Democracy is an elastic concept. It can stretch in all directions as different administrations of a democratic government initiate new policies and programs driven by party politics and the will of the people. Despite its malleability, every democracy requires free elections so the citizenry can exercise the right to vote. For free elections to occur, all citizens must also have the right to free expression and dissent, and the media and press must be free to investigate, report and openly disagree with government policies and legislation.
Although these and many other freedoms critical to democracy must endure attempts to limit them, once these “inalienable” rights are recognized in a constitution or law, the people will defend them without hesitation.
With the second Trump administration, these freedoms face many of the same challenges as they did during his first administration, and additional challenges are anticipated. Of course, rhetoric at political rallies to create enthusiasm among supporters vastly differs from transforming that rhetoric into policy and legislative language in a government bureaucracy where the gears grind slowly.
Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel, National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)
Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), is just as concerned as most media executives, publishers and journalists about the implications during a second Trump administration. However, he's also worried about another trend with a longer-term impact.
“It’s [Trump reelection] very troubling for what the future holds for a free press, not just based on which administration is in office, but more on what the public is embracing as journalism. It’s quite evident that much of the reporting done at every level, national and local, was, it seems, disregarded,” Osterreicher said.
The media and press dutifully reported Trump’s racist, misogynistic and rabbling statements, his legal cases, and the rest of his baggage. However, they didn't affect the election outcome as many expected. Osterreicher said journalists are exhausted and understandably disillusioned when most of the electorate isn’t paying attention to their accurate reporting of the facts.
“This is when everyone needs to dig in or lean in even more than they did before. We must keep moving forward, remain positive and hopeful and do as much as we can, but it will be a difficult time for everyone,” Osterreicher said.
Despite the many fears of how the Trump administration will attack these freedoms, many U.S. presidents and their administrations have tried — and some succeeded — in suppressing these fundamental freedoms, albeit temporarily. Comparing what Trump has declared he will do to stifle the media and the press to what past presidents did may not reduce those fears much but will demonstrate how our freedoms have survived and haven't lost much, if any, of their power throughout U.S. history.
Presidents who stifled the press
Many, if not most, Americans and journalists agree that restricting press coverage and even suspending some rights during wartime can be necessary. That said, press coverage is even more important when the U.S. is at war. The restrictions Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt implemented were understandable during the Civil War, World War I and World War II, respectively. However, many wondered whether the restrictions were just temporary.
Possibly the most egregious attack on freedom of speech and the press was The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — passed during the administration of our second President, John Adams. As we know them today, political parties did not yet exist but would first become prominent during the 1800 election between Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Adams was a “Federalist” or what we might call a conservative party, and Jefferson was the leader of the “Republicans,” which was the forerunner of today's Democratic Party. The Republicans supported the common people, while the Federalists advocated for the landowners and the wealthy.
During these early years of the U.S., more newspapers were founded, and their editorial positions started to favor either the Federalist or Republican point of view. Adams and all future presidents were to learn that raiding and closing newspapers and arresting and jailing journalists simply because they criticized an administration violated an inalienable right of any democracy.
The Alien and Sedition Acts became law in 1798. It was repealed in 1802, during the first Jefferson administration, largely because the public was outraged — leading to Jefferson and the Republican Party’s sweep into office in 1800.
The TV age created a new dynamic between presidents and the press. Yes, presidents could address the American people directly through their TVs, but controlling the use of the TV medium was essential to presidents and their administrations. Press conferences were much more planned and orchestrated than the sometimes casual interactions between reporters and presidents in the Oval Office before TV. Today, a president's press office carefully stages photo-ops and limits press conferences so presidents don't have to face the tough questions live on TV.
Although the relationships between presidents and the press can be amiable, they are often adversarial, which should be the norm in a democracy. Declaring that the press is an enemy, or an enemy of the people, again severely stretches the elasticity of democracy. Richard Nixon and Trump are the two presidents who publicly referred to the press as enemies; Nixon even kept an enemies list that contained the names of journalists and publications. Trump hasn’t declared he has an enumerated list of enemies, but it's clear he has one — at least in his head.
Speculating on the Trump attack plan
It will be several months into 2025 before the Trump administration’s plan and timeline for implementing media and press restrictions will be known. In this post-election climate, only speculation and educated guesses are possible. If the media, the press and their supporters have one tactical advantage, then it’s their experience from the first Trump administration.
Editors have been quick to assign articles like this one, and many of their authors cite the same tactics from the first administration that are likely to be deployed during the second.
Many of these tactics are prominently highlighted in the Project 2025 document, with policy priorities for the second Trump administration. Although Trump has stated he isn’t familiar with Project 2025, those who created it were members of his first administration and may have posts in his second.
Some of these policies are more likely to affect the media and press (and individuals) than others. With Republican majorities in the U.S. Congress, some of these policies will likely be rubber-stamped. Others, however, will be subject to closer scrutiny and the stubborn insistence by members of Congress, especially Senators, to operate independently from the executive branch. Some may question whether there are any “moderate” Republicans in Congress, but it will only require a few brave souls to vote against the most extreme policies in Project 2025.
Gabe Rottman, policy director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), said reporting on immigration issues is a friction point from the first Trump administration that may become more abrasive during the second. If there is a wholesale roundup and deportation of illegal immigrants, then those actions will occur in hundreds, maybe thousands, of communities and will be stories local news outlets want to cover.
“The issues during the first administration, such as national security, disclosures and leaks, are not likely to be much of an issue for local news outlets, but immigration reporting may. There were investigations at the Department of Homeland Security by those responsible for border security and customs integration that targeted journalists and could impact local and community outlets,” Rottman said.
Rottman said a positive development is the Justice Department’s report published in October 2024 about best practice recommendations for police/press interaction at protests.
“If there are significant protests, mass demonstrations and civil unrest, then it’s important both police and newsrooms train on how they should interact during those events. Digital security will be key. Physical security resources are also critical because journalists will be in the field reporting directly,” Rottman said.
The impregnable First Amendment
Attempts to restrict the guarantees of the First Amendment may be on the “to-do” list of some members of the second Trump administration and Project 2025 authors. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld and even expanded First Amendment freedoms with multiple precedent-setting rulings throughout much of U.S. history.
Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said the media and the press can still rely on the protection of the First Amendment. “The Supreme Court has been quite strong on First Amendment issues, and I don’t see that changing simply because we have a different administration in the White House.”
“It’s interesting that in the past term, the Supreme Court upheld the longstanding First Amendment principle that the government can violate First Amendment rights by threatening various kinds of regulatory action to restrict free speech. That case was National Rifle Association v. Vulio. To the extent the Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle and did so unanimously, we might see that come into play with various threats against the media in the upcoming administration,” Corn-Revere said.
The Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act (PRESS) has strong bipartisan support in Congress, including Senate leaders, such as Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The House of Representative’s version has already passed, while the Senate version is pending. Becoming federal law before Trump retakes office would provide journalists with additional protection. Similar protections are already law in 49 states and the District of Columbia.
“The First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press is fundamental to holding politicians and others in power accountable,” Senator Durbin said. “Journalists rely on sources to ensure the public has the full story. I joined my colleagues in introducing the PRESS Act to ensure that journalists have the necessary protections to speak with their sources and do their jobs effectively without undue government interference. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see this bill advance.”
During the last days of 2024, the media, the press and the many organizations that support them, including the NPPA, RCFP and FIRE, must be proactive and vociferous in opposing any attempts by the Trump administration to stretch the elasticity of democracy to the breaking point.
Bob Sillick has held many senior positions and served a myriad of clients during his 47 years in marketing and advertising. He has been a freelance/contract content researcher, writer, editor and manager since 2010. He can be reached at bobsillick@gmail.com.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here