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."

Trump Snaps at Ted Cruz’s Shock Warning About Free Speech; The Daily Beast, September 19, 2025

Farrah Tomazin, The Daily Beast; Trump Snaps at Ted Cruz’s Shock Warning About Free Speech

[Kip Currier: The President of the United States takes the oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States.

Does the individual quoted below -- in his own verbatim words -- sound like someone who understands the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?]

[Excerpt]

"But speaking in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon, Trump described Carr as “an incredible American patriot” who had shown courage for taking on broadcast networks that criticized him. 

“I disagree with Ted Cruz,” he told reporters.

“I think Brendan Carr doesn’t like to see the airwaves be used illegally and incorrectly, and purposely horribly.

“He doesn’t like to see a person that won the election in a landslide get 97% bad publicity before the election.

“(The networks) have to show honesty and integrity... When they take a great success, like you often do, and you make it into like it’s a loser, or you put a negative spin on it, I don’t think that’s right. So I think Brendan Carr is a great American.”

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."

ABC barred from Trump’s UK press conference after his clash with Australian journalist John Lyons; The Guardian, September 17, 2025

 Amanda Meade , The Guardian; ABC barred from Trump’s UK press conference after his clash with Australian journalist John Lyons

"The ABC has been barred from attending Donald Trump’s press conference near London this week after a clash between the broadcaster’s Americas editor, John Lyons, and the president in Washington DC over his business dealings.

The Australian broadcaster said its London bureau was informed by Downing Street that its accreditation to attend the press conference had been withdrawn for “logistical reasons”...

Lyons, who is reporting for Four Corners, drew the ire of the president on Tuesday when he asked Trump how much wealthier he had become since returning to the Oval Office for his second term in January.

Trump accused the reporter of “hurting Australia” with the line of questioning.

“In my opinion, you are hurting Australia very much right now,” Trump said. “And they want to get along with me.

“You know, your leader is coming over to see me very soon. I’m going to tell him about you. You set a very bad tone. You can set a nicer tone.”

Trump subsequently told Lyons: “Quiet.”"

‘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.”

Is ‘The Pitt’ Really an ‘ER’ Spinoff? Michael Crichton’s Estate Says It Is.; The New York Times, September 12, 2025

 Nicholas Kulish, The New York Times ; Is ‘The Pitt’ Really an ‘ER’ Spinoff? Michael Crichton’s Estate Says It Is.

The estate of the best-selling author, which has intellectual property rights to “ER,” and the creators of the new hit TV show are waging a legal battle over whether it’s a stealth reboot.

"On Nov. 4, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint, citing their constitutional free speech rights and arguing that “The Pitt” is not a derivative work of “ER.” They emphasized that the new series is about the post-Covid world, reminding the judge that it deals with events that arose after Mr. Crichton’s death...

Rewatching “ER” through the lens of the lawsuit — as a jury might be asked to — can be a strange experience. Is the struggle over whether to put a dying elderly patient onto a ventilator a distinct plot point (this would support Team Crichton) or an everyday tragedy in a large urban hospital (Team Pitt)?

“‘The Pitt’ has no connection to ‘ER’ — it does not use ‘ER’’s intellectual property, characters, plot, setting or narrative pacing,” the defendants said. “While both series are medical dramas set in a hospital, this concept is hardly unique.” They name-checked “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Chicago Med,” “House” and “The Good Doctor.”...

The case “could serve as a model for how to figure out how much things are worth in the streaming space,” said Jennifer Porst, a professor of media industry studies at Emory University in Atlanta."

FBI leaders allege in lawsuit they were unlawfully fired over political loyalty; The Washington Post, September 10, 2025

Perry Stein , The Washington Post; FBI leaders allege in lawsuit they were unlawfully fired over political loyalty

"Before he was briefly named the FBI’s acting director early this year, Brian Driscoll says, he got a call from a Trump administration official who peppered him with a series of pointed questions that appeared to be a loyalty test.

Among them: “Who did you vote for?” “When did you start supporting President Trump?” “Have you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections?” “Do you agree that the FBI agents who stormed Mar-a-Lago … should be held accountable?”"

Trump is targeting several Smithsonian artworks. Here they are.; The Washington Post, August 26, 2025

Kelsey Ables

, 

Samantha Chery

 and 

Sophia Nguyen,

 The Washington Post; Trump is targeting several Smithsonian artworks. Here they are.

[Kip Currier: Donald Trump and his administration's efforts to remove, revise, and erase artistic and historical content are the opposite of free speech and intellectual freedom. Art should challenge us to think and feel in new ways. We as individuals are certainly free to like a piece of art, hate it, or everything in between on the spectrum of how we feel about it. But the federal (or state) government should not be controlling access to art and suppressing or falsely presenting history in a free democracy. That's what authoritarians and dictators do in non-democratic nations like Russia, China, and North Korea.

If you don't like a particular painting, book, or movie, you can simply walk away from that painting, not read that book, or not watch that movie. But it isn't your right to stop everyone from seeing art, reading books, and watching films. To paraphrase the late Robert Croneberger, Director of the venerable Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and a prolific proponent of intellectual freedom, a library isn't doing its job if it doesn't have at least one item that offends each person.

Similarly, museums, like libraries in healthy democracies, are not meant to reflect a compulsory unitary state viewpoint. We're not the Star Trek Borg Collective where everyone must think alike and individuality is verboten. The mantra of the Borg is that Resistance is Futile. Fortunately, we know that resistance is not futile: we can continue to resist efforts to sanitize art, literature, culture, and history. Exercise your right to consume what you want and disregard what you don't want. But don't tell everyone what they can and can't choose to view and read. That's undemocratic and un-American.]

[Excerpt]

"When the White House posted an article condemning a long list of Smithsonian content last week, it pointed to several specific artworks, a sampling that underlined the kind of material that could be targeted by a president who is increasingly interested in influencing what Americans see in public museums.

The list also criticized Smithsonian exhibition texts, learning materials, past performances and the institution for previously flying the intersex-inclusive Pride flag. This month, President Donald Trump said White House officials were conducting a review of the Smithsonian Institution — months after he signed an executive order seeking to root out “anti-American ideology” in the museum and research complex, an effort that experts say would amount to censorship.

The pieces are an eclectic bunch, united mainly by the Trump administration’s public criticism of them. Not all the artworks are currently on view at the museums. Taken together, they tell a story of a White House that is sensitive to imagery that appears to contradict its messaging, whether it shows a transgender woman cast as the Statue of Liberty or a boy peering over the Southern border...

Here is a look at the artworks named by the White House as evidence that Trump is “right” about the Smithsonian — and how several of the artists have responded."

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"

WaPo Columnist Flames Jeff Bezos After Quitting in Protest; The Daily Beast, July 10, 2025

Corbin Bolies  , The Daily Beast; WaPo Columnist Flames Jeff Bezos After Quitting in Protest

"Davidson said in the Facebook post the spiked piece centered on what he believed was a hallmark of President Donald Trump’s second term, “his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief and speech,” and referenced federal officials’ comments and Trump’s own executive orders. 

But the Post spiked the column, according to Davidson. He said he tried to write two more pieces to test his resilience under the new policy, but that he bristled when editors objected to his use of “well-deserved” when describing a potential pay raise for federal employees...

“Bezos’s policies and activities have projected the image of a Donald Trump supplicant. The result: fleeing journalists, plummeting morale and disappearing subscriptions,” Davidson wrote.

“Nonetheless, Post coverage of Trump remains strong,” he added. “Yet the policy against opinion in News section columns means less critical scrutiny of Trump—a result coinciding with Bezos’ unseemly and well-documented coziness with the president.”

MAGA Attorney Threatens To Sue Journalists Over ‘Unpatriotic’ Reporting; Gets The Exact Response He Deserves; Above The Law, June 27, 2025

Kathryn Rubino , Above The Law; MAGA Attorney Threatens To Sue Journalists Over ‘Unpatriotic’ Reporting; Gets The Exact Response He Deserves

[Kip Currier: The New York Times' refusal to capitulate to Trump administration bullying of reporters and defamation lawsuit threats regarding NYT reporting on the Iran bombings earlier this week is a model for other news organizations. As NYT attorney David McCraw explained in his response letter to a Trump lawyer calling for a retraction and apology:

“No retraction is needed.” He continued, “No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.”"]

The paragraph right before that rebuke, though, is equally assertive but articulates the public's interest in access to truthful reporting and the ability to assess leadership decision-making in a democracy:

But let's not lose sight of the larger point to be made. The American public has a right to know whether the attack on Iran -- funded by taxpayer dollars and of enormous consequence to every citizen -- was a success. We rely on our intelligence services to provide the kind of impartial assessment that we all need in a democracy to judge our country's foreign policy and the quality of our leaders' decisions. It would be irresponsible for a news organization to suppress that information and deny the public the right to hear it. And it would be even more irresponsible for a president to use the threat of libel litigation to try to silence a publication that dared to report that the trained, professional, and patriotic intelligence experts employed by the U.S. government thought that the President may have gotten it wrong in his initial remarks to the country."] 

[Excerpt]

"President Donald Trump doesn’t like anyone asking too many questions about the Iran strikes he unilaterally authorized. In fact, when news outlets report that the bombings were not as destructive as Trump initially boasted, he (and other members of his administration

(Opens in a new window)) lashed out at members of the media. On Truth Social, he called out(Opens in a new window) journalists from CNN and the New York Times as “fake news reporters” who are “bad people with evil intentions.” 

But that wasn’t the end of Trump’s tantrum. His personal attorney Alejandro Brito sent letters to the NYT (Opens in a new window)and CNN(Opens in a new window), full of legal bluster. The missives demand they “retract and apologize” the reporting for “false,” “defamatory,” and “unpatriotic” reporting, First Amendment be damned!

The Fourth Estate is more functional than Biglaw(Opens in a new window), so in the face of these threats, the outlets responded with stinging rebukes.

David McCraw, the lawyer for the Times replied(Opens in a new window), “No retraction is needed.” He continued, “No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.”"