's ongoing efforts to take this discretion away are part and parcel of his campaign to transform broadcast media into full-time megaphones for Trumpist propaganda."
He said, "What's doubly worrying is that many of these broadcast networks are too eager to cave to Trump and Carr's demands when the First Amendment is clearly on their side."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel for the ACLU, concurred, telling Common Dreams that the FCC "abusing its rules to chill speech" is "particularly problematic before an election, when voters need more information, not less."
Bob Corn-Revere, the chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told Common Dreams it was “another day, another chilling effect on broadcast speech," adding that ”nothing about the FCC’s actions is normal—or legal.“
Shiva Stella, the legal director at Public Knowledge, emphasized that networks capitulating helps to cement a climate of fear.
"This is a classic chilling effect," Stella told Common Dreams. "Once the FCC threatens stations over editorial decisions, it does not need to repeat the threat every time. Broadcasters begin changing their programming to avoid retaliation."
“The FCC needs to stop using its power to bully news organizations into silencing voices it simply disagrees with,” added Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America, in a statement to Common Dreams.
“When broadcasters alter decisions because they fear government retaliation," he said, "that damage extends beyond a single program and threatens the independence of the entire press and the public’s access to information. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the intent in this case.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
ABC Hits Trump FCC With First Amendment Suit Over 'Deeply Un-American' Effort to Strip Broadcast Licenses
"At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone," said one First Amendment advocate.
Aug 18, 2026
ABC and its parent company Disney filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday over what it called a "deeply un-American" effort by the Trump administration to punish broadcasters for airing speech critical of the president.
The suit comes in response to an April order by the FCC requiring Disney's eight ABC stations to file their broadcast renewal requests years ahead of schedule. As the Knight First Amendment Institute pointed out, it's the first time the FCC has ordered a broadcast station to submit early license renewals in more than 50 years.
The unusual request came after President Donald Trump had repeatedly suggested that networks giving him "negative coverage" should have their broadcast licenses "terminated."
ABC has argued that the license renewal demand is part of an effort to "attack" its First Amendment-protected speech.
"Government censorship is deeply un-American," the lawsuit, filed before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said. "Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."
ABC specifically has found itself in the crosshairs of FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who used license authority to pressure the network to remove late-night host Jimmy Kimmel from the air briefly last year following a critical monologue about Trump and Republicans following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The lawsuit quotes what ABC said were blatant efforts by Carr to "coerce" the network into pulling Kimmel, including his ultimatum, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
It also notes that the request for the early renewal order was issued just one day after Trump went on another social media tirade against Kimmel over jokes he made about First Lady Melania Trump, which the president claimed inspired an assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Trump said that Kimmel should “be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”
Carr has defended the FCC's orders to Disney, stating that they were not about retaliation, but about ensuring that ABC stations operate "in the public interest" as they are required to do under law.
“If broadcasters don’t like that, that’s okay,” Carr told CNBC back in July. “They can become a cable channel, they can become a podcast, they can stream online. But if you want to uniquely be on the public’s airwaves, you have to comply with those obligations.”
Noting previous comments by Carr that public interest considerations should include the "political ideology” of a broadcaster's programming, Monday's lawsuit said the order "thus appears intended to broaden the scope of the agency’s review, including to impermissibly consider the content of ABC programming."
Earlier this year, the FCC also opened an investigation into the daytime talk show The View, alleging that its hosting of interviews with Texas Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico in February may have violated a rule requiring broadcast stations to give political candidates "equal time" when appearing on air.
ABC has contended that The View has previously been ruled as a "bona fide news interview" program, which is exempt from the rule.
As part of the investigation, the FCC Media Bureau has probed ABC's editorial process, ordering it to produce internal communications among View staff, disclose the political donations of employees, and provide information about ABC's internal guidance for producing interviews
The White House, meanwhile, included The View on a public webpage listing so-called "media offenders." On this page, it singled out the program's co-hosts for the "offenses" of criticizing government officials for “visiting the Alligator Alcatraz ICE detention facility in Florida” and “claiming President Trump was overstepping his authority by constructing a White House ballroom.”
The lawsuit says the FCC's pressure has affected its editorial decision-making. It notes that since the investigation was launched, it has not booked any other congressional candidates on The View.
It also notes that, considering the "risk of resulting administration retaliation," ABC chose to broadcast a speech by Trump in July on its streaming channel ABC News Live in which he made unfounded accusations of rampant voter fraud in the 2020 election, which "it ordinarily would not have done."
Trump again called on the network to have its broadcast license stripped for not airing the speech on its main network. And Carr has said that the FCC would consider that decision as part of the review of ABC's renewal applications.
The lawsuit says the administration is seeking either to mire the company in costly legal fees and intimidate it into compliance or to rip it off the air entirely, as Trump demanded.
"In either scenario," the lawsuit says, "the administration accomplishes its goal of eliminating a perceived media critic: either it gets plaintiffs to fall in line, or it silences them if they refuse."
The lawsuit asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the FCC from proceeding with the reviews. It ultimately seeks a ruling that the license-renewal proceedings constitute unconstitutional retaliation that violates the First Amendment.
It notes that the administration has been attempting to coerce other legacy news broadcasters in the same way.
"If the administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: Tell only the stories the administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government," the lawsuit says. "In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free."
CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter described Disney and ABC's lawsuit as "one of the stiffest challenges from any American media company against the Trump administration during Trump's return to office."
Press freedom advocates welcomed the lawsuit as a sign that media outlets were beginning to fight back against the administration's strong-arming tactics rather than appeasing them.
"At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone and is suing to stop the administration’s bullying and censorship," said Nico Perrino, the executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
“It’s about time for someone to take Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
"Carr knows the FCC is not the journalism police and said so regularly himself before he decided to throw away any integrity he once had to kiss up to Trump," Stern added. "Countless others whose First Amendment rights have been chilled by Carr’s antics should follow Disney’s lead.”
ABC has faced criticism for bowing to pressure from Trump in the past. In 2024, after Trump won the presidential election, the network agreed to pay out $15 million after he sued over comments made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who stated that the president had been found “liable for rape” by a jury when he’d technically only been found liable for “sexual abuse." The president's case against the network was widely viewed as legally dubious.
That lawsuit was seen as an opening of the floodgates for Trump's efforts to coerce and control the media during his second term, and other networks, fearful of retaliation, would follow with their own concessions to avoid his wrath.
Aaron Blake, a senior political reporter at CNN, said ABC's decision to fight back against the FCC showed that "today, we're in a different situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Legal Challenge Promised After GOP-Controlled FCC Lifts TV Ownership Limits, Allowing Trump Allies to 'Swallow Up Stations'
"Media consolidation and deal approvals are now explicitly a way for President Trump to further consolidate his dictatorial power," said a filing by Free Press, which is suing the FCC.
Aug 06, 2026
A press freedom group says it plans to take the GOP-controlled Federal Communications Commission to court after it voted along party lines on Thursday to enact a rule that could allow a small number of media conglomerates to consolidate even more control over local news stations.
In a 2-1 vote, the FCC eliminated a 22-year-old rule that prohibited a single company from owning stations that reach more than 39% of American households, replacing it with a rule allowing the FCC to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
FCC chair Brendan Carr said the move was necessary to "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves" and "allow local broadcasters to remain competitive with national ones."
The FCC's lone Democrat and dissenting vote, Anna Gomez, argued that the move would not benefit local broadcasters so much as it would benefit the national conglomerates seeking to buy them up.
“The large station groups positioned to grow even larger under this decision are not local broadcasters; they are national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them," Gomez said. "Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.”
In a statement after the ruling, Reporters Without Borders said the FCC had "just abandoned one of the last significant safeguards against excessive concentration of media ownership."
The change is a big win for media conglomerates like Nexstar Media Group, which is seeking a merger with rival TV company Tegna to reach about 80% of households nationwide. The merger was approved earlier this year by the FCC, but blocked by a federal judge.
It would also allow the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conglomerate known for forcing "must-run" segments with right-wing talking points into local news coverage from its corporate headquarters, the ability to continue gobbling up local news stations around the country.
Free Press, a media and technology watchdog, said it planned to appeal the FCC's decision in court, arguing that Carr had exceeded his power by overriding the 39% threshold, which was enshrined in federal law by the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
"His goal is to spur more media consolidation involving companies Donald Trump views as ideological allies and corporate cronies," said Matt Wood, the group's vice president of policy and general counsel.
Carr, a Trump appointee, has previously sought to use the FCC to crack down on the use of the airwaves by Trump's ideological enemies and consolidate control for his allies.
He has threatened the broadcast licenses of networks that criticize Trump, most infamously pressuring ABC to briefly pull late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off the air last year. He's also used the FCC's approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger to enforce ideological conformity at CBS News, which has dramatically altered its coverage and personnel to be more favorable to the administration.
Carr has argued that the FCC has the power to alter the consolidation cap because Congress technically directed the FCC to modify its own regulations to enact the 39% limit.
Gomez has disputed this, noting that when the FCC previously tried to move the cap, Congress "stepped in within months... and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it."
"Changing this limit requires congressional action, but Carr doesn’t care," Wood said. "He’ll do whatever it takes to clear the way for Trump-aligned billionaires to swallow up stations wherever and whenever they please."
John Bergmayer, legal director at the public interest group Public Knowledge, argued that removing the cap was not only illegal but "also bad policy."
"Consolidation does not serve local broadcast audiences or give them more local news and information," Bergmayer said. "It gives distant corporate headquarters more control of what is aired, and it creates pressure to cut local reporters and air the same programming across many markets."
Free Press' filing argues that Carr is not just violating the law but seeking to help Trump "use the commission’s licensing authority to exert total control over the media.”
"Media consolidation and deal approvals," the filing continues, "are now explicitly a way for President Trump to further consolidate his dictatorial power, through explicit loyalty tests and pledges to use the public airwaves as a propaganda tool against the American public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy