Media censorship in the United States

GAGE MITCHELL
STAFF WRITER

10/6/2025

On his return trip to the US from the UK on Sept. 18, President Donald Trump claimed that overwhelmingly negative press could be grounds for media companies to lose their broadcasting licences. This statement came after FCC chairman Brendan Carr threatened ABC to remove Jimmy Kimmel from television on the previous day. 

“They’re 97% against ‒ they give me only bad publicity or press” said Trump, discussing American media while boarding Air Force One. “I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr.”

Trump’s censorship claims followed earlier statements by Attorney General Pam Bondi released a statement in support of Carr censoring Kimmel on Sept. 17. 

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” said Bondi. 

Bondi’s claims met bipartisan criticism as there is long legal precedent that hate speech is protected speech. Terminello v. Chicago (1949), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) are some of many Supreme Court cases upholding protected hate speech.  

One of the many reasons protected hate speech has been upheld by the Supreme Court is that the government does not have the constitutional authority to decide what is and isn’t hate speech. Only in cases where speech comes with an immediate threat of danger can it be restricted.  

Bipartisan critics of the executive branch’s targeting of free speech in the media include Rep. Ted Cruz (R-TX), three previous FCC chairmen, former labour secretary Robert Reich, Tucker Carlson and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to name a few. 

“Carr and Trump’s statements are attempts to control media companies through threats and intimidation, part of a larger pattern of such behavior we have seen from this administration. … Individuals and corporations in the media are complying in advance, censoring themselves in an apparent attempt to avoid punishment or gain favors from the administration,” said Kristin Olbertson, Charles A. Dana Professor of History.

“Constitutionally and legally speaking, the government does not have such power—but they are trying to project it,” said Olbertson. 

Matthew Smith, Director of Religious Studies and Assistant Professor of Religious Studies commented on the recent happenings as well.

“There’s an intersection of religion and politics happening [that] has been mobilized as ‘here is someone fighting for Christian values.’ Religions can valorize or make martyrs of their communities, it is definitely being mobilized by the far right. It’s the same playbook that has been used to censor critique of Israel. There’s a long history of censoring critique of Israel with religious backing,” said Smith.  

“It’s really hard to define in laws what is religion, what is hate speech. Certain activities fall outside of these freedoms, but you can’t test what [does],” Smith continued. 

While Kimmel has since returned to late-night television, many channels refuse to broadcast his show. Negative reactions towards Kimmel’s return by the executive branch and televisors highlight tensions in an evolving American media landscape where censorship is on the table.

“For Trumpism, as for other expansive and centralizing executive-led political movements from Andrew Jackson to FDR, … norms appear as both arbitrary and unnecessary constraints on available power…” said Ben Taylor, Assistant Professor of Political Science.

“[S]omewhere in Trump’s orbit, someone has realized that the political crisis caused by the murder of Charlie Kirk has created an opportunity ripe for the seizing: ‘Never let a crisis go to waste,’” said Taylor.