The timing and Trump’s own tweets (such as celebrating being “forced” to watch “how bad, and FAKE” CNN was while abroad politico.com ) suggested the lawsuit may have been de facto punishment aimed at CNN’s coverage. “Trump… has loomed over the deal since the companies announced it,” noted Politico, and AT&T indeed planned to cite Trump’s anti-CNN statements as evidence of improper motive politico.com politico.com . While the White House and DOJ denied any interference, the episode was widely seen as a warning to media companies that the administration was willing to weaponize regulatory powers against disfavored outlets.
The Federal Communications Commission, though an independent agency, also pursued deregulatory moves that aligned with Trump’s media allies. Early in Trump’s term, the FCC eased ownership rules in a way that benefited Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative-leaning local TV chain known for injecting “must-run” pro-Trump segments into its newscasts. Although a planned Sinclair merger fell apart due to other issues, the climate at the FCC signaled that media consolidation favoring friendly voices would be welcome. At the same time, under Trump’s pressure the FCC took steps that worried journalists: it launched inquiries into whether certain network content violated indecency or fairness rules, and it was reportedly “reopening FCC investigations into CBS, ABC, and NBC”, moves that free-press groups blasted as politically motivated harassment cpj.org . For instance, newsrooms covering hot-button issues like immigration felt they were under “increased scrutiny” and risked “possible retribution” if their reporting displeased the administration cpj.org . The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) later catalogued these trends, noting how Trump officials even barred reporters from some federal agencies and events, choosing to “open doors to some journalists while excluding others because of their viewpoints” in a manner courts have deemed unconstitutional cpj.org . By 2020, Attorney General William Barr also stepped up prosecutions of government leakers and even secretly seized reporters’ phone records in leak investigations – a tactic last used in the Obama years but accelerated under Trump (and prompting President Biden, once in office, to ban the practice) firstamendment.mtsu.edu firstamendment.mtsu.edu . In sum, through appointments and directives, Trump signaled that independent news coverage could invite regulatory payback. As CPJ summarized, Trump’s presidency “begun to exert its power to punish or reward [the press] based on coverage”, creating “uncertainty and fear” among journalists about what might trigger official retaliation cpj.org cpj.org .
Defunding Public Media: NPR, PBS, and “Propaganda” Claims
Trump’s antipathy toward media extended to public broadcasters like NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service), which he and some Republicans accused of liberal bias. Every one of Trump’s annual budget proposals from 2017 through 2020 sought to slash or eliminate federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports PBS, NPR, and local stations firstamendmentwatch.org firstamendmentwatch.org . In his very first budget outline in 2017, Trump proposed zeroing out CPB’s appropriation (then about $445 million/year), rationalizing that public media no longer needed federal aid firstamendmentwatch.org . Congress – including Republicans – balked at these extreme cuts and refused to enact them, instead continuing to fund CPB at the same levels firstamendmentwatch.org firstamendmentwatch.org . But Trump persisted. As one analysis noted, “Over the next three years, President Donald Trump’s annual budget would call for reduced funding for public broadcasting, [as well as] the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities” firstamendmentwatch.org firstamendmentwatch.org . In February 2020, Trump’s proposed FY2021 budget was the harshest yet – it recommended allocating only $30 million to CPB instead of the $445 million Congress had set firstamendmentwatch.org . This 93% cut was effectively a death sentence for many stations had it been adopted. (It was not; Congress again ignored the recommendation.) But the intent was clear.