The Trump administration’s second term has unleashed a relentless campaign against media freedom, freedom of expression, and dissent, evoking memories of Nixon’s paranoia but surpassing it in scope and sophistication.

Through regulatory intimidation via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), exploitation of corporate media’s profit-driven motives, and a GOP-dominated political landscape, the administration is systematically dismantling the First Amendment. This assault reflects a hegemonic project to consolidate power by controlling the “common sense” of society – silencing critical voices to entrench a narrative that serves the ruling elite.

The administration’s crackdown is driven by a need to suppress opposition to its polarising policies, while media conglomerates, prioritising profits and government contracts over democratic principles, enable this erosion of truth.

The FCC as a weapon of hegemonic control

The FCC, led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, has become a blunt instrument in the administration’s efforts to stifle dissent. By threatening to revoke broadcast licenses from networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC, the administration punishes outlets perceived as critical. The suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after Kimmel’s remarks on the assassination of MAGA activist Charlie Kirk is a stark example. Carr’s ominous warning that this was not “the last shoe to drop” signals a broader intent to reshape the media landscape through fear.

This is not just regulatory overreach; it’s a deliberate strategy to enforce compliance, as FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has warned, accusing the administration of “weaponising its licensing authority” to silence broadcasters. In Gramscian terms, this is an attempt to secure hegemony – the dominance of a particular worldview – by controlling the institutions that shape public discourse.

The administration targets media to suppress narratives that challenge its authority, particularly as it pursues controversial policies like mass deportations and deregulation. By intimidating broadcasters, the FCC ensures that the “common sense” narrative aligns with Trump’s agenda, marginalising dissent and opposition that could galvanise public resistance.

Why now? The political imperative to crush dissent

The timing of this crackdown is no accident. The Trump administration faces intense scrutiny over polarising policies – mass deportations, dismantling diversity programmes, and aligning with authoritarian leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. These moves have sparked widespread opposition from activists, journalists, and even some lawmakers.

To maintain power, the administration must neutralise these voices, which threaten to expose contradictions in its “America First” rhetoric.

This is a classic move to maintain hegemony by stifling the “counter-hegemonic” forces – independent media, progressive activists, and dissenting citizens – who challenge the administration’s narrative. Moreover, the administration’s actions come at a time of heightened political polarisation and a weakened opposition.

With GOP control of Congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court, Trump faces fewer checks than Nixon did. This emboldens the administration to target media freedom, knowing that institutional resistance is limited.

The crackdown also serves to rally Trump’s base, portraying the media as an elitist enemy, thus reinforcing the “common sense” narrative that only Trump can be trusted to speak for the people.

Corporate media’s complicity: Profits over principles

The modern media landscape, dominated by conglomerates like Disney (ABC), Comcast (NBC), and Paramount (CBS), is uniquely vulnerable to this pressure. These firms are not just media companies but sprawling corporations with interests in defence, technology, and government contracts.

For instance, Comcast secures lucrative cybersecurity contracts, while Paramount relies on FCC approval for broadcast licenses and mergers like the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance deal in July 2025. The administration exploits these vulnerabilities, using regulatory threats to extract compliance. When Trump hinted at revoking licenses for “bad publicity,” he signalled to these firms that their broader business interests – far beyond journalism – were at risk.

This dynamic reveals a grim truth: media corporations prioritise profits and contracts over defending democracy. The Paramount-Skydance merger, approved only after Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit with Trump and agreed to concessions like scrapping DEI policies and installing a “bias monitor” at CBS, is a case study in corporate capitulation.

In Gramscian terms, these corporations are part of the “historic bloc”– a coalition of economic and political elites that sustains the ruling hegemony. By aligning with the administration’s demands to protect their bottom line, media firms betray their role as democratic watchdogs, reinforcing a system where truth is subordinated to power.

Echoes of Nixon, amplified by modern structures

Nixon’s attacks on the press, like his attempts to challenge the Washington Post’s license, were crude and often ineffective, constrained by a robust civil society and independent judiciary. Trump’s campaign, however, operates in a more permissive environment. A MAGA-aligned Supreme Court and GOP-controlled Congress provide a shield of impunity, while the concentrated media landscape – dominated by a few profit-driven conglomerates – lacks the resilience of Nixon’s era.

Where CBS’s Frank Stanton defied Nixon in 1971, today’s media executives face pressure to comply to protect their firms’ sprawling interests. This reflects a shift in the “relations of force.” The administration’s ability to co-opt media through economic leverage ensures that the hegemonic narrative – pro-Trump, anti-dissent– permeates society.

The cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” alongside the Paramount concessions suggests a pay-for-play dynamic, where corporate compliance secures regulatory favours, further entrenching this hegemonic control.

An apartheid of truth

The term “apartheid of truth” vividly captures this separation of truth from power. The administration’s actions create a media landscape where only state-approved narratives survive, marginalising critical voices. This is not just censorship but a systemic restructuring of discourse to serve the ruling elite.

Media conglomerates, driven by profit motives, enable this by self-censoring to secure contracts and approvals. The result is a chilling effect, where journalists and outlets avoid critical reporting to avoid retribution, effectively segregating dissenting truths from public access.

Unlike Nixon’s episodic attacks, Trump’s assault is systemic, leveraging regulatory power, corporate vulnerabilities, and political dominance. The GOP’s control of key institutions and a compliant judiciary amplify the administration’s reach, making resistance far harder than in the 1970s.

The First Amendment, meant to protect free expression, is undermined by a media ecosystem where profit-driven conglomerates prioritise self-preservation over principle.

Resisting the hegemonic assault

Democrats’ tepid response – hampered by GOP dominance and internal divisions – has failed to counter this assault. Proposals like the No Political Enemies Act face slim chances in a Republican Senate, leaving the administration’s actions largely unchecked.

This underscores the need for a counter-hegemonic movement – a coalition of civil society, independent journalists, and principled regulators like Anna Gomez to challenge the administration’s control over discourse. Congress must reform the Communications Act to curb FCC overreach, and the public must hold media conglomerates accountable for prioritising profits over democracy.

The Trump administration’s war on media freedom is a calculated effort to entrench hegemony, silencing dissent to protect its polarising authoritarian agenda. By exploiting corporate greed, it creates an apartheid of truth, where power dictates the narrative.

The Nixon era showed that resistance can succeed, but only if citizens, journalists, and institutions rally to defend the First Amendment. Without such action, the slide toward authoritarianism risks becoming irreversible.

Inderjeet Parmar is a professor of international politics and associate dean of research in the School of Policy and Global Affairs at City St George’s, University of London, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a columnist at The Wire. He is an International Fellow at the ROADS Initiative think tank, Islamabad, and author of several books including Foundations of the American Century. He is currently writing a book on the history, politics, and crises of the US foreign policy establishment.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.