This post is periodically updated with new attacks on the media by the president.
Donald Trump has pledged to defend the Constitution — — but he can’t seem to lay off that pesky First Amendment.
Trump has mocked the First Amendment’s right to freedom of religion by calling for a ban on Muslims from entering the country and those who believe in the freedom of speech as “foolish people.” He has endorsed and the who burn the flag. He has attempted to silence and marginalize his critics by forcing staff, and even , to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements and revoking, or threatening to revoke, the security clearances of former administration officials. His administration has also proposed to dramatically limit the right to protest near the White House and on the National Mall.
And Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t stand for the freedom of the press. As a presidential candidate, he supporters he would “open up our libel laws” to sue journalists. “We’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” he promised.
Trump the candidate also reporters and entire news outlets from campaign events, to journalists as “scum” and “slime,” and a reporter for having a disability. He vowed to women who reported incidents of sexual harassment and assault, along with the outlets that covered their , and threatened a lawsuit against a for calling out his bigoted remarks.
"I would never kill them but I do hate them,” he of reporters. “And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”
This onslaught didn’t stop once Trump assumed the presidency. From the most powerful perch on the planet, he has continued to wage attacks on the free press, further revealing his authoritarian impulses and disdain for the First Amendment.
Below we provide a running list of attacks that the president has made on the press since assuming office. We’ll keep this list updated since, unfortunately, we don’t expect them to stop.
Trump has:
- a violent attack on a reporter by Montana Rep. Greg Gianforte.
- Presided over a Justice Department investigation in which years' worth of email and phone records belonging to a New York Times reporter were seized in connection with a leak investigation.
- Threatened to change libel laws to make it easier to sue publishers and news organizations following the release of an unflattering book.
- against a journalist and publisher over a book that includes critical statements about him.
- Demanded the Washington Post a reporter over an inaccurate tweet about the crowd size at a Trump rally, which the reporter apologized for and deleted.
- Urged people to ABC News over a retracted report, which Trump claimed caused the stock market to fall and investors to lose money.
- On the day that Russia restrictions on foreign news outlets, tweeted: “CNN International is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly. The outside world does not see the truth from them!” He then a contest between CNN and other outlets, apart from Fox, to see which has “the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me).”
- Said it is “ the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write” in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
- to the broadcast licenses of media companies that offer negative coverage of him.
- Had the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, call on ESPN to for criticizing him.
- Tweeted mocking images of him and his campaign .
- Overseen a Justice Department of policies for subpoenaing media organizations in an effort to crack down on both whistleblowers and journalists. As of November 2017, investigations of leaks by the department reportedly grew under Jeff Sessions.
- Pledged to “” with a Polish leader hostile to press freedom.
- Attacked reporters , who has fostered a climate of .
- Said that his mission to “drain the swamp” begins “”
- Reportedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to reporters who publish classified information.
- Tasked his former chief of staff with looking into .
- Explored the prosecution of for publishing CIA and State Department materials.
- Labeled the “fake news” media “.”
- Accused the media of about his “very nice” conversation with the Australian prime minister. Ultimately, a of the call showed it was Trump who was lying.
- Urged someone to buy the New York Times to “.”
- Said members of the “Fake News & totally dishonest Media” have “ who have given up on the TRUTH!”
- Threatened to who write “negative” stories about him while admitting he considers negative media coverage to be “Fake”: “91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”
- Called for a into “Saturday Night Live” after watching a rerun of an episode parodying him.
- Wondered why “the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs ?”
- Tweeted that the “Fake News is the !”
- Unsuccessfully the press credentials of CNN journalist Jim Acosta.
- Said that he is “” to have “great” stories published about him in the New York Times.
- Brazil’s authoritarian president for denouncing the “fake news.”
- Announced plans to presidential debates held by “Fake News Networks.”
While Trump tries to portray journalists at the “enemies” of Americans, it’s his attacks on the press that amount to an assault on the cornerstone of American democracy: the First Amendment.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.