Silencing the Watchdog: How Power Undermines the Press
- Bridget Craig
- May 13
- 4 min read
“Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy,” Walter Cronkite once said.
But in today’s America, that freedom is facing a slow, silent suffocation, not from outright bans, but from intimidation, discrediting, and the fraying trust between the media and the public it serves.
When the Founding Fathers enshrined the freedom of the press in the First Amendment, they envisioned a watchdog, not a scapegoat.
In February, the Associated Press was barred from White House press access when deciding to continue using the geographical term “Gulf of Mexico” after President Donald Trump signed an executive order changing the name to “Gulf of America.” A judge within the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of granting AP access again.
Judge Trevor N. McFadden said, “Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
Also in February, the Trump administration announced it would no longer allow the White House Correspondents' Association to decide which reporters gain access to cover major presidential events. Instead, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that the White House itself would now make those calls, framing the change as “returning power to the people,” a move critics see as a way to sideline independent voices and handpick coverage. For communities long excluded from national narratives, this top-down control further erodes chances of fair representation.
In April at the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, White House Correspondents' Association President Eugene Daniels fiercely said, "We journalists are a lot of things. We are competitive and pushy. We are impatient, and sometimes we think we know everything. But we are also human, we miss our families and significant life moments in service to this job. We care deeply about accuracy and take seriously the heavy responsibility of being stewards of the public's trust. What we are not is the opposition. What we are not is the enemy of people. What we are not is the enemy of the state."
Yet framing journalists as enemies serves a larger agenda, one that stokes authoritarian impulses while deflecting from policies that deepen inequality and disenfranchise already vulnerable groups.
Another force undermining public trust is the sidelining of fact-checking itself. The Trump administration has routinely dismissed independent verification as partisan spin, weakening the role of facts in public discourse. Press briefings often promote unverified claims without evidence, while reputable fact-checkers are labeled “fake news.”
In May, Trump signed an executive order directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cut off federal funding to NPR and PBS, accusing them of ideological bias. The order instructs CPB’s board to halt current funding “to the maximum extent allowed by law,” and reject future allocations.
Daniels’ words were a direct rebuke of the toxic rhetoric that has taken root during the second Trump administration, a period marked not just by hostile language but by concrete institutional changes.
According to Gallup, public trust in the press has also eroded dramatically. In the 1970s, nearly two-thirds of Americans believed news outlets reported the truth fairly and accurately. Today, that number has plummeted to just 31%, with a growing share, now over a third, saying they have no trust in the media at all.
According to Pew Research, ahead of the 2024 election, about three-quarters of Americans said media criticism plays an important watchdog role — the highest level of trust in press scrutiny since just before Trump’s first election in 2016. While 81% of Democrats agree, even two-thirds of Republicans said the press helps keep leaders in check, though historically that support shifts depending on who’s in the White House.
While the White House claims to be “returning power to the people,” by choosing which reporters get access, the reality suggests the opposite: an effort to centralize control over coverage, rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent.
Media access should not be a privilege granted by those in power, but a right upheld for all, especially for independent, community-based, and public-interest outlets. When federal funding is slashed for NPR and PBS, institutions that often serve rural and underserved communities within the U.S., it’s not about rooting out bias; it’s about shrinking the space for informed dissent. In this climate, journalism becomes not a public good but a political filter, where disagreement means disqualification.
And abroad, the dismantling of the USAID and funding freeze of about $268 million has put grants for more than 30 countries on the line. USAID has supported and trained 6,200, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and helped strengthen 279 media-sector civil society organizations dedicated to independent media. Congress’ allocation of these funds are for the reason of “independent media and free flow of information,” given that these grants are often provided in areas where repressive regimes shut out media coverage.
This shift in public trust, both in the media and in the political environment, underscores the precarious position in which journalism finds itself today. While the press continues to serve as a crucial check on power, its ability to do so depends on a society that values and protects its independence.
Photo Credit:
[Header]: The White House
Embedded 1]: Getty Images
Sources:
[4]- https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/nx-s1-5384790/trump-orders-end-to-federal-funding-for-npr-and-pbs
Comments