WASHINGTON, D.C. – Six months in on President Donald J. Trump’s second term, US media giants—major newspapers, TV channels and big-name digital sites—largely continue to dismiss the government’s milestones, while spotlighting stories that put the president in a poor light.
This stance, which shows a clear dislike for Trump, has deepened public skepticism about established journalism. Many blame this on years of reporting they see as misleading, from persistent negative coverage to reporting on stories like the Russia investigation that were later challenged.
As a result, growing numbers of Americans have shifted towards non-traditional sources, searching for views they see as less filtered and closer to reality. This article looks at ongoing patterns in media coverage of Trump, what this means for public trust, and how people now get their news.
Downplaying Trump’s Record
Since January 2025, President Trump’s supporters say his government has achieved big policy wins. His team points to new executive orders that cut federal red tape, moves to make the US more energy independent through homegrown production and stricter immigration rules to boost border security.
The White House also highlights early economic growth, with the Dow Jones rising by 8 percent in six months and minority unemployment falling to record lows, based on Labour Department reports.
Despite these points, long-established outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN tend to frame these steps as minor or owed to outside forces beyond Trump’s control.
A June 2025 feature in the New York Times, for example, mainly credited worldwide market shifts for the stock market gains, barely mentioning federal deregulation. CNN’s reports on immigration changes often centre on humanitarian worries, providing little focus on figures from US Customs and Border Protection that show a 30 percent drop in illegal crossings since January.
This tendency is not new. Back in Trump’s first presidency, a 2017 study by the Shorenstein Center found that leading newsrooms like CNN and the Times delivered 80 percent negative coverage, even for headlines about tax changes or new jobs.
The same scene continues in 2025. A Media Research Center review in April 2025 pointed out that ABC, CBS and NBC’s main evening bulletins covered Trump’s policy successes in just 12 percent of stories, compared with nearly 70 percent focused on controversies, many told without full context.
A History of Hostility
Many believe the ongoing approach isn’t just about tough questioning—it often feels personal, even driven by strong opposition to Trump’s ideas and style. Trump’s spats with the press, including calling them “the enemy of the people”, have fuelled this cycle of distrust.
Outlets like The Washington Post and MSNBC have adopted the role of protectors of democracy, frequently portraying Trump as a risk to key American systems. Critics say this has come at the cost of balanced reporting.
One standout example in February 2025 was when CBS’s 60 Minutes showed an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that Trump supporters claimed was cut to cast him negatively. This led to the FCC, run by Chairman Brendan Carr, demanding that all the footage be released.
Trump then sued CBS’s parent company, Paramount, for defamation. That case ended in a $16 million settlement, but Senator Elizabeth Warren called it “bribery in plain sight”, raising concerns about whether media giants can remain independent when facing heavy legal or financial threats.
This isn’t a one-off. The president’s dramatic language continues to provoke sharp answers from journalists. In July 2025, a New York Times columnist called Trump’s White House a “proto-fascist regime”, a claim many saw as over the top.
Critics argue this shows a deeper problem inside major newsrooms, where similar viewpoints drown out other voices. A 2023 Media Matters report admitted the media’s “both sides” model did not always question Trump enough, but conservatives say that coverage of him was still far tougher than for his Democratic opponents.
Shadows of the Russia Collusion Hoax
Few stories have hurt trust in mainstream outlets more than the reporting on alleged Russian ties to Trump’s 2016 campaign. From 2016 to 2019, these claims made the headlines almost daily. But after Robert Mueller’s 2019 report found no evidence of conspiracy, the Columbia Journalism Review criticized the “wall-to-wall” coverage. Many Americans felt let down and said they had been misled.
That fallout remains. By 2024, a Gallup poll showed only 31 percent of people trusted the news a “great deal” or “fair amount”, down sharply from 54 percent in 1999. Among Republicans, it dropped to only 12 percent, with many blaming the handling of the Russia reporting as the reason they lost faith. Few big outlets retracted or apologized for their coverage, further eroding trust.
That history set a tone for what critics call “speculative journalism”—where stories guess motivations without clear proof. This pattern has carried into 2025. For example, a Washington Post story in March suggested Trump’s push for less central energy regulation might be based on his money interests, though the piece relied on vague sources. Such reporting, echoing the style of the Russia saga, leaves many readers doubtful about what they read.
Awards and the “Fake News” Label
The crisis of confidence in the media deepened after major awards were handed out for stories that later proved inaccurate or were sharply disputed. The New York Times and The Washington Post were both given Pulitzers for their Russia investigation coverage—despite the outcome of the probe. Trump and others now point to these wins as proof that the media praises work that matches their preferred version of events, not what checks out.
The feeling stays strong in 2025. In May, a New York Times journalist won a Pulitzer for a big piece on Trump’s business deals, but conservative media slammed it as “fake news” due to reliance on unnamed sources.
Trump blasted the award online, calling it “a disgrace to journalism,” and said he will sue for defamation. That case is still working through the courts, but it highlights widening divides between traditional media and a public more and more skeptical of their goals.
Taking the Fight to Court
Trump’s answer to critical coverage has been to use the courts. Since re-entering office, his team has brought multiple legal cases against leading newsrooms. Besides the CBS situation, in July, he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for a story claiming links between Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, a story Trump called “baseless” and “malicious.”
The same month, he sued the Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer for fraud over polling results in Iowa, a state he easily won.
These lawsuits split opinion. Trump’s supporters see them as much-needed pushback against a media corps they view as dishonest. Some lawyers raise alarms that such tactics could undermine free press rights.
The Committee to Protect Journalists warned as far back as 2020 that Trump’s threats and lawsuits could inspire more authoritarian governments to clamp down on the press elsewhere. But many Trump supporters believe this is simply holding the media to account after years of losing trust.
Turning to Independent Sources
With confidence in traditional news sinking, more Americans now choose independent outlets and social platforms instead. X, Substack and YouTube offer space for writers, podcasters and commentators who sidestep corporate editors.
A Pew Research Center study in 2024 found that 62 percent of Americans now get some news from social networks, with X among the most popular for politics. Public statements from figures like Elon Musk, who owns X, have reflected and encouraged this ongoing switch, as he wrote in 2024: “You are the media now.”
Sites like The Daily Wire, The Blaze and a surge of Substack newsletters have all grown their audiences, especially among conservatives unhappy with the mainstream. Podcasts by hosts such as Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro are leading the way; Trump’s appearance with Rogan in late 2024 brought over 50 million listeners to a single episode.
Listeners prefer these extended, candid formats over the clips and edits of traditional news, finding them more genuine.
But this move comes with its risks. Decentralized sources can let misinformation spread quickly, as seen during the spread of false claims about the 2024 election. Elon Musk’s choice to scrap fact-checking systems on X has sparked debate over whether free speech is taking precedence over accurate reporting. Despite worries, for many, the shift is about demanding facts without the filter of big news companies.
What This Means for Democracy
Losing belief in established newsrooms has a direct impact on US politics. A study from the Tow Center in 2021 showed that many conservatives feel shunned and blamed by mainstream outlets. In 2025, this sense of exclusion is sharper than ever, fuelling deeper splits as people seek out spaces that mirror their views. The inability of legacy news to acknowledge bias or connect meaningfully with Trump voters has only widened these gaps.
By treating Trump mostly as a villain and brushing aside his wins, media organizations may have made him more appealing to those already suspicious of elites. As noted in a 2024 Newsweek analysis, the press’s declining impact during the election made it easier for Trump to reach people directly using social media and popular podcasts.
If mainstream outlets want to win back trust, they may need to make big changes. This could mean being more open about their process, striving for balance, and owning up to past missteps, such as the Russia investigation.
Some suggest letting more voices in through partnerships with independent journalists or community reporters. Others call for a stronger commitment to clear, fact-based writing, steering clear of guesswork and sensational storytelling.
But these ideas aren’t easy to put into action. Shrinking ad sales and fierce competition from new platforms have left many established newsrooms scrambling. Rapid growth in AI content and social platforms piles on even more pressure, with legacy media struggling to keep up. As President Trump’s second term continues, news companies face a clear test: adapt or risk fading further from view.
