LOADINGERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump reimagined the definition of free speech on Friday, declaring that too much “bad” coverage about him is “really illegal” after threats from his administration led to ABC yanking Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air.
Trump, when asked by Reuters’ Jeff Mason in the Oval Office if he sees a difference between “cancel culture and consequence culture,” claimed to be a “very strong person for free speech” before alleging, without evidence, that 94% to 97% of newscasts are “against” him.
Advertisement
“The stories are — they said, 97% bad. So, they gave me 97, they’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally,” said the president, who vowed to “immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America” in his inaugural address back in January.
Trump — who made a similar evidence-free claim about network TV criticism of him on Thursday, suggesting that broadcast licenses “should be taken away” for having such coverage — added that reporting “has to be at least accurate, at least accurate to an extent.”
“Again, when somebody is given, 97% of the stories are bad about a person. That’s no longer free speech. That’s no longer anything. That’s just cheating,” he said.
Advertisement
He continued, “And they cheat, and they become really members of the Democrat national committee. That’s what they are, the networks, in my opinion. They’re just offshoots of the Democrat national committee.”
Trump: “When you have networks where I won an election in counties — I guess it’s 2,600 to 525, that’s called a landslide times two — when you have that kind of popularity or voter support, and yet 97% of the newscasts are against me … I think that’s really illegal.”
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-09-19T21:02:03.046Z
Trump: “When 97% of the stories are bad about a person, that’s no longer free speech.”
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-09-19T21:02:58.730Z
Advertisement
The president, along with members of his administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr, has made an apparent change of tone on free speech since the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Bondi has faced intense criticism after she suggested that the Justice Department would “absolutely target” people for alleged hate speech. She’d go on to seemingly walk back her comments, declaring that freedom of speech is “sacred” in the U.S. and her office would “never impede upon that right.”
Stand With UsAgainstCensorship
Your SupportFuelsOur Mission
Your SupportFuelsOur Mission
The Trump administration is cracking down on free speech and targeting the media. Become a member now to protect the truth before it’s erased.
We Won’t Back Down
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
Support HuffPost
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
Carr — a Project 2025 contributor who once described free speech as a “counterweight” and “check on government control” — suggested that the FCC could revoke ABC affiliates’ broadcasting licenses the “easy way or the hard way” following Kimmel’s comments on the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Advertisement
On Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) likened Carr’s comments to something “right out of ‘Goodfellas’” and — despite not being a fan of Kimmel — warned that his actions could set a “dangerous” precedent, noting that it could be used by Democrats to “silence” Republicans.