The Chilling Effect: Trump’s Legal Challenge on Free Speech and Journalistic Independence

Since entering public office in 2016, President Donald Trump has challenged the legitimacy of the media and press, often citing negative reports about him as “fake news.” Now, in his second term, Trump insists on regulating the type of news being published and the tone in which journalists report news about him and his administration. This assertion to control media narratives and reporting is reflected in Trump’s ongoing legal battles with many news and media companies. In particular, Trump’s lawsuit against Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) has drawn attention for its potential to set a dangerous precedent for freedom of the press, especially as it appears to be punishing negative reporting and discouraging investigations into Trump. The recent speculation about a possible settlement with Paramount in Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit raises serious questions about how Trump’s attack on the press and journalists’ complacency might affect their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights, as established in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). Moreover, Trump’s attack on broader media organizations signals a new and growing use of lawsuits and regulatory agencies to threaten the independence of the press and chill free speech. 

In October 2024, Trump filed a lawsuit against CBS alleging that 60 Minutes deceptively edited its interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Up for dispute were two sound bites in which Harris seemingly gave different responses to CBS Interviewer Bill Whitaker in a discussion about Israel. In particular, Trump accused 60 Minutes of violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by editing the network’s interview with Harris to make her seem more appealing to viewers. In general, the DTPA “protects consumers from false, misleading, or deceptive business practices” and is often used in cases of false business advertising rather than editorial decisions by media entities (Subchapter E, Sec. 17.44). CBS explained that Harris gave both answers in her response to Whitaker and that the network used different parts of her long answer in the final version of the interview, a technique that is common practice for long form interviews. The AP Style (Associated Press Style), the news reporting guideline used by journalists, utilizes a set of standards and practices that inform how journalists cover stories. According to AP Style, audio content must always be accurate and should not “alter or manipulate newsmaker actuality in any way,” except in cases where editing can help clarify sound or shorten long pauses. In CBS’s case, many legal experts have noted that there was no evidence that CBS edited the interview in a deceptive way or that the interview misled viewers or harmed Trump in any way. Despite this, Paramount Global, parent company of CBS, has reportedly offered $15 million to settle the CBS lawsuit, a clear sign of concession from Paramount. The prospective merger is crucial to Paramount’s potential concession to Trump because of the larger corporate and finance interests at stake which could be jeopardized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who, under Trump’s directive, has begun investigations into several news organizations, including Paramount, for bias against Trump. A potential settlement between Paramount and Trump could significantly alter how news organizations cover and report on Trump and his administration, chilling free speech and leading to self-censorship by newsrooms out of fear of retaliation or criticism by Trump. 

On January 23, three days after Trump’s inauguration, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, reopened a previously dismissed complaint against three news stations, including CBS, ABC, and NBC. The complaints were filed by the Center for American Rights, alleging that the three media companies were biased against Trump. In a “Letter of Inquiry” sent to each company, Carr cites the previous order to dismiss the complaint from outgoing Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel as being “issued prematurely based on insufficient investigatory record for the station-specific conduct at issue.” In particular, each of the three complaints separately highlight examples of alleged bias against each network, including the editing of CBS’s 60 Minutes interview with Harris. Although the FCC is allowed to “set aside any action made or taken” within 30 days, Carr has explicitly stated that he believes ABC, CBS, and NBC are violating FCC rules and believes these networks to be unfair towards Trump and Republicans overall. In the case of CBS, the network posted the same transcripts and videos it submitted to the FCC of their interview with Vice President Harris in order to publicly assure that the 60 Minutes broadcast was not “doctored or deceitful.” The fact that CBS’s editing practices have been called into question, despite clear evidence that the 60 Minutes interview was not deceptively edited, undermines the press’s First Amendment rights by punishing the press for reporting on the news freely.

The FCC’s renewed investigation into CBS for its 60 Minutes interview with Harris is of noteworthy interest because of its simultaneous review of the Skydance and Paramount merger. In July 2024, Paramount Global, CBS’s parent company, agreed to a merger with Skydance, a media production and finance company. A review by the FCC is required to finalize the deal, a step that Carr has signaled is far from reaching completion. In addition, Carr raised concerns that the alleged bias against Trump in the 60 Minutes interview could resurface in the FCC’s review of the Skydance and Paramount merger. The CBS investigation and Paramount-Skydance merger deal have gained notoriety in the backdrop of Trump’s larger attempts to control the press, which have fueled speculation about a desire to weaken New York Times v. Sullivan. 

New York Times v. Sullivan was a landmark Supreme Court decision from 1964 that significantly secured First Amendment protections for the press and those who speak about public officials. In the original case, an Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, brought a lawsuit against the New York Times, alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement that the Times published praising Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 's leadership in civil rights protests in Montgomery. Though the ad did not name Sullivan, he argued that the criticism in the advertisement still negatively reflected on him, leading him to seek libel action under Alabama law. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, deciding that a false statement is not enough for a public official to sue for libel. Instead, the Court raised the standard for grounds to sue, writing that public officials can only win a libel suit by proving the statement was made with "actual malice," meaning with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In a clear challenge to New York Times v. Sullivan’s protections, Trump announced in 2016 that he would “open up” libel laws to make it easier for him and other public officials to sue the press for criticism published or spoken about him. In the context of Trump’s lawsuit against CBS, the use of the DTPA, a statute that is not typically used in media-related lawsuits, highlights how Trump is testing different legal strategies to potentially weaken existing First Amendment protections of the press, including the protections established in New York Times v. Sullivan. Although this particular lawsuit may not present the strongest legal argument for weakening or eliminating New York Times v. Sullivan, Trump’s relentless filing of lawsuits underscores a concerted effort on his part to not only intimidate media outlets into silence and complacency but to also potentially raise this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where many conservative justices have previously expressed skepticism about the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling. At least two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have urged the court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan and other cases that have set precedents for First Amendment protections for the press. Furthermore, Trump’s lawsuits against other media outlets and newsrooms point to a larger goal of challenging legal precedents that protect journalistic freedom and speech, offering a clear warning signal for a change in the broader media landscape.

As part of Trump’s broader attack on the media, Paramount is not the only news organization to have been under Trump’s scrutiny. In December 2024, ABC settled a lawsuit for $16 million dollars after journalist George Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated that Trump raped Carroll in an interview with Representative Nancy Mace, in which a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse. Interestingly, many legal experts agree that ABC could have won this lawsuit. Judge Lewis Kaplan, the judge overseeing the case, clarified that Carroll may have still proven rape in a broader, non-legally specific sense, suggesting that Stephanopolous’s statement may have been using a more common understanding of the word. Despite this possibility, ABC’s quick settlement before depositions took place demonstrates a reversal of common practice among media outlets to vigorously defend themselves against defamation cases. It also raises questions about how the press may protect themselves against the onslaught of investigations and complaints at the FCC, which currently seems keen on scrutinizing various news organizations. Before the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, state libel laws could be used to silence criticism of public officials, increasing the risk journalists faced of being sued for any critical or negative reporting. This created a chilling effect on reporting, particularly on controversial issues and public figures, an unsettling reality that is becoming increasingly likely given Trump’s continuing attack on news companies. 

Despite reports of a settlement, Paramount filed new motions to get the lawsuit and FCC investigation dismissed. However, the disagreement between Paramount executives and CBS journalists highlights an ongoing struggle between balancing corporate interests and a free press. The recent slew of settlements from large media companies raises concerns about the weaponization of regulatory agencies, like the FCC, to stifle critical reporting and weaken the independence of the press under the guise of legal violations. In addition, this case also highlights how Trump is using his executive power to strong-arm the media into censorship, not only by using settlements to force news organizations into appeasement but also questioning the credibility of the press through public scrutiny and lawsuits. Moreover, the clear attempts by Trump to weaken First Amendment protections under New York Times v. Sullivan indicate attempts to intimidate the press, limit important investigative journalism, and shape the media apparatus into one that is censored.

Edited by Isabella Sacca