The Trump administration is embracing an intimidation strategy to silence critical media coverage. Here’s how it works: A federal agency launches a pretextual investigation into a perceived enemy, keeps the investigation open to coerce compliance, and resists any effort to have a court review the lawfulness of the agency’s actions.
There’s no better example than the Federal Trade Commission’s retaliatory investigation of Media Matters for America for its critical coverage of one of the Trump administration’s most powerful allies.
Such investigations aim stifle speech and chill the questioning of those in power. They’re an acute danger to nonprofit organizations that Americans rely on for critical information. That’s why 17 nonprofit organizations, led by The Intercept’s Press Freedom Defense Fund, filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The brief, authored by Albert Sellars LLP, asks the appellate court to uphold a preliminary injunction to protect Media Matters’ speech rights.
Media Matters is a media watchdog. In 2023, it published an article detailing how advertising from companies like Apple and IBM appeared next to pro-Nazi and other antisemitic content on X. The platform’s owner, Elon Musk, responded with what he called a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters, alleging the nonprofit systematically manipulated X to defame his company.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate; Missouri and Texas did just that. Then the FTC followed suit seeking details concerning Media Matters’ reporting, communications with third parties, and six years of its financial information, potentially including donors.
The FTC’s intent was clear. Chair Andrew Ferguson vowed to target “the radical left” and “progressives.” The District of Columbia federal district court concluded that the FTC’s investigation was ““a straightforward First Amendment violation.”
This tactic of retaliatory investigation has been mirrored by other federal agencies, particularly the Department of Justice as it targets hospitals providing gender-affirming care, and the Federal Communications Commission as its tries to quiet media organizations.
And that’s just one way the Trump administration attacks speech rights.
For instance, the Justice Department is trying to use the FACE Act – legislation designed to protect abortion clinics and patents from violent intimidation — to stifle newsgathering. Pointing to a provision referencing places of worship, the DOJ is prosecuting journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for the crime of reporting on a protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. The claims are farcical: Lemon stands accused of meeting with activists before a protest, not disclosing the location of the protest until it happened, interviewing protesters and congregants, and getting in the face of the pastor while asking hard questions. The indictment, which was rejected by a magistrate and appellate court, is even less specific on Fort’s alleged crime; the administration seems to contend she violated the law by standing beside Lemon when he was interviewing the pastor.
The same chilling intent is evident in the recent search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home and the seizure of her devices. The warrant greenlighted the search because Natanson’s articles allegedly contained national defense information said to be provided by a government contractor. But the search wasn’t just focused on their alleged conversations; it was all-inclusive. The feds captured an account on the encrypted messaging app Signal with more than 1,000 confidential sources from more than 120 agencies. In a hearing last Friday, a federal judge in Virginia lambasted prosecutors for failing to disclose that news reporters are protected from such searches and seizures by the Privacy Protection Act. And it was revealed that the government had tried multiple times to get a broader warrant, which the court had rejected.
Anyone who works with investigative reporters knows that the seizure of a Signal account effectively halts their ability to do their jobs. And that was the goal: silencing a journalist reporting on how government workers are reacting to the abuses of their employer.
The Trump administration’s anti-speech campaign doesn’t only scare journalists. The Department of Homeland Security has, for instance, deployed administrative subpoenas to unmask anonymous social media accounts critical of the violent activities of immigration agents. From the founding of this country, the right to speak anonymously has been protected under the First Amendment. Federalists Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay signed the Federalist Papers under the “Publius” name; Anti-Federalists also published under pseudonyms. “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” the Supreme Court wrote in the 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission case. “It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society.”
None of these Trump administration actions are intended to uphold a legal principle. They are intended to punish and intimidate. In Media Matters’ brief supporting the continued injunction, its attorneys write that the federal investigation “has breathed new life into the ‘culture of fear’ within Media Matters. Employees refrain from investigating ‘even tangentially-related public figures and events because they could be flashpoints for further retaliation.’”
That’s the strategy in the Lemon and Fort prosecutions, Natanson’s search and seizure, and the administrative subpoenas aiming to identify anonymous accounts. The administration seeks to instill fear, but we will not be chilled.
The coalition behind the amicus brief includes the Press Freedom Defense Fund, CalMatters, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, the Dangerous Speech Project, Defending Rights & Dissent, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the First Amendment Coalition, Free Press, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Lion Publishers, MuckRock Foundation, The National Coalition Against Censorship, Open Vallejo, the Project On Government Oversight, Public Knowledge, and Reporters Without Borders USA.
#Trump #Courts #Intimidate #Critics #Media #Fight