Trump threatens to revoke broadcast licenses for networks that criticise him
President says networks should have their licences stripped, as he cites perceived bias amid clashes with late-night hosts and a separate defamation ruling against The New York Times.
President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned from a state visit to the United Kingdom, floated the idea that U.S. television networks that criticize him should have their broadcast licenses taken away. He said, without offering a formal policy plan, that he had read reports suggesting networks were overwhelmingly against him and that if that coverage continued it might justify revoking their licenses. “I read someplace that the networks were 97 per cent against me. And if they're 97 per cent against and they give me only bad publicity, and they're getting a licence, I would think maybe their licence should be taken away,” Trump said during the flight home, speaking off the cuff to reporters on board.
The remarks come as a broader confrontation with the media has intensified in recent weeks, including a dispute tied to late-night television and comments about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The controversy began after talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air by some networks following claims about the man accused of Kirk’s death and about Trump’s response to it. Trump suggested that the decision to revoke licenses would ultimately rest with the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, saying, “He loves our country and he's a tough guy, so we'll have to see.”
The White House confrontation with the media centers on the idea that coverage of Trump has been disproportionately hostile, with the president alleging bias and arguing that networks function as political actors. He argued that television stations affiliated with major networks — NBC, CBS, Fox and ABC — which broadcast programs such as Jimmy Kimmel Live!, operate under FCC licenses because their content is transmitted over the air and freely accessible to the public. The threat of revocation, if acted upon, would mark a drastic departure from standard regulatory practice and would require FCC action, a pathway critics say could threaten free speech and press freedoms.
Analysts and critics quickly framed the remarks as a dangerous escalation. They argued that attempting to penalize media outlets for criticism would undermine the First Amendment and set a troubling precedent for political interference in editorial decisions. Former President Barack Obama joined the chorus of critics, saying that after years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration’s stance on media accountability represents a new and dangerous development. Obama’s remarks were echoed by competing voices in late-night television.
Stephen Colbert, host of CBS’s The Late Show, which is slated to undergo changes next year, condemned the move as a “blatant assault on freedom of speech.” Colbert’s colleagues on NBC and other networks also weighed in; NBC’s Jimmy Fallon defended Kimmel and his right to speak freely, while colleagues on rival programs published statements supporting Kimmel’s on-air remarks and criticizing what they depicted as attempts to punish critics.
In a separate development, a Florida judge on Wednesday dismissed former President Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. The suit asserted that the Times and book and article authors had maliciously peddled a narrative that cast Trump’s rise to celebrity as a deliberate outcome of media manipulation. Judge Steven D. Merryday criticized the suit as overly long and procedurally flawed, delivering a setback to Trump’s broader legal effort to push back against coverage he disputes as factually inaccurate.
The dismissal came as part of a busy week for the former president, who remains a central figure in American political discourse as a 2024 candidate and potential candidate again in 2028. Trump and his allies have repeatedly denounced what they describe as hostile media coverage, while critics warn that his rhetoric threatens to undermine the standards that govern broadcast journalism and the accountability that reporters are expected to exercise toward public officials.
Taken together, the episodes underscore a fraught moment in U.S. politics over the boundaries of press freedom and presidential authority. Supporters argue the media should be more accountable for inaccuracies and bias; critics warn that political leaders cannot use regulatory levers to silence dissent or restructure who gets to broadcast. The conversations unfold against a backdrop of ongoing legal fights, political maneuvering, and a media ecosystem that is increasingly intertwined with strategy and perception as much as with reporting of events on the ground.