Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Thursday, September 17, 2026

Democrats Hope Voting Rights Decision Will Drive Black Turnout in South

  

Democrats Hope Voting Rights Decision Will Drive Black Turnout in South

 Summary

“Black Democratic candidates in the South hope voting rights decision backlash will drive turnout. Keisha Lance Bottoms and Scott Colom campaign amid redistricting; Shomari Figures and Don Davis remain competitive. Republicans maintain confidence.

Black Democratic candidates for governor, the Senate and the House are hoping that attacks on Black representation will bring out Black voters in November.

Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Senator Jon Ossoff stand behind a lectern at a rally.
“Discussion around voting and access to the right to vote is energizing, period,” said Keisha Lance Bottoms (left) who is running for governor in Georgia as Senator Jon Ossoff (right) runs for re-election.Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

By Emily Cochrane

Emily Cochrane, who covers the South, reported from Tuskegee, Ala.; Mound Bayou and Meridian, Miss.; Athens, Ga.; and Memphis, Tenn.

Across the South, from the Mississippi Delta to Georgia’s suburbs, Black Democratic candidates are imploring Black voters to rise up and secure the representation this November that they were expected to be denied with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

The hill is high, and Republicans remain supremely confident, but Democrats are trying to contest races typically seen as too far out of reach.

Keisha Lance Bottoms, the former Atlanta mayor, remains in a tossup contest to be the next Georgia governor, despite being outspent 9 to 1 by her deep-pocketed Republican opponent, the businessman Rick Jackson.

In Mississippi, Scott Colom, a state prosecutor running for the Senate, is seeing a rare infusion of national cash in his bid to defeat the incumbent Republican, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith.

In Florida, Black voters helped State Representative Angie Nixon overcome a lack of establishment support and fund-raising to become the party’s nominee for the Senate.

In Alabama, Republicans tried to redistrict Representative Shomari Figures to defeat, but his seat, stripped of many but not all of its Black voters, may somehow still be within reach. And the impact could extend to states that pushed ahead with redistricting before the Supreme Court decision. In North Carolina, another Black Democrat, Representative Don Davis, remains in the running for the district the Republican legislators redrew against him.

Scott Colom, a Mississippi state prosecutor running for the Senate, is seeing a rare infusion of national cash in his bid to defeat the Republican incumbent.Sarah Warnock/Associated Press

Turnout in Democratic primaries was higher this year than in recent midterms, as many races saw competitive primaries for the first time in years and as President Trump has become increasingly unpopular.

In Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina, Black and white voters both turned out in Democratic primaries at higher rates than in 2022, according to a New York Times analysis of the makeup of the electorate in states where an individual-level accounting of primary turnout was available. The increase was not driven by a surge among any particular racial group, and Black voters made up a slightly smaller share of the Democratic electorate in 2026 than four years earlier.

But with the general election looming and Republicans as their opponents, Democrats are hoping enthusiasm among Black voters, still the backbone of the party, will crest in the South, where segregation and the civil rights movement led to the Voting Rights Act. Here, the opportunity for fair representation remains deeply personal.

“One can walk away from that and say, ‘Well, my vote’s not going to matter in this election,’” said the Rev. Jay Augustine, senior pastor at Big Bethel A.M.E. Church in Atlanta. “What I’m seeing on the ground is just the opposite. People are like, ‘No, my vote is going to matter. I’m going to stand tall.’”

There are early signs that some races are narrowing more than expected. Democratic candidates in Tennessee and Louisiana have released polls that show them within striking distance in conservative areas that Mr. Trump won by double digits. At least one nonpartisan political analyst has moved Mr. Figures’s district to leaning Republican, from safely Republican.

Black voters in Florida helped State Representative Angie Nixon overcome a lack of establishment support and fund-raising to become the party’s nominee for the Senate.Zack Wittman for The New York Times

“Discussion around voting and access to the right to vote is energizing, period,” Ms. Bottoms said in an interview in Athens, Ga., shortly before taking the stage at a joint rally with Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is also counting on Black voter enthusiasm.

Republicans remain confident they can hold off Southern challengers. As they pushed new House maps after the Supreme Court’s voting rights decision, they argued their gerrymanders were based solely on a quest for party advantage, not racial discrimination.

The situation for Democrats is complicated in Florida, where Ms. Nixon leads the Democratic ticket but a Black Republican, Representative Byron Donalds, is his party’s nominee for governor. Several Black Democrats have endorsed Mr. Donalds over former Representative David Jolly, the Democratic nominee, who is white.

The fact is, Democrats in the South cannot win on Black votes alone. Even in 2008, when a record surge of Black voting helped send Barack Obama to the White House, all but two Southern states voted Republican. Mr. Obama mustered a modern high-water mark for a Democrat in Mississippi, the state with the highest percentage of Black voters, but that amounted to about 43 percent.

“Democrats will foolishly waste time and money trying to compete in solidly Republican districts where they have zero chance of winning,” said Reilly Richardson, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 

After the Supreme Court decision, the Southern Republican redistricting push targeted seats in Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama where Black voters had helped elevate Democratic lawmakers to power. The push continues; Mississippi state lawmakers are holding a series of redistricting hearings, which could lead to redrawing the map to target Representative Bennie Thompson, a Black Democrat.

Republican legislators hoped to redistrict Representative Shomari Figures, Democrat of Alabama, out of his job, but he remains competitive in a newly drawn seat shorn of many Black voters.Eric Lee for The New York Times

That may energize Black voters ahead of November’s election, potentially to the benefit of Mr. Colom, who saw his nomination to a federal judgeship blocked by Senator Hyde-Smith during the Biden administration. He has leaned into his record as a prosecutor in Mississippi, while criticizing Republicans for making deep cuts to federal health care programs and failing to address high prices in one of the nation’s poorest states.

“We want to make sure that we have massive turnout,” said Sinessa Wilburn, 53, who attended a redistricting hearing in Meridian, Miss. “I want an Obama turnout, OK?”

Few Democrats campaign in the South without invoking civil rights. But the Supreme Court ruling has sharpened that message. By ensuring Black majorities in a number of Southern House districts, the Voting Rights Act increased the number of Black lawmakers in Congress and shaped policy and funding for otherwise underserved communities.

Without it, “we’re losing what so many people fought for — we would lose that one voice, one vote,” said Carolyn Rash Hampton, 78, who recounted to Mississippi legislators this month how she graduated from a segregated school northeast of Jackson, Miss.

“People are like, ‘No, my vote is going to matter. I’m going to stand tall,’” said the Rev. Jay Augustine of Big Bethel A.M.E. Church in Atlanta.Abbey Cutrer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, via Associated Press

In Mound Bayou, Miss., a Delta town built by formerly enslaved people as a mecca for Black independence and prosperity, Mr. Colom concluded his speech recently with a reference to the Supreme Court decision and the fallout in the Legislature.

“They don’t want to compete for the voters in the Delta,” Mr. Colom said to murmurs from the crowd. “They want to pick y’all’s congressman for y’all.”

“But,” he added, “thank God our ancestors gave us the one power we needed.”

Mr. Figures, speaking to a room of students and staff members at Tuskegee University this month, said the redistricting showed “an arrogantly high level of confidence that certain people in certain positions have that people are not going to go vote.”

He conceded that some voters, particularly younger ones, could feel disenchanted by new district lines designed to limit their power.

“How do we motivate younger voters to be able to go out and have a vested stake in what’s going on?” Mr. Figures asked, saying the civil rights movement felt as distant as World War I felt to him growing up.

Skyler Carrillo, 21, a college senior, pressed Mr. Figures about what could be done outside of the courts to respond to the ruling. A member of the historically Black fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi, Mr. Carrillo is planning a forum this month to encourage students to vote.

“I know it’s hitting Alabama hard,” he said. “We can’t say our vote doesn’t matter if we aren’t going out to take that vote and take that chance.”

There are also money challenges.

“All Democrats who are in more safe seats should come to the South and help fight and give money,” said State Representative Justin J. Pearson in an interview before he clinched his primary for the Ninth Congressional District in Tennessee, a Democratic stronghold that was redrawn to guarantee a Republican pickup but that Mr. Pearson is still fighting for.

Some civic education and voting rights efforts had already been in the works, like a nonpartisan education partnership run by the National Civil Rights Museum, housed at the Lorraine Motel where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, in Memphis.

But others intensified after the ruling. The Congressional Black Caucus Institute this week announced a coordinated campaign to reach Black and rural voters in the South, including in several of the districts changed by redistricting.

Efforts to encourage voter turnout include a recent canvassing day in Memphis, where paid residents knocked on doors to let voters know that their district lines had changed and to encourage them to come out. One woman gently chided a younger, reluctant voter sitting on a porch in the Memphis heat, saying, “Your ancestors fought hard for this.”

Kimberly Davis, 51, a Memphis resident, fretted over “a crisis” facing Black voters at risk of losing their influence.

“Encouraging people and letting them know that their vote has power is something that I want to make sure that we do,” she said. She added: “There’s a serious need.”

Patricia Mazzei , Luke Vrotsos and Christine Zhang contributed reporting.

Emily Cochrane is a national reporter for The Times covering the American South, based in Nashville.“

Wednesday, September 16, 2026

Florida Conversations: The Life of Blanche Armwood

 


LIVE: Zohran Mamdani Unveils Major Immigration Move as ICE Raids Intensify | NYC Mayor

 

What Mike Johnson might do to subvert the election — and how you can stop him

 

J.D. Vance: From Trump Critic to Millennial David Duke

 

Fencing goes up around the main Kennedy Center building | AP News

Fencing goes up around the main Kennedy Center building after Trump-aligned board votes to close it

Barriers are placed outside the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Nathan Ellgren)

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Fencing went up Wednesday around the main Kennedy Center building, a day after the Trump-aligned board voted to close most of the performing arts center for repairs.

That vote came after a federal judge blocked the institution from returning President Donald Trump’s name to the building.

The Republican president had said in a social media post that the closure was needed for safety repairs. But he said the repairs, which Congress has allocated $257 million to cover, would only happen if the board was permitted to move forward with plans to add his name to the building.

Activists who have opposed the closure said there has been no vehicle or pedestrian access to the building. An Associated Press reporter who approached the main building was told by a security guard that it was closed.

Laura Bligh, who has attended protests with the advocacy group “Hands Off the Arts,” said she feared some or all of the building may be torn down before a legal case is concluded.

“The worst case scenario is a wrecking ball,” she said, adding that the Trump administration can’t be trusted because “look what they did to the East Wing.”

The administration demolished the East Wing of the White House and is replacing it with a massive ballroom. Trump also plans to build a triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery and is eyeing a golf course renovation along the Potomac River. 

The Kennedy Center board voted in August to inscribe his name on the Kennedy Center’s facade so it would read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.” If the Trump Kennedy Center Fund reached $100 million, another inscription would be added reading “Endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.”

The plaza in front of the Kennedy Center would also be renamed in Trump’s honor.

Sign up for the Ground Game Newsletter: Your guide to the biggest stories in politics, policy and U.S. elections.

All of those proposals were shot down Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who ruled that nothing could happen “without Congress’s blessing.”

Spokespeople for the Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

Maria Shriver, John F. Kennedy’s niece and former first lady of California, called the standoff over the name “a sad state of affairs” and a “tragedy.”

She said in a post on X that it appears Trump “will not rest until his name is permanently connected to the name of a great president, whose memory this building was dedicated to.”

“Imagine spending your days focused on this, while a war rages under your leadership,” she added."

Fencing goes up around the main Kennedy Center building | AP News

Monday, September 14, 2026

Supreme court rejects Trump’s mail ballot restrictions for midterm elections

 

Supreme court rejects Trump’s mail ballot restrictions for midterm elections

 Summary

“The Supreme Court rejected Trump’s mail ballot restrictions, upholding an injunction that lets states continue existing processes. Kavanaugh concurred on timing; Alito dissented. Civil rights groups and Democrats praised the decision.

Decision allows states to send ballots under process followed for years even as president tried to limit system

A mail-in ballot during Pennsylvania primary
A mail-in ballot during the Pennsylvania primary election in Philadelphia on 19 May 2026.Photograph: Hannah Beier/Reuters

The supreme court on Monday rejected Donald Trump’s mail ballot restrictions for now, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting in the midterm elections already underway.

The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they have used for years.

The Trump administration had asked the court, once again at the center of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress. The case has major implications because nearly one-third of the country votes by mail.

“The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the district court’s preliminary injunction,” states the one-paragraph unsigned order. “And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this court do not favor a stay.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence, ruling that he believed the government had “at least a fair prospect” of success defending the plan, but that implementation so close to election day would be “arbitrary and capricious”.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. In the dissent, Alito blamed the litigating states for creating the conditions of a ruling so close to an election, and wrote that they should not benefit from a protracted process that they created with their suit.

“The plaintiff states cannot claim the timing of the rule tilts the equities in their favor when they, and courts hearing their claims, are responsible for so much of the delay,” he wrote.

Civil rights groups lauded the decision.

“It is alarming what the administration was seeking to do here,” said Kristen Clarke, NAACP general counsel and former head of the justice department’s civil rights division. “This was an 11th-hour effort by the administration to hijack the way that we vote by mail in our country.”

Civil rights groups could not have moved faster, she said. “At the earliest opportunity, civil rights organizations like the NAACP took to the court to stand up for voters. It’s important to remember that the final rule was not issued until about roughly 10 days ago. So, I find Justice Alito’s statements disingenuous … We should focus on the fact that the court is leaving in place an injunction that prevents this administration from turning our electoral system on its head. What the administration was attempting to do here would have unleashed chaos across the country.”

“The supreme court has done the right thing by protecting the American people’s right to vote,” said Robert Garcia, a Democratic representative from Long Beach, California. “Donald Trump tried to illegally interfere with our elections and undermine vote-by-mail for millions of Americans and failed. We will keep fighting to protect the right to vote of every single citizen in this country.”

The case stems from an executive order issued by Trump on 31 March requiring the post office to refrain from delivering ballots for mail-in voting to registered voters deemed ineligible when compared with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal records.

Voting rights groups, joined by 23 states and the District of Columbia, sued the administration to stop the proposed rule, arguing that the US constitution provides no authority for the president to issue orders governing the administration of elections.

Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active.

The Trump administration plan would require states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The postal service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that didn’t comply.

A whistleblower report, though, said the postal system’s requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent, because the portal wasn’t properly built and a single bar code error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out.

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenged the restrictions in court, arguing the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules that would “virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election”.

Lower courts agreed. But an initial injunction issued by US district judge Indira ⁠Talwani was overturned on procedural grounds in July, but was reinstated after the USPS posted a final rule on ballot delivery. Monday’s ruling upholds that injunction.

The Trump administration appealed to the supreme court, arguing that federal control of the postal service allows them to set rules for mail ballot handling and that compliance was possible.

The federal government won an early procedural decision at the supreme court, but the justices pointedly did not decide the legality of the plan.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot, including as recently as this year.

“The court’s ruling is a massive sigh of relief for local election officials and voters – especially for the thousands of service members abroad whose ballots are legally required to be sent by all 50 states within the next five days,” said Samantha Tarazi, co-founder and CEO of the Voting Rights Lab.

“But this isn’t over. This administration will keep testing every avenue to manipulate our elections and sow doubt in results he doesn’t like. Today is yet another example of President Trump’s extreme elections agenda losing in the courts and with the American people. The bottom line is simple: states run our elections – not the president.”

JD Vance is the Richard Nixon of the Groypers

 

Saturday, September 12, 2026

How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech

  

How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech

 Summary

“President Trump uses federal agencies and lawsuits to restrict press freedoms, including Justice Department subpoenas, Pentagon actions against Stars and Stripes, and FCC and FTC investigations. Critics report diminished freedom; allies claim accountability.

President Trump speaking with reporters at dusk on the tarmac. He’s wearing a dark blue suit with a light blue tie.
Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Trump has harnessed agencies across the government to curtail press freedoms, a sweeping campaign that free speech advocates say will have lasting effects.

The Justice Department has sent F.B.I. agents to reporters’ homes to serve subpoenas and, in at least one case, flashed a warrant to seize devices. The Pentagon has fired the editor and publisher of its traditionally independent newspaper, Stars and Stripes, and blocked access to other journalists who refused to sign pledges that would limit their reporting.

Regulatory agencies are using their powers to pressure media organizations over their content. The administration has stripped funding from public television and radio. Angry over stories he does not like, President Trump has sued major news organizations and the White House has taken control of the previously independent press pool that tracks the president, deciding which outlets can participate.

Almost 20 months into Mr. Trump’s second term, his long-running media clashes have grown into a sweeping campaign to control speech in America that stands out for applying so many levers, so fast, all at once.

Driven by personal pique, fury over leaks and a determination to shape the political narrative to his advantage, Mr. Trump is deploying the might of the federal government and filing personal lawsuits — targeting not just journalists and liberal critics, but also comedians and talk show hosts, and the corporate entities behind them.

To the president and his allies, he is simply demanding accountability for what he casts as biased, unfair and sometimes inaccurate coverage and criticism — an effort that has been welcomed by longtime conservative press critics like those at the Media Research Center.

Aides noted that the White House has this year expanded who gets invited to cover events, such as the off-the-record presidential lunch with network anchors that precedes the annual State of the Union address.

In a statement, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said that “biased reporting from the media is a disservice to the American people,” adding: “We utilize every tool available to ensure that accurate reporting is provided to the public and the stain of those who knowingly peddle false information is held accountable.”

Free speech advocates say the president’s intent is apparent: to punish, intimidate and silence dissenters.

“There’s not a week that goes by where they’re not taking a new step to curtail press freedom in the country,” said Clayton Weimers, the executive director of the North America division of Reporters Without Borders. “We have measured a substantial diminishment of press freedoms.”

When challenged in court, the president and the administration have frequently lost, confronted with strongly worded rulings from judges affirming First Amendment rights.

Still, even the path to legal victory can have severe financial and reputational costs for those he views as adversaries, which have included The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the BBC. And each time the president assails what has long been considered protected speech, media analysts say, he is eroding norms and undercutting the role of an independent press.

Reporters Without Borders maintains an index that tracks press freedom in 180 countries, clocking governmental threats, subpoenas and the vindictive use of regulations against journalists. The United States now ranks at its lowest since the organization started the index in 2002 — 64th, just above Panama and just below Botswana. The trend is the same at similar indexes kept by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the V-Dem Institute of Sweden.

There is a long record of U.S. presidents taking steps to curtail speech. President Woodrow Wilson imposed strict censorship and forced dissenting publishers out of business during World War I. Richard M. Nixon kept an enemies list, and his aides threatened F.C.C. action against broadcasters. More recently, the George W. Bush White House expanded government secrecy and the Obama administration went after the sources of journalists through leak investigations.

Mr. Trump had inveighed against the Biden administration for what he and his supporters portrayed as draconian pressure on social media companies to censor disfavored content often at their expense, promising at his second inauguration to “stop all government censorship.”

Now his administration is breaking new ground in stifling dissent with personal lawsuits and novel uses of executive power, longtime First Amendment lawyers say, with implications that extend far beyond Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Sign up to get Maggie Haberman's articles emailed to you.  Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent reporting on President Trump.

“We live in a different world under this administration because the threats are so grave,” said Floyd Abrams, who has worked on free speech cases for 60 years. “It’s one thing to say there’s an extraordinarily powerful First Amendment, but unless and until courts rule on these matters, the threat is very real.”

Harnessing Government Power

A book cover of “Trump Nation” by Timothy L. O’Brien.
President Trump brought a libel suit against the author of “TrumpNation.”Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

Long before he took office, Mr. Trump was well known for his media feuds. As a developer and reality TV star, he was quick to threaten defamation suits against those who challenged his assertions about his business successes and his wealth.

Mr. Trump has been candid about his aim: to inflict pain, even if it was fleeting. After bringing a failed libel suit against the former Times reporter Timothy L. O’Brien, whose book “TrumpNation” estimated Mr. Trump to be worth far less than he claimed, the president gloated about forcing the publisher to spend money. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about,” he said.

In his first term, the president branded journalists as “fake news” and crudely attacked reporters, especially women.

In his second term, Mr. Trump is now imprinting his pugilistic approach across the machinery of the federal government. Those who once might have checked him have been replaced by loyalists who often use their power to fulfill Mr. Trump’s desire to punish perceived enemies.

Soon after his inauguration, the White House banned The Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One, ostensibly because the wire service would not call the Gulf of Mexico by Mr. Trump’s preferred name, the Gulf of America. Another reason for the ban: The A.P. would not give the Trump team rights to its photo of Mr. Trump, bloodied with a raised fist, after he was shot in Butler, Pa., in 2024. At a private lunch with Mr. Trump and network anchors last year, White House aides tied the A.P. ban to the denial of the rights to the photo, according to two people briefed on the event.

Mr. Trump’s team is unapologetic about its goal of achieving firmer control over the national information environment — what Mr. Cheung, the communications director, has dubbed in a social media post, “Full Spectrum Dominance.”

Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and one of the most aggressive supporters of Mr. Trump’s efforts, has said that the president is “reshaping the media landscape.”

Citing the big broadcast networks, Mr. Carr told an interviewer for CNBC last year that “for years government officials just allowed those entities, with executives sitting in Hollywood and New York, to dictate the political narrative.” Mr. Trump, he added, has “fundamentally changed the game.”

One of the Trump administration’s strategies appeared to take root in a dispute between Elon Musk and the liberal press watchdog group Media Matters for America.

In 2023, Mr. Musk was furious about a Media Matters article that showed pro-Nazi posts were running on his social media platform X alongside promotional posts from major consumer brands, contributing to an advertiser exodus from the site.

A longtime Trump adviser, Stephen Miller, took to X to pointedly note that Republican state attorneys general had the power to consider civil and criminal fraud charges against the group. In short order, Mr. Musk sued Media Matters for allegedly manipulating the X algorithm to produce its results, the Texas attorney general’s office opened an investigation into deceptive trade practices and the Missouri attorney general followed with its own inquiry.

Media Matters won court injunctions blocking the Texas and Missouri investigations. But soon after Mr. Trump took office again, the Federal Trade Commission, newly headed by the conservative lawyer Andrew Ferguson, began its own investigation, demanding internal documents related to Media Matters’ methodology for evaluating media sources and its finances.

The investigation was part of a broader F.T.C. inquiry into whether several groups that work to identify online disinformation were colluding with advertising firms to direct money away from disfavored outlets. Conservatives saw the issue as central to what some labeled a “censorship industrial complex.”

Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  It's a pivotal moment for American politics. Join us for 2026 and beyond.

A federal judge in Washington ultimately determined that the F.T.C.’s investigation of Media Matters presented “a straightforward First Amendment violation.” 

But the fight was costly for Media Matters. In addition to paying legal fees, the group said it had self-censored articles to avoid further scrutiny from the agency. (It is still defending itself against Mr. Musk’s suit.)

The F.T.C. also investigated NewsGuard, a site that rates the reliability of online information. It is avowedly nonpartisan in its approach; Fox News, for instance, rates above MS NOW.

In court papers, NewsGuard said it drew attention in part because it had given a low rating to the conservative site Newsmax, which is run by an ally of Mr. Trump’s, Chris Ruddy. Mr. Ruddy had complained that ad agencies were relying on NewsGuard ratings to withhold money from right-leaning outlets like his.

The F.T.C. took another tack that NewsGuard said affected it directly, related to the merger of two of the country’s largest advertising holding companies, Omnicom and Interpublic Group. The F.T.C. entered into a consent decreewith the newly joined company barring it from broadly using ratings like those published by NewsGuard to withhold ad spending from certain sites, among other things. (It could still follow individual clients’ requests to do so.)

In a lawsuit filed in February, NewsGuard said the provision effectively placed it on a blacklist, immediately causing it to lose business.

The F.T.C. ultimately dropped its investigations into both NewsGuard and Media Matters, saying it had achieved its goal of defending free speech through agreements with ad firms. It said it was fulfilling its mission of protecting consumers from anticompetitive behavior that “distorted the marketplace of ideas,” as Mr. Ferguson put it.

Dan Schneider, vice president for free speech at the conservative watchdog group Media Research Center, described the actions by the F.T.C. and the F.C.C. as a correction against abuses under the past two Democratic presidents. “Please, let’s not forget history and rewrite everything that went on before,” Mr. Schneider said.

But Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic F.T.C. commissioner fired by Mr. Trump last year, said in an interview that the agency’s actions “a perversion of the F.T.C.’s authorities in order to punish the speech of perceived enemies and reward perceived allies.” 

‘Deeply Un-American’

Much of the administration’s action has been led by Mr. Carr. The longtime F.C.C. lawyer is known to frequent the president’s golf clubs when Mr. Trump is there on weekends and often speaks to the president directly about his grievances with news outlets, according to people briefed on their conversations.

He has bent the F.C.C. to the president’s will, investigating the major broadcast networks by reviving largely dormant rules, like those against so-called news distortion — meant to punish the deliberate staging or distortion of a news event. Mr. Carr has also pursued networks for their diversity, equity and inclusion practices, inquiring whether they violate federal law and agency regulations, a tactic the administration has used to significant effect against universities and law firms.

Early on, Mr. Carr extracted extraordinary concessions from Skydance, the company run by the studio executive David Ellison, the son of the billionaire Trump ally Larry Ellison, as it sought to purchase Paramount, the parent company of CBS. To secure F.C.C. approval for the merger, Skydance agreedto end CBS’s diversity policies and appoint a monitor for news bias. (Mr. Trump has since shown a rooting interest in the Ellisons’ attempt to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.)

Critics, among them F.C.C. chairs from past Republican administrations, have said Mr. Carr is exceeding his authority. Mr. Carr says he is simply following the law by requiring broadcasters to serve the public interest in ways that he says his predecessors had failed to do.

Mr. Trump is clearly pleased with Mr. Carr’s effort to solve the so-called fake news problem, as he put it in a speech in April at a private White House event ahead of the celebrations for America’s 250th anniversary.

“He’s keeping these crooked networks honest,” Mr. Trump said as he spotted Mr. Carr in the crowd, describing his appointee as “the most powerful man in the world.”

After Mr. Trump recently called for punishment of the NBC host Kristen Welker for reporting he did not like, and suggested F.C.C. action against the airing of “fake polls,” Mr. Carr responded by saying the agency was considering “a lot of actions,” including on “fake polls.”

No network has borne the brunt of the president’s ire as much as the Disney-owned ABC network.

Mr. Trump’s animus against ABC grew in 2024, when he sued over the anchor George Stephanopoulos’s characterization of the verdict in the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, who accused Mr. Trump of sexual abuse. ABC settled the suit for $15 million.

In the president’s second term, his anger has increased as the ABC late-night comic Jimmy Kimmel has made him the regular butt of jokes.

Last year, the F.C.C. opened an investigation into the network’s diversity and inclusion hiring policies and revived a conservative group’s complaint over ABC’s 2024 presidential debate.

Early this year, the agency sought to require its talk show “The View” to follow so-called equal-time rules for political candidates, even though the F.C.C. previously agreed that the show qualified for an exemption.

In April, after Mr. Trump and the first lady demanded ABC fire Mr. Kimmelover a joke he made about her being an “expectant widow,” the F.C.C. started an early review of the federal licenses that ABC stations need to operate, years before they are set to expire.

The agency had never brought such a mass challenge to a major network’s station licenses. It said it was doing so because ABC was deficient in its responses to the diversity and inclusion inquiry.

ABC is now fighting the agency’s actions, which it called “deeply un-American.”

The network has asked a federal court to intervene immediately, arguing that Mr. Carr was effectively using the agency’s enforcement process to wage a “retaliatory campaign” that is already negatively affecting its programming decisions.

Out of fear of retaliation, ABC decided to carry live online a prime-time speech that Mr. Trump gave on election security, which it would not have otherwise done, and avoided certain bookings and video clips on “The View,” the network said in court papers.

It also reported onerous F.C.C. demands for documents, including staff communications from inside “The View” and internal ABC News editorial policies.

“It’s unprecedented to seek these records because they are part of the editorial decision-making,” Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic F.C.C. commissioner, said in an interview. “It’s all a strategy, and tools, to intimidate broadcasters into submission.”

Mr. Carr has called ABC’s suit meritless. This month, the F.C.C. moved to get the case dismissed, arguing ABC was simply trying to short-circuit an agency investigation while exaggerating harms to its speech rights.

Trevor Timm, the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a nonprofit group that tracks press freedom violations in the United States, said that the administration’s moves “have certainly risen to the level where they’re kind of off the charts.”

Government efforts to subpoena journalists and chill their reporting through threats are at the highest level since the foundation started tracking incidents in 2017.

And as a private citizen, Mr. Trump has filed lawsuits against a wide range of targets including the Guardian newspaper, the journalist Bob Woodward and the Pulitzer Prize board — legal battles often financed by his donor-funded political action committee.

Many of the moves have also drawn stern rebukes and concern from judges.

That was the case after the F.B.I. served a search warrant in January at the home of a Washington Post reporter and seized several of her devices, as part of an investigation into a contractor’s handling of classified material. In February, Judge William B. Porter chastised the government and forbade officials from immediately reviewing the reporter’s materials, saying to do otherwise would be “the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of The Washington Post’s henhouse.”

While weighing a suit Mr. Trump has personally brought against The Des Moines Register for a poll it published showing him behind in Iowa in 2024, a judge worried that allowing the suit to proceed could have “a massive, chilling effect.”

After a judge harshly questioned government lawyers in July over subpoenas for phone records and testimony from Times journalists who reported on the security capabilities of the new Qatari-donated Air Force One jet, the Justice Department withdrew the subpoenas.

At the time, David McCraw, the paper’s top newsroom lawyer, called the outcome, “an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press,” but added in a statement that the subpoenas “should never have been issued in the first place.”

In siding with The Times in a challenge to restrictions for reporters at the Pentagon, Judge Paul Friedman of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in March, “Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech.”

After The Times initially prevailed in court, Pentagon officials sidestepped the ruling to again limit the access of journalists to the building. The Times sued again. This time, an appellate panel allowed a key new restriction to stand, at least temporarily — reporters must have escorts inside the Pentagon where they once roamed freely.

The rule remains in place while the legal fight presses on.

Jim Rutenberg is a writer at large for The Times and The New York Times Magazine and writes most often about media and politics.

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump.“