Donald Trump’s return to office in January has not only reignited his controversial political tactics in the United States but sparked concerns that these methods are being imported to the United Kingdom. On his first full day back in office, Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” This decision is indicative of his broader approach to reframe narratives and improve media relations. This has been particularly concerning in places like Nottinghamshire, where local media is subject to restrictions similar to those we saw with Trump.
The former president’s years-long record of using media coverage to drive the political agenda is well documented. He has no qualms in attacking media organizations that he believes are biased against him. Most recently, he called out the Associated Press for not living up to legal standards. His administration continues to censor journalists whose reporting doesn’t match with the Governor’s narrative. This disturbing trend is deeply concerning not just for press freedom, but for accountability.
Trump is still willing to meet with media members when it serves his purpose. For example, despite previously labeling Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, a “sleazebag,” he still granted him an interview earlier this year. This dichotomy illustrates Trump’s selective approach to media interactions. He engages with those who can offer him a platform while dismissing others who challenge him.
“If Reform can’t even face questions from the Nottingham Post, what hope is there that they could ever face the serious responsibilities of government?” – Kevin Hollinrake
In Nottinghamshire, the local council’s recent ban on the Nottingham Post has drawn criticism for echoing Trump’s press-bashing strategies. The Post’s editor later called the ban “a huge assault on local democracy.” He argued that this trend undermines journalists’ accountability and erodes robust discourse in the public sphere.
The Associated Press has acknowledged Trump’s order regarding the Gulf’s name but stated it will largely continue using “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting. This decision signals that the longstanding battle between upholding journalistic integrity and integrity amidst a political firestorm can be fought and won.
As the 2024 election cycle gears up, Trump’s relationship with the press feels more contentious than ever. He’s lambasted cynical media outlets opposed to his agenda with exacting precision and without apology. By using intimidation through bans against targeted media organizations, he’s fostered a culture of intolerance where critical reporting is largely met with aggression. Critics argue that Trump’s approach has diminished the role of the press as a watchdog and eroded public trust in media institutions.
An artwork featuring Trump, inspired by an iconic image of him pumping his fist following an assassination attempt last year, now hangs on a wall in the White House. This image serves as a powerful symbol of resilience for the Trump camp. It also begs troubling questions about what’s becoming the new normal and acceptance of aggressive rhetoric targeting the press.
That’s because Trump’s presidency has shown that there are almost no electoral consequences for maligning the media. His supporters often rally behind his denouncements, viewing them as a form of populist resistance against perceived elitism in journalism. It’s an equally tall order for local and national outlets. They need to fight like hell to keep their credibility in increasingly partisan political environments.
Republican officials across the United States are waging a rising campaign against press freedoms. That odious regional protectionism continues to find favor in areas across the pond, particularly in the UK’s Midlands. As local councils increasingly use these same tactics to silence dissent, First Amendment observers and defenders are rightfully concerned about the dangers this poses to democracy and accountability.