Trump Says Critical Coverage of Him Is ‘Really Illegal’; The New York Times, September 19, 2025

Luke Broadwater, The New York Times; Trump Says Critical Coverage of Him Is ‘Really Illegal’

[Kip Currier: The most objective (and nicest) way to respond to Trump's assertion that critical reporting on him is "really illegal" is that it is legally incorrect and factually untrue. Whether Trump is regrettably misinformed in stating this falsehood or intentionally uttering this inaccuracy is less material than the fact that he is objectively wrong.

There are countries where it is illegal to say critical things about heads of nations: Russia. China. North Korea. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. Thailand. Others. Indeed, criticizing the head of state will likely get one defenestrated (as tragically happens all too often in Russia), killed in other ways, tortured, jailed, or disappeared.

Fortunately, it is not (yet) illegal to say negative things about U.S. Presidents at present. And it never has been, since the founding of the country in 1776 when the monarchical dictates of England's King George III were soundly declined by the American colonists. The t-shirt below proudly (and wholly truthfully) proclaims that historical truth that occurred in America 249 years ago:

[Excerpt]

"President Trump said Friday that news reporters who cover his administration negatively have broken the law, a significant broadening of his attacks on journalists and their First Amendment right to critique the government.

A day after asserting that broadcasters should potentially lose their licenses over negative news coverage of him, Mr. Trump escalated his condemnations of the press, suggesting reporters were lawbreakers.

“They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad,” he said, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office. “See, I think that’s really illegal.”

Mr. Trump did not cite a specific law he said he believed had been violated. It remained unclear Friday why Mr. Trump believed negative news coverage, which every president has faced and is protected by the Constitution, would be “really illegal.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment Friday evening."

‘Dangerous as hell’: Ted Cruz compares FCC chair’s threats against ABC to mob tactics; CNN, September 19, 2025

Michael Williams, CNN; ‘Dangerous as hell’: Ted Cruz compares FCC chair’s threats against ABC to mob tactics

"GOP Sen. Ted Cruz on Friday denounced Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threats to pull ABC’s broadcast license as “unbelievably dangerous” and compared some of his rhetoric to “mafioso” tactics.

In an episode of his podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” released on Friday, the Texas Republican said he was “thrilled” Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the air by ABC over his comments about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. But he said he strongly disagreed with the government policing speech, asserting it could come back to bite conservatives when Democrats retake power.

“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said. I am thrilled that he was fired,” Cruz said. “But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said. We’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.”

Though Carr’s comments have drawn widespread condemnation on the left, Cruz’s remarks represent one of the strongest denunciations of the threats against broadcasters by an elected conservative. Cruz also chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has broad authority over the FCC."

Americans are ‘deer in the headlights’ in face of Trump assault on free speech, Maria Ressa tells Jon Stewart; The Guardian, September 19, 2025

Jonathan Yerushalmy , The Guardian; Americans are ‘deer in the headlights’ in face of Trump assault on free speech, Maria Ressa tells Jon Stewart

[Kip Currier: How smart for Jon Stewart to talk with 2021 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Maria Ressa at this break-the-glass and Call-911 moment, when American free speech and independent non-state-run media are under attack by the Trump 2.0 administration. Ressa was awarded the 2021 Peace Prize with Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov for free speech advocacy in their respective Philippines and Russia.

Ressa's phone number should be on speed dial for any American reporter, politician, and civil watchdog group committed to championing freedom of the press and free speech by learning from her first-hand experiences with authoritarianism and dictators, like the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte. Her 2022 book How To Stand Up To A Dictator serves as a battle-seasoned anti-totalitarianism fighter's counter-playbook to the now-predictable authoritarian playbooks of autocrats like Hungary's Viktor Orban and Russia's Vladimir Putin.

The notes feature on my phone is full of practical insights from Ressa, too, on the dangers of unchecked social media and disinformation, which are more recent tools for opponents of democracy and informed citizenries:

"By design social media divides and radicalizes." Fresh Air, 12/1/22

"Disinformation is like cocaine."

"Silence is consent."

"Cynicism and hopelessness are the tools of a tyrant."

"Inspiration spreads as fast as anger". Ressa gave the example of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy choosing not to flee when Russia invaded Ukraine on 2/24/22.

"What are you willing to sacrifice for the truth?"]

[Excerpt]

"The Nobel prize winner Maria Ressa has said Americans are like “deer in the headlights” amid the collapse of US institutions and free speech under the Trump administration, particularly after Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension.

Speaking to Jon Stewart on the satirical news programme The Daily Show, the journalist and author of How to Stand Up to a Dictator said the speed at which Donald Trump had “collapsed” US institutions happened much faster than she anticipated.

She drew comparisons between the Trump administration and the government of the former president Rodrigo Duterte in her home country of the Philippines, saying: “If you don’t move and protect the rights you have, you lose them. And it’s so much harder to reclaim them.”...

Ressa, who won the 2021 Nobel peace prize for her fight for freedom of expression in the Philippines, told Stewart people the world over were electing “illiberal leaders democratically because of insidious manipulation … [which] starts with the manipulation and corruption of our public information ecosystem”.

She said “there is a ‘dictator’s playbook’”, comparing the Trump administration’s attacks on alleged Venezuelan drug boats to former president Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal crackdown on drug-dealing in the Philippines.

When asked by Stewart what happens next, Ressa pointed to her own work as a journalist in the Philippines, saying: “We just kept doing our jobs, we kept putting one foot in front of the other.”"

Jon Stewart Goes Full State TV to Nail Trump on Kimmel; The Daily Beast, September 19, 2025

Matt Wilstein  , The Daily Beast; Jon Stewart Goes Full State TV to Nail Trump on Kimmel

"Jon Stewart showed the world what it would be like if Donald Trump got his wish to remake all media in his image Thursday night with a 23-minute satirical rebranding of The Daily Show as full-on state TV. 

In a last-minute return to the desk outside of his usual Monday night gig, Stewart introduced the “new government-approved Daily Show.” It was his unique way of commenting on ABC’s decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel from the air following direct threats from Trump’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr. 

“We have another fun, hilarious, administration-compliant show,” Stewart said, surrounded by Trumpian gold flourishes. Throughout a monologue dominated by MAGA talking points, the host repeatedly shushed the laughing crowd, telling them, “You’re gonna blow this for us!”...

Despite the over-the-top MAGA-friendly act, Stewart still managed to use clips to catch Trump and his cohort in all sorts of blatant hypocrisy when it comes to the type of free speech they used to defend when it was targeted at the other side...

The Daily Show closed out its marathon opening segment with all seven co-hosts and correspondents reciting a pro-free speech message in terrified unison."

‘Censoring you in real time’: suspension of Jimmy Kimmel show sparks shock and fears for free speech; The Guardian, September 17, 2025

Jonathan Yerushalmy, The Guardian ; ‘Censoring you in real time’: suspension of Jimmy Kimmel show sparks shock and fears for free speech

"Politicians, media figures and free speech organisations expressed anger and alarm at the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show, warning that critics of Donald Trump were being systematically silenced."

ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from Trump’s FCC chair; CNN, September 17, 2025

Brian Stelter, Elizabeth Wagmeister, Liam Reilly , CNN; ABC yanks Jimmy Kimmel’s show ‘indefinitely’ after threat from Trump’s FCC chair

"Disney’s ABC is taking Jimmy Kimmel’s late night talk show off the air indefinitely amid a controversy over his recent comments about Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live will be pre-empted indefinitely,” an ABC spokesperson said, declining to share any further details.

A representative for Kimmel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The stunning decision came just a few hours after the Trump administration official responsible for licensing ABC’s local stations publicly pressured the company to punish Kimmel."

Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times is meritless, First Amendment experts say; CNN, September 17, 2025

Brian Stelter, Liam Reilly, CNN ; Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times is meritless, First Amendment experts say

"President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times is meritless, according to half a dozen lawyers and First Amendment scholars who spoke with CNN.

But Trump’s chances in court are almost beside the point, some of the experts said, because the president seems to want a political rather than legal or financial victory.

Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Law School, said the 85-page suit “is a statement of contempt for truth, the American public, the judicial process, and everything that deserves our respect in the American tradition.”

However, Tushnet said, “to pick through its legal defects, such as the complaints about statements about Fred Trump — a deceased man who cannot be defamed — is to ignore its purpose: to threaten any criticism of Trump.”

National park to remove photo of enslaved man’s scars; The Washington Post, September 16, 2025

Jake Spring

 and 

Hannah Natanson

, The Washington Post ; National park to remove photo of enslaved man’s scars

[Kip Currier: I will be posting commentary about this deeply troubling development by Trump 2.0.]

[Excerpt]

"The Trump administration has ordered the removal of signs and exhibits related to slavery at multiple national parks, according to four people familiar with the matter, including a historic photograph of a formerly enslaved man showing scars on his back.

The individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media, said the removals were in line with President Donald Trump’s March executive order directing the Interior Department to eliminate information that reflects a “corrosive ideology” that disparages historic Americans. National Park Service officials are broadly interpreting that directive to apply to information on racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights or persecution of Indigenous people."

The USTA’s censorship of Trump dissent at the US Open is cowardly, hypocritical and un-American; The Guardian, September 7, 2025

Bryan Armen Graham , The Guardian ; The USTA’s censorship of Trump dissent at the US Open is cowardly, hypocritical and un-American

"When the dust finally settles in the days after Sunday’s eagerly awaited US Open men’s final, the United States Tennis Association will issue its annual victory-lap press release. It will tout another record-setting Open: more than a million fans through the gates, unprecedented social-media engagement, double-digit growth in food and beverage sales, and hundreds of celebrities packed into suites from Rolex to Ralph Lauren. It will beam about growing the game, championing diversity and turning Flushing Meadows into a pop-culture destination.

But for all the milestones the USTA is preparing to celebrate, this year’s tournament will be remembered for a different kind of first: the governing body’s lamentable decision to ask broadcasters not to show dissent against Donald Trump. In making that pre-emptive concession, the USTA has committed an unforced error that can’t be undone: sacrificing authenticity and credibility in order to shield a politician – any politician, regardless of party, ideology or affiliation – from the sound of public disapproval.

According to internal emails obtained by outlets including PA and Bounces, the USTA instructed its television partners to “refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions” when Trump appears on screen during Sunday’s final. A separate note reminded staff he would be seated in Rolex’s suite as a client guest. The 11-word statement to the Guardian on Saturday night from a USTA spokesperson – “We regularly ask our broadcasters to refrain from showcasing off-court disruptions” – is so weak it could buckle under the weight of its own hypocrisy. (Rolex did not respond to a request for comment.)"

Trump’s Attendance At U.S. Open Men’s Final On Sunday Takes Center Court As Organizers Demand Broadcasters Not Air Boos & Protests; Deadline, September 6, 2025

Dominic Patten, Deadline; Trump’s Attendance At U.S. Open Men’s Final On Sunday Takes Center Court As Organizers Demand Broadcasters Not Air Boos & Protests

"Reaction to Donald Trump‘s attendance at the U.S. Open Men’s Final on Sunday just stepped into Center Court. 

A memo sent to the likes of ESPN and Sky Sports this afternoon from the United States Tennis Association asks “all broadcasters to refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance in any capacity.” 

Whether censorship, a very heavy handed request for civility amidst political division, both or an unintentional shooting of their own foort [sic], the USTA entreaty Saturday has had the immediate effect now of putting an added spotlight on Trump’s appearance at the prestigious match."

‘State-driven censorship’: new wave of book bans hits Florida school districts; The Guardian, August 16, 2025

Olivia Empson, The Guardian ; ‘State-driven censorship’: new wave of book bans hits Florida school districts

"A new wave of book bans has hit Florida school districts, with hundreds of titles being pulled from library and classroom shelves as the school year kicks off.

The Republican-dominated state, which has already had the highest rate of book bans nationwide this year, is continuing to censor reading materials in schools, bowing to external pressures in an effort to avoid conflict and government retaliation.

“This is an ideological campaign to erase LGBTQ+ lives and any honest discussion of sex, stripping libraries of resources and stories,” William Johnson, the director of PEN America’s Florida office, told the Guardian.

“If censorship keeps spreading, silence won’t save us. Floridians must speak out now.”

Book bans have been rising at a rapid rate across the US since 2021, but this latest wave comes after increased pressure from the state board of education in Florida.

The board issued a harsh warning to the Hillsborough county school district in May, saying that if they didn’t remove “pornographic” titles from their library, formal legal action could ensue. More than 600 books were pulled as a result, and the process was expected to cost the district $350,000.

The books taken off the school shelves included The Diary of Anne Frank and What Girls Are Made of by Elana K Arnold. None of them were under formal review by the district, and they hadn’t been flagged by local parents as potentially inappropriate. Parents with children in the school system even had the opportunity to opt their children out of a particular reading, without removing them from the class for everyone.

PEN called the board of education’s mass removal in Hillsborough county a “state-driven censorship”, and concluded “it is a calculated effort to consolidate power through fear, to bypass legal precedent, and to silence diverse voices in Florida’s public schools,” in their press release.

Fearing similar retribution, nine surrounding school districts have taken proactive measures, pulling books which they are worried could cause similar controversy. This includes Columbia, Escambia, Orange and Osceola, who have followed suit and quietly complied, probably to avoid similar state retaliation.

“Censorship advocates are playing a long game, and making Hillsborough county public schools bend the knee is a huge win for them,” said Rachel Doyle, who goes by “Reads with Rachel” on social media.

Doyle has two children in the Hillsborough school district system and is frustrated that they are being used as political pawns. She feels that her voice has been erased by far-right groups like Moms for Liberty and that parental rights groups do not have her kids’ best interests in mind.

“I do not want or need a special interest group or a ‘concerned citizen’ opting out for me,” Doyle said. “Once Florida becomes a place where this is the norm entirely, other states will follow.”

In Escambia county, one of the nine school districts that have taken books off their library shelves after the Hillsborough removal campaign, 400 titles have been removed without review. These include I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, and Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, a satirical anti-war novel centered around a prisoner of war in Dresden after the Allied bombings in the second world war.

What is happening in Florida is part of a broader, nationwide censorship drive fueled by conservative backlash against teachings about race, gender and diversity.

Unsurprisingly, red states on average have seen higher instances of banned reading materials, with Florida accounting for 4,561 cases of prohibited titles this year, spanning 33 school districts.

These bans often target authors of color, female writers and members of the LGBTQ+ community. Books that educate about any of these experiences, or that document historical periods, are the recipients of frequent censorship attacks.

Rob Sanders, the author of several acclaimed children’s books like Ruby Rose and Peaceful Fights for Equal Rights, and a former Hillsborough county educator, has seen many challenges to his books in Florida and beyond.

“If we eliminate every book that tells a story that is different than the life experiences of an individual or a family, there will be no books left in the library,” Sanders said.

“As an author, the best thing I can do for children is to keep writing books that tell the truth and that celebrate the wonderful diversity in our world.”

Efforts to restrict or protect libraries both grew this year; Iowa Capital Dispatch, July 23, 2025

ROBBIE SEQUEIRA | STATELINE , Iowa Capital Dispatch ; Efforts to restrict or protect libraries both grew this year

"State lawmakers across the country filed more bills to restrict or protect libraries and readers in the first half of this year than last year, a new report found.

The split fell largely along geographic lines, according to the report from EveryLibrary, a group that advocates against book bans and censorship...

The geographic split among these policies is stark.

In Southern and Plains states, new laws increasingly criminalize certain actions of librarians, restrict access to materials about gender and race, and transfer decision-making power to politically appointed boards or parent-led councils.

Texas alone passed a trio of sweeping laws stripping educators of certain legal protections when providing potentially obscene materials; banning public funding for instructional materials containing obscene content; and giving parents more authority over student reading choices and new library additions.

In contrast, several Northeastern states have passed legislation protections for libraries and librarians and anti-censorship laws.

New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut have each enacted “freedom to read” or other laws that codify protections against ideological censorship in libraries."

‘1984’ Hasn’t Changed, but America Has; The New York Times, July 27, 2025

Charlie English , The New York Times; ‘1984’ Hasn’t Changed, but America Has

[Kip Currier: It's incredibly heartening -- and disheartening at the same time -- to read about post-WWII "CIA Book Program" efforts to provide Soviet-propagandized citizens with access to books, ideas, and information (e.g. George Orwell's "1984"), but then reflect on book banning efforts in American libraries and censorship and erasure of information in museums like the Smithsonian right now.]

[Excerpt]

"There are myriad reasons the Eastern Bloc collapsed in 1989. The economic stagnation of the East and the war in Afghanistan are two of the most commonly cited. But literature also played its part, thanks to a long-running U.S. operation conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency that covertly moved millions of books through the Iron Curtain in a bid to undermine Communist Party censorship.

While it is hard to quantify the program’s effect in absolute terms, its history offers valuable lessons for today, not least since some of the very same titles and authors the C.I.A. sent East during the Cold War — including “1984”— are now deemed objectionable by a network of conservative groups across the United States.

First published in English in 1949, Orwell’s novel describes the dystopian world of Oceania, a totalitarian state where the protagonist, Winston Smith, works in a huge government department called the Ministry of Truth. The ministry is ironically named: Its role is not to safeguard the truth but to destroy it, to edit history to fit the present needs of the party and its leader, Big Brother, since, as the slogan runs, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

In the real Soviet system, every country had its equivalent of the Ministry of Truth, modeled on the Moscow template. In Poland, the largest Eastern European nation outside the Soviet Union, this censorship and propaganda apparatus was called the Main Office for the Control of Presentations and Public Performances, and its headquarters occupied most of a city block in downtown Warsaw.

From art to advertising, television to theater, the Main Office reached into all aspects of Polish life. It had employees in every TV and radio station, every film studio and every publishing house. Every typewriter in Poland had to be registered, access to every photocopier was restricted, and a permit was needed even to buy a ream of paper. Books that did not conform to the censor’s rules were pulped.

The result was intellectual stultification, what the Nobel laureate Czeslaw Milosz called a logocracy, a society where words and language were manipulated to fit the propaganda needs of the regime...

Troublesome people, inconvenient facts and awkward areas of journalistic inquiry were removed from public life...

Orwell was made a “nonperson” in the Soviet Union, after the publication of his satire of the Russian Revolution, “Animal Farm,” in 1945. It was dangerous even to mention the author’s name in print there, and when “1984” was published it was banned in the Eastern Bloc in all languages. But when copies of the novel did slip through the Iron Curtain, they had enormous power. The book was “difficult to obtain and dangerous to possess,” Milosz wrote, but Orwell — who had never visited Eastern Europe — fascinated people there because of “his insight into details they know well.”

What some Eastern European readers of contraband copies of “1984” suspected, but very few knew for sure, was that these and millions of other uncensored texts were not reaching them entirely by chance, but were part of a decades-long U.S. intelligence operation called the “C.I.A. book program,” based for much of its existence in the nondescript office building at 475 Park Avenue South in Midtown Manhattan. There, a small team of C.I.A. employees organized the infiltration of 10 million books and periodicals into the Eastern Bloc, sending literature by every imaginable means: in trucks fitted with secret compartments, on yachts that traversed the stormy Baltic, in the mail, or slipped into the luggage of countless travelers from Eastern Europe who dropped in at C.I.A. distribution hubs in the West."

What Happened When Their Art Was Banned; The New York Times, July 31, 2025

Interviews by Kate GuadagninoNick Haramis and Coco Romack

Artwork by Barbara Kruger

, The New York Times ; What Happened When Their Art Was Banned

"Of the 26 executive orders President Donald Trump signed on the first day of his second term, one was billed as “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship,” barring the government from “any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” In his address to Congress a few weeks later, Trump reiterated this point: “I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back.”

Free speech has long been, as NPR’s media correspondent David Folkenflik put it, “an article of faith” for conservative politicians and especially, recently, for the MAGA right, which has argued that their views have been suppressed by left-leaning social media platforms and misconstrued in the mainstream press. (Some on the left have expressed similar concerns about their views.) Yet what’s transpired since late January wouldn’t meet a free speech absolutist’s definition of unfettered discourse. Federal mandates targeting diversity or racial and gender equality have resulted in bans or attempted bans on words, ideas, books and people. Employees at NASA and other agencies were ordered to remove pronouns from their email signatures. The Department of Defense briefly excised a tribute to Jackie Robinson’s army service from the Pentagon website and instructed West Point to adjust its curriculum, in an attempt to purge U.S. military institutions of “divisive concepts and gender ideology.” In March, a Turkish grad student in Massachusetts was taken off the street by plainclothes officers in masks and held without charges for weeks in a Louisiana immigration detention center, seemingly for the crime of having co-authored an opinion essay in the Tufts University student newspaper critical of the school’s response to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

American artists have long seen their creative freedom attacked by governments of all political persuasions. They’ve also been the ones to speak out when others are too frightened to do so. We spoke with several seasoned artists in various fields about their own experience with having been censored. In some cases, that censorship, decades old, feels like a relic of another political moment, of other culture wars, even as it resonates with what’s happening now: same wars, new battles. It almost always affected careers and artists’ tolerance for risk — but not always negatively. For censorship can also be a rallying cry, a reminder of why artists make art in the first place. — M.H. Miller"