Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Post-2020, has Donald Trump continued efforts to influence or censor media coverage?
Executive summary
Post-2020 reporting shows Donald Trump continued an active campaign to shape, pressure, and sometimes limit media coverage: he signed a January 20, 2025 executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” criticized news organizations, pursued lawsuits against outlets, and pressed tech firms over moderation practices [1] [2] [3]. Critics and press-freedom groups say those moves have prompted platform changes (like Meta ending fact‑checking) and sparked concerns about self‑censorship and removal of public-health and research materials from federal websites; supporters frame his actions as defending free speech from alleged government or corporate censorship [2] [4] [5] [6].
1. Executive order and the stated policy aim — “ending federal censorship”
On January 20, 2025, the White House published an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” which frames prior government efforts to counter “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” as infringements on speech and directs agencies toward a deregulatory, free‑speech posture [1]. Proponents argue the EO prevents federal coordination that they view as covert censorship; critics say it effectively curtails government efforts to counter harmful falsehoods and empowers platforms to drop safeguards [1] [6].
2. Pressure on social platforms and fact‑checking changes
Multiple accounts link the post‑2020 political environment and Trump’s return to office with shifts at major platforms. The Georgetown Free Speech Project reports that since Trump’s return several companies moved to reduce or end fact‑checking programs, including Meta’s January 2025 termination of its fact‑checking across platforms — a change framed by some as a victory for free speech and by others as a weakening of misinformation defenses [2]. Analysts at The Conversation and Brookings argue deregulation and political pressure have contributed to removing guardrails that previously sought to limit disinformation, a development with contested implications for “free speech” versus public safety [6] [7].
3. Litigation, threats and public attacks on outlets
Post‑2020, Trump continued to litigate and publicly attack media organizations. Reporting and summaries note lawsuits filed against outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS and the Des Moines Register and earlier class‑action claims against major tech firms alleging censorship [2] [3]. News organizations and media advocates say such legal pressure, combined with public vilification of journalists, risks chilling reporting and encouraging corporate self‑censorship; supporters of the legal actions present them as accountability for perceived bias [2] [8].
4. Accusations of government censorship of data and academic publications
Civil society groups and medical advocates alleged that federal agencies removed or altered data and web content after policy shifts in early 2025; Doctors for America sued multiple agencies and a federal judge ordered restoration of prior web pages and datasets by February 11, 2025 [5]. Reporting says some scientists were ordered to pause or retract publications, which critics labeled censorship of academic and public‑health information while the administration argued it was policy review or correction [5].
5. Press‑freedom watchdogs and international perspective
Reporters Without Borders cautioned that Trump’s “free speech” agenda risks press freedom, noting actions such as pardons of individuals involved in attacks on journalists and government rhetoric that can foster hostility to the press [4]. RSF frames the EO and related policies as victories for disinformation actors and a setback for journalists’ safety and independence [4]. These organizations additionally note the risk that government pressure translates into corporate self‑censorship or targeting of critical outlets [4].
6. Media consolidation, donors and the broader influence ecosystem
Commentators and outlets raise concerns that Trump allies and friendly private actors are reshaping media ownership and influence, potentially aligning coverage with administration priorities; The Guardian highlights claims about wealthy backers influencing outlets and policy connections to the White House, an issue that complicates a binary “government vs. media” framing [9]. PBS and other commentators describe corporate concessions and self‑monitoring agreements as signs the administration’s pressure has real commercial results, which editors and journalists warn could narrow the range of vigorous reporting [8].
7. What the sources agree on — and where they diverge
Sources agree Trump took concrete actions post‑2020 to contest and reshape how information is moderated and how federal agencies handle data: the EO, lawsuits, public attacks, and reported platform policy rollbacks are documented [1] [2] [3] [5]. They diverge on interpretation: some outlets and watchdogs see these as erosions of press freedom and safeguards against misinformation [4] [8] [6]; other reporting and actors frame them as restoration of free speech and correction of prior “censorship” practices [1] [2].
Limitations: available sources used here focus on actions through early‑to‑late 2025 and reflect both reporting and opinion; they do not provide an exhaustive catalog of every post‑2020 interaction between Trump and every media or platform actor. Where sources do not mention specific claims, those claims are not asserted.