WASHINGTON, DC – United States President Donald Trump has had a political career defined by allegations of biased and unfair media coverage against him. He also accused so-called “woke” ideology and “cancel culture” of suppressing conservative voices, and accused academic institutions of fostering bias against progressive viewpoints.
In fact, one of President Trump’s first acts in office was to sign an executive order “Restoring Free Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” primarily focused on former President Joe Biden’s efforts to curb “disinformation” and “misinformation.”
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
But free speech advocates say the Trump administration has reached new heights in a broader effort to transform constitutionally protected speech rights, using ostensibly independent regulators and the weight of immigration law to do so.
The most recent example came in the form of a threat from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, who, referring to the US-Israel war against Iran, said he would revoke the licenses of broadcast stations that “spread misinformation or distortions of news” or “do not operate in the public interest.”
The statement came in response to President Trump’s criticism of U.S. reporting on the war, and was welcomed by the president, who said he was “thrilled” to see Kerr investigating “a corrupt and deeply unpatriotic ‘news’ organization.”
“The most extreme example”
To be sure, U.S. presidents have long criticized media reports critical of their actions and have a history of enacting policies that human rights groups say raise free speech concerns.
It covers actions taken by former President George W. Bush during the so-called “war on terror,” and includes increased surveillance of American citizens and non-citizens under the Patriot Act.
Most recently, the Biden administration in 2022 created and quickly suspended a so-called Disinformation Control Board at the Department of Homeland Security, which some free speech groups criticized as opening the door to subjective government intervention on disinformation issues.
Nevertheless, free speech watchdogs told Al Jazeera that President Trump’s actions have been very forceful, with years of verbal threats against the media turning more into action in his second term.
“The second Trump administration has been characterized by concrete actions to intimidate, intimidate, control and undermine the media,” Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA (RSF) USA, told Al Jazeera.
Weimers said Carr’s threat related to Iran war coverage was “one of the most extreme examples” of that approach.
Human rights watchdogs agreed that any effort by Mr. Carr to revoke his broadcast license for coverage of the Iran war would face a difficult legal battle.
But they also argued that that was likely off the mark.
“The reality is that the FCC can’t take away someone’s license like this,” Weimers said. “This is a really, really long process…and the FCC probably won’t let it go this way.”
“They’re meant to be threats, and sometimes those threats work,” he said, noting that local stations rarely have the legal resources or know how to respond to such threats.
He pointed to KCBS-AM radio station in California’s Bay Area, which came under fire from Carr for its coverage of immigrant attacks in the area.
After Carr announced the investigation, the station demoted anchors and appeared to curtail any reporting that appeared political.
“The threat worked,” Weimers said. “It doesn’t need to be backed up by anything.”
‘Totally unprecedented’ approach to the FCC
Established by Congress in 1934, the FCC has historically been an independent regulatory agency whose mission statement states that it “regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.”
Part of the mandate is also to “ensure an appropriate competitive framework” in the U.S. media landscape, including considering potential mergers between major telecommunications companies and media organizations.
Victor Picard, a professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania, said Trump and Carr appear to be approaching the committee differently than any administration in decades.
“What is completely unprecedented is the way they weaponized the Federal Communications Commission,” Picard told Al Jazeera.
“It’s clear that this supposedly independent regulatory agency is giving the Trump administration a run for its money,” he said.
Mr. Carr himself has shown little distance from Mr. Trump, telling a Senate committee last December that “formally speaking, it is not an independent agency.”
Former FCC lawyers disputed this view, arguing that Congress intended the commission to be independent of the White House. Nevertheless, the word “independent” was removed from the agency’s website after Carr’s testimony.
Throughout the first months of President Trump’s second term, Mr. Carr has taken a confrontational approach to broadcasters.
Shortly after Trump took office, Carr renewed a series of complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC related to their coverage of the 2024 election. He launched an investigation into public media companies PBS and NPR as Republicans grapple with widespread funding cuts over allegations of liberal bias.
In September, American talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was temporarily removed from his late-night show by his ABC manager. This comes amid reports that Kimmel was under pressure from Carr over comments he made about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Kerr also threatened an investigation into the so-called “equal time rule,” which requires broadcasters to give political opponents equal access on the airwaves. This inspired daytime talk show The View and CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert.
Critics have called this requirement outdated and logically impossible.
Pickard explained that Carr’s threats come amid broader changes in the U.S. media landscape, with distressed companies increasingly eyeing new deals and mergers.
This included the acquisition of Paramount in August 2025 and the proxy acquisition of CBS News by Skydance Media, which is owned by David Ellison, the son of Trump ally Larry Ellison.
Paramount Skydance recently agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
“It’s the media owners who are trying to make these deals, and so they are in turn going to put pressure on people below them to not be too hostile to the Trump administration,” Picard explained.
“So this is all part of a broader purpose of trying to suppress the press, trying to influence the press to amplify President Trump’s preferred narratives and talking points,” he said.
Trump himself recently posted a graphic on his Truth Social account claiming he was “reshaping the media,” pointing to CNN’s “new ownership” and praising the appointment of CBS’ so-called “news bias ombudsman,” a former head of the conservative Hudson Institute.
multifaceted approach
Still, the FCC is just one aspect of how the Trump administration has approached rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
In other efforts, the administration has used immigration law to target individuals, particularly pro-Palestinian student protesters. It has used public funds to pressure private universities to change policies regarding free speech, protests, and diversity programs on campus. And he has pursued a largely defunct effort to punish law firms that hire people considered political opponents of President Trump.
In many cases, governments are “wisely picking battles that don’t necessarily have a lot of direct precedent,” said Aaron Tarr, director of public policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
This is especially true in terms of how the administration has enforced immigration law, Teare explained. The State Department has argued extensively that U.S. permanent residents and visa holders do not maintain the same free speech protections as U.S. citizens.
In a high-profile case last year, the Trump administration sought to deport two U.S. permanent residents, Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, for their involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. Student Rumeisa Ozturk and researcher Badar Khan Suri were also targeted for their pro-Palestinian statements and affiliations.
All four remain in the United States, with Khalil and Khan Suri continuing to fight their expulsion in court since expulsion proceedings against Mahdawi and Ozturk ended.
Tell explained that while a 1943 Supreme Court decision “clearly states” that free speech protections extend to non-citizens, there has been little case law on the subject since then, creating weaknesses.
“From the administration’s perspective…it’s easier to target vulnerable people who don’t have full citizenship or are here on visas or green cards,” Teare said.
The administration also promised to increase social media surveillance of both U.S. citizens and non-citizens.
Earlier this month, multiple organizations challenged Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visa restriction policy announced in May 2025 that would bar entry to the country for individuals deemed to be “complicit in the censorship of Americans.”
The lawsuit charges that the policy has had a chilling effect on non-citizen scholars, journalists, and researchers who study and write about misinformation and disinformation, particularly related to major social media platforms.
Separately, the New York Times and other U.S. media reported in February that the Department of Homeland Security had begun issuing subpoenas to tech companies, including Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta, to identify individuals who oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Fourteen months into President Trump’s second term, Thea said the early moves should be seen as a harbinger for years to come.
“This is how speech suppression works,” Tell told Al Jazeera.
“Governments often start at the margins, targeting the simplest cases and the most vulnerable targets,” he said. “But if they succeed there, you can expect their targets to continue to expand.”
