
In July 2025 when Trump descended that famous escalator to announce his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, I thought he was just a fading reality TV star trying to increase his brand. I never suspected he would be a serious candidate, but I hoped that he would bring some entertainment to what appeared to be a large but otherwise boring field of Republican candidates. I just hoped he wouldn’t drop out too soon. I never expected nor could even have imagined that this would be the beginning of more than a decade of turmoil, the least of which is Trump‘s relationship to the media.
Interestingly, Trump’s love-hate relationship with the media didn’t begin with his presidential campaign. In the 1970s and 80s when he was a real estate developer, he began courting the press. Like most things in his life, it was transactional. He would trade gossip and insider information about the real estate business in return for favorable publicity about himself and his businesses. He was even known to call reporters using a fake name to praise himself and try to curry more favorable coverage.
Even then he was not above criticizing the press, laying the early groundwork for his much later claims of “fake news “. If a news article listed his net worth as being less than what he claimed or would criticize a real estate project, he would respond with unfailing criticism. He filed a $500 million lawsuit against the Chicago Tribune after an article criticized his 150-story Manhattan skyscraper project as being “one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York “. He also filed a $5 billion lawsuit against journalist Timothy O’Brien for his 2005 book Trump Nation which estimated his net worth in between $150 million and $250 million, far below the billions that Trump had claimed. Both of these lawsuits were dismissed. This may have set the stage for Trump’s litigative interaction with the news media. He didn’t have to win to get the attention he was seeking. Later, as president he would have the additional leverage to almost force settlement by the news media who needed his approval for their larger projects.
Trump’s relationship with the media changed with the premiere of The Apprentice in 2004. The show presented Trump as an exceptionally successful and decisive businessman. Since it wasn’t journalism, but was instead entertainment, it was given a factual pass. The Apprentice left him accustomed to mostly favorable coverage, making the media response to his campaign that much more surprising to him.
Back to the escalator.
At first, most of the media treated him as a curiosity, and an entertaining one as well. He could be counted on for a colorful quote or a timely soundbite. Some thought it was a publicity stunt designed to increase his reality TV brand. But early in his campaign for the nomination, his tone turned dark, attacking immigrants, liberals, and his opponents for the nomination. He no longer seemed as amusing.
As reporters began to dig into his finances and business practices and to question the credibility of many of his claims, Trump went on the attack.
He quickly learned that he could dominate a news cycle with provocative statements, outrageous claims, and personal insults. While the coverage was not always positive, it always satisfied his need for attention. He was beginning to refine his persecution narrative that would become a central theme in his personal political brand.
Trump’s first use of his now iconic phrase “fake news” was on December 10th, 2016, in a tweet about a month after he won election. In a January 11th, 2017, news conference Trump refused to answer a question from CNN correspondent Jim Acosta saying, “You are fake news.” He rapidly incorporated that phrase for anything that was critical or with which he disagreed. He went so far as to call much of the media “enemies of the American people”. He was attempting to claim the news outlet critical to him were in fact hostile to the country.
Trump claimed to have invented the term “fake news,” but like many other things associated with him it did not stand up to scrutiny. The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the earliest use of the term as a story in the Milwaukee Daily Journal in 1890. The term “fake news” appeared in numerous newspapers throughout the 1890s and early 1900s. Even earlier, newspapers had used a term “false news” for stories they felt were obviously untrue. This usage was limited to stories that were believed to have been fabricated. Trump morphed it into a criticism of anything he didn’t like.
Trump’s battle with Jim Acosta continued until November 2018 when he revoked Acosta’s White House press credentials. This is the first time that a president’s press office has ever cancelled a reporter’s credentials for anything other than a security or conduct issue.
His battle with the press continued in his second term. He developed a new strategy and began to file defamation and related lawsuits against major news outlets. He filed multiple lawsuits, both against broadcast organizations and the print media, including CBS News, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and BBC.
Despite the fact that most legal observers found the suits to be baseless, ABC News and Paramount, the parent company of CBS, settled with Trump almost exclusively on his terms. Many observers thought that this was largely because of his threats, both direct and implied, to their broadcast licenses.
The battle with the media reached its high point in September of 2026 when he announced that CNN, Politico, and MS NOW would be barred from the White House press pool and their reporters’ credentials were cancelled. Those organizations filed suit alleging the administration had violated their 1st and 5th Amendment rights.
Because of the limited space available in the White House pressroom, news organizations have typically rotated to cover news conferences forming a “pool” that will then share information with the other news agencies. News networks, including Fox News, canceled pool television coverage of some events. The New York Times and the Washington Post temporarily stopped photographing White House events.
This dispute is ongoing. All three organizations have regained access to the White House grounds but still find themselves limited in coverage of presidential events.
To be fair, not all of Trump’s complaints were without basis. During his first campaign and subsequent presidential term some stories were based on anonymous sources that later proved incorrect or overstated. Investigation into Russian election interference in 2016 was often based on speculation and political commentary was not always kept separate from news reporting.
Trump has a more cordial relationship with the conservative media, particularly Fox News. Although it is not without its rough patches. When Fox News announced on election night in 2020 that Joe Biden had won in Arizona, Trump reacted angrily. He encouraged his supporters to turn to Newsmax, and One America News Network because they supported him unconditionally and and were willing to accept his unfounded claim of election fraud. Trump often failed to distinguish between Fox’s conventional news operations and its openly partisan opinion programming, believing that any criticism of him, even factual, was fake news.
Even during his battles with mainstream media organizations Trump had an advantage that no other president previously had. He understood social media like no one else before him. Other candidates had assumed that social media was a way just to reach younger voters. Trump realized it could be used to reach across all ages, social and economic classes, and political affiliations. He used social media, particularly Twitter, to attack his enemies, make outrageous statements, and to fire up his supporters.
Trump’s Twitter account was suspended on January 8, 2021, because the company believed his posts posed a “risk of further excitement of violence“ following the January 6 attack on the capital. Twitter said the post violated its policy against glorifying violence. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat quickly followed suit.
Following his suspension from Twitter, Trump was instrumental in forming his own social media outlet, Truth Social. Even though Trump’s Twitter, now X, account was restored in November 2022, Truth Social remains his principle social media outlet.
Trump turned increasingly to social media as he discovered it freed him from editors, publishers, and most importantly, fact checkers. He began to release policy statements, discuss pending legislation and even fire administration officials via social media. Many of his posts were made obviously without review by advisors, administration officials or attorneys. At times, such as tweets about tariff rates, transgender military personnel, Obama wiretapping Trump Tower, and the now infamous memes, the White House found itself having to give elaborate, sometimes convoluted, explanations of what Trump really meant.
Trump was far from the first president to have difficulties or complaints about the press. George Washington was frequently angered by newspaper attacks. John Adams signed the sedition act of 1798 and used it to prosecute journalists critical of him and the federal government. Abraham Lincoln’s administration put restrictions on some newspapers during the civil war. John Kennedy was publicly friendly with the press but was known to exert backchannel pressure to suppress stories of which he disapproved. Prior to Trump, no president had as hostile a relationship with the press as did Richard Nixon. He maintained an enemy’s list and used Vice President Spiro Agnew as a proxy to attack newspapers and television journalists.
Trump is part of a long history of presidents who were unhappy about their news coverage. What makes him different is his constant personal attacks, direct communication through social media, litigation against news organizations and attempts to directly control access to White House news events. His actions are not merely in response to controversial policies or bad coverage, they are part of his governing philosophy, reinforce the message that established news outlets cannot be trusted and that only he will provide the truth. Unfortunately, it seems to be working.
Image generated by author using ChatGPT.
Sources
1. History Hit, “Fake News, Donald Trump’s Relationship With It and Its Chilling Effects Explained” (background on the 2017–2018 Acosta press conferences and the rise of the term “fake news”): https://www.historyhit.com/fake-news-donald-trump/
2. CBS42/AP wire report on Trump’s January 2017 press conference exchange with Jim Acosta: https://digital-release.cbs42.com/?p=97787
3. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, case tracker on Associated Press v. Budowich: https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/associated-press-v-budowich/
4. Axios, “White House strikes back at AP, takes over press pool coverage from reporter group” (February 2025): https://www.axios.com/2025/02/25/white-house-trump-press-pool
5. Al Jazeera, “A ‘ban on the free press’: White House bars journalists from three outlets” (September 19, 2026): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/19/a-ban-on-the-free-press-white-house-bars-journalists-from-three-outlets
6. CNN Business, “Major TV networks stand with CNN, decline to replace its White House pool crew” (September 20, 2026): https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/20/media/cnn-trump-white-house-pool-ban
7. CNBC, “White House pool suspends TV coverage of Trump after CNN ban” (September 21, 2026): https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/21/trump-white-house-press-pool-cnn-ban.html
8. NBC News, “As Trump separates from Fox News, what’s next for both?” (background on Trump’s relationship with Fox, Newsmax, and OAN): https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-separates-fox-news-what-s-next-both-n1245549
9. The Christian Science Monitor, “Banned from Twitter, Trump launches a social media app” (February 2022): https://csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/0221/Banned-from-Twitter-Trump-launches-a-social-media-app
10. Al Jazeera, “Paramount agrees to pay $16m to settle Trump lawsuit over CBS interview” (July 2025): https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/7/2/paramount-agrees-to-pay-16m-to-settle-trump-lawsuit-over-cbs-interview
11. NewscastStudio, “ABC News will pay $16M to settle Trump defamation suit” (December 2024): https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/12/15/abc-news-trump-settlement
12. The FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), Robert Corn-Revere, “Can the President Treat the Press as the Enemy of the People?” (historical background on the Sedition Act and Nixon): https://thefire.org/first-amendment-news-robert-corn-revere-can-the-president-treat-the-press-as-the-enemy
13. History News Network, review of Harold Holzer, “The Presidents vs. the Press” (historical comparisons involving Adams, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and Nixon): https://hnn.us/article/177037
14. Inquirer.net (AP), “Remember Nixon? There’s history behind Trump’s press attacks” (February 2017): https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/872659/remember-nixon-theres-history-behind-trumps-press-attacks
15. The Bigfork Eagle, “Presidents vs. the Press” (background on FDR, the Kennedys, and the Obama administration’s dispute with Fox News): https://bigforkeagle.com/news/2018/nov/25/presidents-vs-the-press-15/
16. Wikipedia, “White House press corps” (timeline reference for the September 2026 CNN/MS NOW/Politico ban): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps




The President’s Private Prosecutor
By John Turley
On June 10, 2026
In Commentary, Politics
How Trump Turned the Department of Justice into a Tool of Personal Revenge
There is an old maxim in law: fiat justitia ruat caelum — let justice be done though the heavens fall. It reflects the principle that the law belongs to everyone equally and is not meant to serve personal grudges. Critics argue that Donald Trump’s second administration has embraced a very different view: that the Department of Justice can be used to pursue those who have challenged, investigated, or defeated him.
This is not simply a partisan accusation. It is based on a pattern in which Trump publicly identifies enemies and calls for action against them, followed by Justice Department investigations or prosecutions. The targets have included former administration officials, prosecutors, election experts, and individuals who prevailed against Trump in court.
The Guardrails Come Off
Trump’s first term provided occasional glimpses of this tendency, but institutional resistance often limited its reach. His second term began with far fewer constraints.
The selection of Pam Bondi as attorney general was widely viewed as a signal that loyalty would take precedence over the traditional independence of the Justice Department. During her confirmation hearing, Bondi declined to assure senators that the White House would remain separate from prosecutorial decision-making. That exchange foreshadowed what followed.
Within months, Trump directed investigations into former administration officials Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs. Taylor had authored the anonymous 2018 op-ed describing internal resistance within the administration. Krebs, Trump’s former cybersecurity chief, had publicly stated that the 2020 election was secure. Trump accused Taylor of “treason” while signing an executive memorandum ordering an investigation.
Whether or not either man had committed any wrongdoing, the sequence was striking: public presidential condemnation followed by federal scrutiny.
More consequential were the cases involving figures directly connected to Trump’s legal battles.
The Letitia James Case
Perhaps no public official has drawn Trump’s anger more consistently than Letitia James, the New York attorney general whose civil fraud case resulted in a massive judgment against Trump and his business organization.
In October 2025, James was indicted on bank fraud charges shortly after Trump publicly urged Bondi to move against his political opponents. The circumstances surrounding the case raised immediate questions.
According to reports, the original prosecutor assigned to the matter concluded that evidence was insufficient to support criminal charges and declined to proceed. He was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a former member of Trump’s personal legal team who had no prosecutorial experience. Within weeks, Halligan secured an indictment.
The legal process that followed was unusual. The indictment was later dismissed. Subsequent efforts to obtain new indictments reportedly failed before grand juries, an outcome that is relatively rare given the traditionally high success rate prosecutors enjoy in grand jury proceedings.
Yet the investigation continued.
Critics saw the episode as evidence that prosecutorial decisions were being driven not by evidence but by determination to target a political adversary. Supporters countered that investigations should continue if legitimate questions remained unresolved.
Regardless of one’s interpretation, the case illustrates a recurring theme: Trump publicly demands action against an opponent, and federal law enforcement soon responds.
The Comey Prosecution
James Comey has been a target of Trump’s anger since his dismissal as FBI director in 2017. That conflict entered a new phase in September 2025 when Comey was indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction.
The indictment arrived only days after Trump publicly called for prosecution on social media. Trump later suggested that he hoped there would be “others.”
Comey pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that he was the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution. Civil liberties advocates condemned the prosecution as an abuse of presidential power.
Whether the charges ultimately survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. But the timing reinforced the perception that DOJ actions increasingly followed Trump’s personal grievances. The ongoing “86 47” prosecution further emphasizes the appearance of political vengeance.
E. Jean Carroll: From Plaintiff to Target
No case better illustrates the concerns surrounding Trump’s Justice Department than that of E. Jean Carroll.
Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he denied her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store decades earlier. Two juries ruled in her favor, awarding her a combined $88.3 million in damages.
In May 2026, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Carroll herself.
The investigation centers on statements Carroll made during civil litigation regarding funding for her legal expenses. Prosecutors are examining whether financial assistance connected to a nonprofit associated with LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman was disclosed accurately and whether any false statements were made under oath.
Carroll is now 82 years old. She successfully sued Trump and won two jury verdicts. The federal government headed by the man she defeated in court is investigating whether to charge her with federal crimes.
The optics are difficult to ignore.
Carroll’s attorneys argue that the investigation lacks substantive merit and represents retaliation against a successful plaintiff. Legal observers note that if charges are eventually filed, Carroll would likely argue that the case constitutes vindictive prosecution — the use of prosecutorial power to punish someone for exercising a legal right.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, the sequence is extraordinary: a citizen sues a powerful public figure, wins twice before juries, and then becomes the subject of a federal criminal investigation under that same figure’s administration.
A Larger Pattern
Individually, each case can be debated on its merits. Together, they form a pattern that has become increasingly difficult for critics to dismiss as coincidence.
Many of the administration’s highest-profile investigations involve people who share one characteristic: they challenged Trump politically, legally, or personally. Former election officials. Former administration insiders. Prosecutors. Investigators. Civil plaintiffs.
The pattern is often the same. Trump publicly attacks an individual. He demands action. An investigation follows. Organizations tracking retaliatory government actions have documented numerous examples of this sequence. Legal scholars frequently identify such timing as one of the warning signs associated with selective prosecution.
The concern is not merely whether individual targets are guilty or innocent. The larger issue is whether prosecutorial decisions are being made independently or whether they are increasingly shaped by presidential preferences.
That distinction matters because the Department of Justice possesses powers unlike those of any other federal agency. It can investigate, indict, and imprison citizens. Its legitimacy depends heavily on public confidence that those powers are exercised fairly and consistently.
The Cost of the Process
Defenders of the administration argue that investigations should not be immune from scrutiny simply because targets claim political persecution. That is true. Public officials, former officials, and private citizens alike should be subject to the law.
But critics respond that the problem is not accountability. It is selectivity.
Even unsuccessful investigations impose significant costs. Legal defense can consume hundreds of thousands of dollars. Grand jury investigations create stress, uncertainty, and reputational damage. Years of litigation can disrupt careers and lives regardless of whether convictions are ultimately obtained.
The process itself becomes a punishment.
Courts and grand juries have occasionally pushed back. Several high-profile cases have encountered significant legal obstacles. But judicial intervention often occurs only after substantial personal and financial costs have already been imposed.
The Weaponization Paradox
Perhaps the greatest irony is that Trump’s political rise was fueled in part by his claim that the justice system had been weaponized against him.
For years, he argued that prosecutors, investigators, and political opponents used government institutions to pursue personal or partisan objectives. That argument resonated with many Americans because the principle involved is important. The justice system should not be used as a political weapon.
The challenge for Trump’s administration is that the same characteristics he identified as evidence of weaponization now appear in cases initiated by his own Justice Department.
He argued that prosecutors were motivated by personal animus rather than evidence. Critics now make the same allegation about prosecutions involving Letitia James, James Comey, and E. Jean Carroll.
He argued that the process itself was punishment. His opponents now make the same claim.
He argued that political pressure shaped prosecutorial decisions. Critics point to repeated examples in which Trump’s public demands appear to precede DOJ action.
Whether one accepts those comparisons or rejects them, the contradiction is difficult to ignore.
A Democracy’s Stress Test
The Justice Department was designed to serve the public interest rather than the interests of any single president. That principle became especially important after Watergate, when both parties embraced reforms intended to insulate law enforcement from political interference.
The durability of those norms is now being tested.
The central question is not whether every investigation discussed here will ultimately succeed or fail. Courts will decide that. The more important question is whether Americans will continue to believe that justice is being administered independently.
If citizens come to believe that criminal investigations are triggered by personal loyalty or presidential anger, confidence in the rule of law inevitably suffers.
The power to prosecute is among the most formidable powers government possesses. In a constitutional democracy, that power must belong to institutions, not individuals.
Whether that principle remains intact may prove to be one of the defining questions of Trump’s second term.
Image generated by author using ChatGPT
Sources
• Just Security — Chronology of Trump/DOJ Targeting (Oct. 2024)
• PBS NewsHour — Comey Indictment & Trump Vows More Prosecutions (Sept. 2025)
• Slate — Trump’s Vengeance Tour (May 2026)
• Time — Trump Vows to Prosecute Political Enemies (March 2026)
• Protect Democracy — Retaliatory Action Tracker (ongoing)
• Yahoo/AP — Trump Directs DOJ to Investigate Taylor & Krebs (2025)
• Time — DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation into E. Jean Carroll (May 28, 2026)
• Axios — DOJ Probes Reid Hoffman Nonprofit Over Carroll Funds (May 28, 2026)
• CNN — Carroll and the Pattern of Trump Retribution (May 28, 2026)
• MS NOW — Vindictive Prosecution Analysis (May 28, 2026)
• Newsweek — Timeline of Carroll’s Legal Battles with Trump
• CNBC — Trump DOJ Intervenes in Carroll Case (Oct. 2020)
• CNBC — DOJ Fails Second Time to Indict Letitia James (Dec. 2025)
• ABC News — Letitia James Indicted (Oct. 2025)
• PBS — Full Indictment of Letitia James
• House Judiciary Democrats — Investigation into DOJ Retaliation Against Letitia James (March 2026)
• 19th News — From Letitia James to Comey, Trump’s DOJ as Instrument of Revenge
• Sen. Whitehouse Letter to Barr re Carroll (Sept. 2020)