In 2020, his campaign filed libel suits against major papers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN over critical opinion columnsfirstamendmentwatch.org. These suits strained credulity – one federal judge dismissed the claims outright in early 2023 for failure to show any actual malicefirstamendmentwatch.orgfirstamendmentwatch.org. Legal experts noted the campaign’s arguments were “foolhardy” and had little chance of successfirstamendmentwatch.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 resultfirstamendment.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 licensesreuters.comreuters.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. In an Oval Office meeting that week, Trump lamented it was “frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write”reuters.com – a statement utterly at odds with American constitutional principles. While no TV licenses were actually yanked (the FCC doesn’t license networks per se, and individual station licenses are renewed only on set cyclesreuters.com), Trump’s willingness to publicly encourage punitive regulation against news outlets was unprecedented in modern times. It earned comparisons to President Nixon, who privately plotted to use the FCC against The Washington Post during Watergatereuters.com. As one media law professor observed, Trump’s behavior was “Nixon on steroids” in its brazennesscpj.org.
Trump’s antipathy extended even to once-neutral government media. Late in his term, he engineered a hostile takeover of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – the parent agency of Voice of America (VOA) and other U.S.-funded international broadcasters. In June 2020, after a long confirmation fight, Trump’s appointee Michael Pack became CEO of USAGMwashingtonpost.com. Pack, a conservative filmmaker and ally of Steve Bannon, immediately began dismantling the “firewall” that protected VOA’s editorial independencewashingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com. He “rescinded a rule that blocked him from getting involved in news and editorial decisions,” essentially claiming authority to shape coveragewashingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com. Current and former officials were alarmed, saying Pack clearly aimed to “reshape VOA and its sister agencies into promotional arms for President Trump”washingtonpost.com. It was a bitter irony: VOA’s mission is to counter foreign propaganda and model a free press, yet now VOA journalists feared being turned into instruments of U.S. government propagandawashingtonpost.com. During Pack’s tenure, he fired respected network heads, disbanded advisory boards, and installed Trump loyalistswashingtonpost.com. He publicly blasted VOA’s journalism as “substandard” without specificswashingtonpost.com. He terminated visas of foreign reporters at VOA on vague suspicions they might be spieswashingtonpost.com. He even ordered investigations of veteran VOA reporters for “anti-Trump bias” – for example targeting VOA’s White House correspondent Steve Herman – though no wrongdoing was foundwashingtonpost.com. In one case, Pack allegedly forced out a VOA Urdu service journalist after a report on then-candidate Joe Biden, a move whistleblowers said blatantly violated the statutory firewallwashingtonpost.com. By October 2020, VOA journalists and six of Pack’s own subordinates filed whistleblower complaints, accusing him of gross abuse of power and First Amendment violationswashingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com.