On Monday, July 20, we learned that the Justice Department’s leak investigation had expanded beyond New York Times journalists to their families, subpoenaing the phone records of two reporters’ spouses and one reporter’s mother. Four days later, the President stood in a ballroom at the Washington Waldorf Astoria and delivered an hour of insults to the very press corps his department was surveilling, then donned a “Trump 2028” cap. Six days after that, ABC filed its formal opposition to the FCC’s license-renewal campaign, telling the agency in plain language what this newsletter has documented for months: “The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price.”
If you appreciate our work and want to help us spread awareness of the Trump Administration’s censorship, comment, like, or restack this post and help Substack’s recommendation algorithm show it to more people. 🙏🏻☀️
You can always see the up-to-date censorship count at TrumpCensorship.com!
DOJ Subpoenas the Families of New York Times Reporters
In a motion unsealed on July 20, the New York Times revealed that the Justice Department’s effort to unmask the confidential sources behind the paper’s reporting on Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One replacement had expanded to the journalists’ relatives: the department sought phone and message records for two reporters’ spouses — one of whom is general counsel at a major law firm — and one reporter’s mother, a mental health professional with confidential client relationships. The subpoenas, issued to third-party communications providers, sought records dating back to January 2026 — months before the Times published its reporting that the retrofitted Qatari jet still failed to meet Air Force One security standards, a story Trump himself later effectively confirmed by telling reporters the plane is being “maxed out.”
The family subpoenas escalate a campaign that began earlier in July, when federal agents appeared at the homes of several Times journalists on a Friday night to serve grand jury subpoenas compelling their testimony — a move the paper’s deputy general counsel David McCraw called “abusive and improper” and “brought in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage.” In its motion to quash, the Times wrote that the newly disclosed subpoenas reveal “yet another instance of the alarming pattern of conduct detailed in the Motion to Quash” and demonstrate “abuse of the grand jury process, continued bad faith attacks on the Journalists, violations of the Department’s own internal regulations and disregard for the law in this Circuit intended to protect critical First Amendment interests.” The Justice Department’s response: “reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.” Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Seth Stern’s view was apt: “Even the Mafia says families are off limits.”
Trump Returns to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner to Spend an Hour Attacking the Room
On July 24, the President attended the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner at the Waldorf Astoria — the do-over of the April dinner that ended minutes in when a gunman opened fire at the Washington Hilton. Before a reduced crowd of roughly 700 under tightened security, outgoing WHCA president Weijia Jiang struck the intended note: “We are back. We will not be intimidated. We refuse to let an act of violence have the final word.” The President’s hour-and-four-minute speech seesawed from calls for unity to insults aimed at journalists, Democrats, and members of his own cabinet, drawing an at-times muted response, and ended with Trump donning a red cap reading “Trump 2028” after joking about seeking a term the Constitution bars. Ahead of the dinner, more than 500 veteran and former journalists signed a letter organized by former ABC News correspondent Lisa Stark and executive producer Ian Cameron urging the WHCA to “forcefully stand up” to the administration’s attacks on the press rather than simply host the man directing them. As CNN noted going in, the room was full of journalists “swept up in his government-wide pressure campaign against the independent press” — a campaign that, that very week, included subpoenas for their colleagues’ mothers.
The FCC’s License Campaign Is “Attempted Censorship” – ABC Opposition Filing
On July 30, ABC filed its formal opposition in the FCC’s early license-renewal proceeding against the network’s eight owned-and-operated stations — and dropped any remaining diplomatic pretense. “The Commission’s attempted censorship of ABC has attracted condemnation across the political aisle,” the network wrote in its filing. “The Administration has openly and repeatedly called for the revocation of ABC’s licenses, because it dislikes the content and viewpoints expressed on ABC network programs... denying a license renewal for disfavored speech would be outright censorship.” The filing’s most quoted line names the strategy outright: “The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price. Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers.”
ABC asked the Commission to deny the petitions to outright — or dismiss the early-renewal proceeding entirely as “untimely and unwarranted.” The network noted that the petitions against its stations came not from local viewers but from three conservative interest groups — the Center for American Rights, the Media Research Center, and the Article III Project — which “identify no violation of the Communications Act or FCC rules of any kind,” and that the proceeding drew roughly 150,000 public comments, overwhelmingly in support of the stations. The filing also invoked Section 326 of the Communications Act — the provision that expressly forbids the FCC from censorship — and argued that the proceeding’s damage is already done regardless of outcome: the investigation itself is the punishment, a sword of Damocles whose value “lies in hanging, not in dropping.” Fifteen months into the FCC’s campaign against ABC — from the Kimmel suspension to the early-renewal order to the View inquiry — the network’s posture has fully hardened from the company that once paid Trump $15 million to settle, to the company now telling his FCC, in a federal docket, that it is engaged in unconstitutional retaliation.
If you appreciate our efforts to track the Trump Administration’s censorship crusade, share this post with a friend.
On July 23, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to re-detain Dr. Badar Khan Suri, the Georgetown peace-and-conflict scholar whom ICE arrested outside his Virginia home in March 2025 over his Palestinian rights advocacy, then shuttled among five detention facilities across three states before parking him in Texas, thousands of miles from his U.S.-citizen wife and three U.S.-citizen children. The 2-1 panel affirmed the lower court’s order releasing him on bail, rejected the government’s bid to move his case to Texas, and split from two other circuits which had accepted the government’s argument that immigration law strips federal judges of jurisdiction in cases like his. “Denying judicial review of detention claims like Suri’s,” the court wrote, “misreads Congress’ statutes and undermines the protections guaranteed all persons on American soil by the writ of habeas corpus.” The ACLU of Virginia’s Eden Heilman captured the stakes: “The First Amendment protects all of us — regardless of citizenship.”
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.