President Donald Trump has once again escalated his attacks on the press, demanding that major broadcast networks face penalties for what he claims is biased coverage. On Sunday night, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to single out two networks, writing that NBC and ABC are “two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world.”
He went further, saying the networks should “lose their licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!” In the same post, he concluded, “crooked ‘journalism’ should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!”
Trump also claimed that the two networks “give [him] 97 percent bad stories” and accused them of being extensions of the Democratic Party. “THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY, HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED BY THE FCC,” he wrote in another post. “I would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our Democracy!”
This is not the first time Trump has demanded that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) strip broadcasters of their licenses. No network has had its license revoked by the FCC, but experts say the danger lies in corporate owners’ willingness to concede to political pressure.
Experts see risks of capitulation
Victor Pickard, professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, described Trump’s rants as “yet more worrying signs that Trump knows no limits in exerting dictatorial power over our news media.” He said, “The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures since they typically privilege their profit motives over democratic needs.”
“Some individual journalists have shown much courage despite Trump’s attacks, but the corporate media institutions themselves too often capitulate,” he added.
Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press, said that networks like NBC had played a role in Trump’s political rise, pointing to its decision to air “The Apprentice,” which he argued gave Americans the false impression that Trump was a “successful and decisive businessman.”
Karr expressed concern that broadcasters would offer the president concessions in exchange for avoiding retaliation. “What should be more worrying to anyone who appreciates a free press is the degrees to which these massive media conglomerates are capitulating before the president,” he said. “If we’ve learned anything about the media from the past eight months, it’s that massive media companies are far too beholden to the political elite to speak truth to power.”
He also underscored the constitutional protections available to broadcasters. “NBC and ABC are protected under the First Amendment from the sort of government meddling proposed here by Trump—and enacted by his obsequious FCC chairman, Brendan Carr,” Karr said. “The problem is that big media conglomerates like these two would rather cave to the president than stand up for their constitutional rights.”
A precedent for corporate retreat
Experts pointed to a recent example that signaled corporate willingness to capitulate. Earlier this summer, CBS parent company Paramount agreed to a $16 million settlement over a lawsuit stemming from a “60 Minutes” interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Though experts called the case meritless, the settlement was seen as evidence of corporate owners’ reluctance to fight politically charged challenges to their reporting.
Legal and regulatory limits
Trump’s demands also reveal a gap between political rhetoric and the FCC’s actual authority. The FCC licenses individual broadcast stations, not entire national networks like ABC or NBC. According to its own guidelines, the FCC broadly cannot control what content networks put on the air, and the First Amendment prevents the agency from censoring coverage. A station could be penalized only if it deliberately spread false information that caused “substantial public harm,” or if there was clear proof of intentional manipulation of news.
Even with those protections, experts caution that Trump’s combative posture can still influence outcomes. The combination of threats, public denunciations, and costly litigation can lead large corporations to alter programming decisions, avoid investigative reporting that risks conflict, or quietly resolve disputes rather than contest them in court.
The stakes for independent journalism
Trump’s Sunday night tirades—accusing broadcasters of being biased, demanding higher fees, and threatening license revocation—demonstrate how presidential power can be wielded against independent media. Experts say the larger concern is not whether the FCC will take away a network license, but whether corporate owners will preemptively give in to pressure.
“What should be more worrying to anyone who appreciates a free press is the degrees to which these massive media conglomerates are capitulating before the president,” Karr warned.
For Pickard, the pattern is already clear. “The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures,” he said.
At stake is the strength of the First Amendment itself. While constitutional protections remain intact, the willingness of corporations to exercise those protections in defense of press freedom is less certain.
COMMENTS