During an interview aboard Air Force One in late September, president Donald Trump, frustrated by negative press coverage, remarked, “I would think maybe their license should be taken away.” He went on to say that 97% of American networks are against him.
With this comment and many others in the past, Trump made one thing clear — he sees most of the press as enemies in need of punishment.
The legal reality, however, is straightforward: Presidents should not be able to revoke broadcast licenses based on their likes and dislikes. Rather, the authority rests with the Federal Communications Commission, a theoretically independent body that licenses individual stations and renews them through an established process under the Communications Act of the United States.
The agency is directed by five commissioners, with only three being allowed from the same party, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate — a structure that, while meant to balance power, still gives the White House considerable influence over who enforces its policies and decisions.
But even if the White House technically lacks the legal power to directly pull a license, the repeated threat of revoking licenses can warp coverage — forcing media outlets to consider political consequences when giving the green light for investigations and other stories.
Additionally, Trump’s ultimatum makes journalists wonder whether stories spelling dissent against the current administration could endanger their jobs. Unfortunately, this pressure happens to coincide with the Pentagon’s newly approved press corps.
The list, announced on Oct. 22, includes right-wing outlets — some of which have repeatedly promoted conspiracy theories. One of the outlets, the Gateway Pundit, spread false information about the 2020 election. After entering a defamation lawsuit with two Georgia election workers it had falsely accused of misconduct, the outlet eventually admitted that the elections were fair.
Other favored members include Mike Lindell, the owner of Lindell TV, who eventually paid $2.3 million in reparations for slandering a voting machine company employee in the 2020 race.
The updated Defense department policy, introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hesketh, limits where reporters can go in the Pentagon and bans them from obtaining material without authorization; the aforementioned outlets have agreed to the new policies, but other mainstream outlets, including even conservative Fox News, have condemned the Pentagon’s new draconian policies, calling them an unprecedented limit on the transparency of press access.
Furthermore, Trump’s proposed $1.1 billion cut to public broadcasting aims to gut NPR and PBS, especially local affiliates who keep small communities informed. Without these outlets, many small towns lose reliable coverage of school boards, local elections, health alerts and other community updates, leaving a perfect environment for social media-driven misinformation to thrive.
Trump’s threats and funding cuts have worked together to create fear among top news organizations; the latter wipes out local coverage, particularly in rural areas. Both slowly deteriorate the spine of American journalism.
This foreboding danger in free press is sharpened by the public’s doubt about journalists’ work generally. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 73% of Americans say a free press is vital, but only one-third think that journalists are truly free to report stories. In fact, most believe political and corporate interests already steer coverage — 84% cite financial influence and 83% cite political influence.
Since many Americans already doubt the media’s independence, Trump’s threats only feed existing distrust and push people further into more partisan, less accurate news sources.
Normally, the system would hold: Congress oversees the budget, courts strike down actions of the government that go beyond constitutional limits; and the FCC keeps licensing separated from politics. But what happens when those safeguards falter?
A Chatham House report, published Sept. 15, warns that once the courts lose the ability (or the guts) to enforce their rulings and Congress is reduced to being a president rubber stamp, the country slips closer to authoritarianism The Supreme Court is already under pressure from like-minded Conservatives, with six of the nine judges Republican-appointed and losing public trust over their recent decisions.
This leads to situations where even obvious violations of the Constitution go unpunished. The point here is not whether Trump can actually strip a network’s license; rather, even the suggestion pressures executives away from allowing newsrooms to cover controversial issues. Reporters are facing a political reality that puts their jobs on the line. Trump’s allies will just nod along while critics, if things get really bad, will simply be silenced for fear of the consequences of speaking out.
After all, that is the definition of freedom of the press: the ability to challenge powerful leaders without fear of punishment. When journalists and news outlets are intimidated into silence, the flow of truthful information will slow and citizens will lose their ability to make informed decisions. And Democracy will teeter in the balance.
