Even before returning to the White House on January 20 this year, President Donald Trump knew that the media would not welcome him with open arms. However, he may not have anticipated the intensity of the hostility. A study by the Media Research Center (MRC), published at the end of April, reveals the extent of criticism from the major networks—ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC—during the first hundred days of his second term. It turns out the media didn’t stop at Trump himself: it targeted his cabinet members, emphasized alleged failures, and ignored the administration’s achievements. MRC examined the leading news programs, counting 899 reports and 1,841 statements by journalists, anchors, and nonpartisan experts, categorizing each statement as positive, negative, or neutral. The results are staggering: 92% of the statements were negative (1,697), 7% neutral (129), and only 1% positive (15).
For instance, the media dedicated 361 minutes to Trump’s tariff policy, emphasizing price hikes, a drop in the S&P 500, and recession forecasts (55% probability according to Polymarket). On immigration, 233 minutes (93% negative) were devoted to his mass deportation policy, which enjoys support from many in the American public. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, received 301 minutes of coverage—97% of it negative—despite broad public backing. In foreign policy, the media attacked Trump’s stance on Ukraine and his negotiations with Iran, accusing him of “surrendering to foreign interests.”
As mentioned, Trump’s cabinet was also heavily criticized. Musk received 96% negative coverage (287 out of 299 statements), with reports describing him as someone who is “destroying medical research” due to budget cuts and meme postings on his social media platform X. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health, received 89% negative coverage (178 out of 200) due to his vaccine skepticism and proposals to abolish FDA regulations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth got 100% negative coverage (45 out of 45), and Vice President J.D. Vance suffered 94% negative coverage (141 out of 150) for his combative statements and support for deportation. At the same time, the media ignored achievements like 2.7% economic growth, support for Israel with primary weapons shipments, halting the flow of illegal immigrants, and a surge in new U.S. military enlistments.
It’s worth noting that the MRC used the same tools as in previous studies on Trump (2017) and Biden (2021), but focused only on liberal networks, excluding Fox News and Newsmax.
When a Hamas Supporter Becomes a “Social Activist”
The MRC study reveals examples of extremely hostile media coverage of Trump, detaching his policies from broader contexts where they find understanding—and even support—among the general public. For example, take the case of Kilmer Abarco Garcia. Between April 1 and 22, the media devoted 143 minutes to his story, describing him as a “Maryland man”—an innocent individual mistakenly deported to El Salvador as part of Trump’s mass deportation policy. CBS, in particular, portrayed the case as a “disgraceful failure,” with emotional interviews with his family and 28 interviews with his lawyers, who described his deportation as a “tragic error.”
But the media ignored legal documentation released by the Trump administration on April 15, showing that Garcia was an active member of MS-13, a violent gang from Mexico and El Salvador, with a record of prior arrests for violent offenses. CNN and MSNBC continued to present him as a victim, without mentioning this evidence.
Trump’s sweeping reform of the public education system also received heavily biased coverage, including his plan to shut down the federal Department of Education and return authority over education to the individual states. The media focused on the allegedly negative consequences, portraying the move as a direct attack on public education. CNN reported that “Trump’s order is an unprecedented assault on public education, which will leave millions of children without support,” quoting teachers who warned the move “would lead to the collapse of poor schools.”
MSNBC host and political commentator Rachel Maddow fiercely attacked the plan: “Trump is trying to destroy the backbone of democracy, just like authoritarian regimes that control education to control the future.” A New York Times editorial claimed: “Trump is selling out our children’s future to his billionaire friends, in a dangerous privatization of education,” while the Washington Post joined in: “This move is a disaster for children with disabilities.”
But the media ignored real problems in the education system: as of 2023, only a third of U.S. eighth graders are proficient in reading, and just 26% in math—evidence of a severe failure by the department, which has an annual budget of $80 billion. At the same time, the department promotes progressive content like critical race theory and gender education, instead of focusing on core skills. In addition, federal bureaucracy stifles states’ freedom to shape their education systems. The media did not discuss the advantages of the move, such as expanding school choice and reducing regulations, and preferred to portray Trump as acting irresponsibly.
Another example is the case of Mohamed Khalil, an Algerian student at Columbia University who was deported from the U.S. last March for supporting terrorism against Israel and the U.S. Mainstream American media portrayed Khalil as a victim of Trump’s harsh deportation policy. The New York Times described him as a “social justice activist,” and the Washington Post devoted a sympathetic article to him, quoting Khalil’s claim that the posts that led to his deportation were not written by him, while ignoring video clips showing Khalil encouraging terrorism.
In reality, Khalil was part of a campus activist group that openly supported Hamas and armed resistance against Israel. In statements made by the group on October 8, the day after the massacre in southern Israel, members called for the “liberation of Palestine by any means,” including violence. Khalil waved a sign reading “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea”—a slogan that implies the destruction of the State of Israel. He called Hamas a “legitimate resistance movement” and shared a post showing the group’s fighters with the caption “they’re defending our people.” According to Khalil, the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah constitute a “legitimate struggle against occupation.” Mainstream media ignored these facts and, as mentioned, chose to portray him as an innocent victim.
Allegations of Interview Manipulation
The criticism was not merely substantive but accompanied by some of the harshest declarations against the president. “Trump is dragging America into an abyss with policies reminiscent of dark regimes. He is a danger to democracy and our future,” said MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Joe Scarborough, also from the same network, added: “Trump is not a president, he’s a dictator who wants to silence the media and dismantle the Constitution. He’s an existential threat.” His colleague Joy Reid, who has since been fired, claimed that “Trump is bringing fascism to America,” and Elie Mystal from The Nation concluded: “Trump is a criminal running America like a mob boss. He must be stopped before it’s too late.”
The tension between Trump and the media peaked with the president’s massive lawsuit against CBS in late October 2024, just before the elections. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, initially sought $10 billion (later doubled to $20 billion) over editing a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris that aired on October 7, 2024—about a month before the elections. Trump claimed the editing was “deceptive” due to two different versions of Harris’s response to a question regarding Benjamin Netanyahu’s relationship with the Biden administration. In the promo for the interview, aired on the prestigious program, Harris gave a coherent and straightforward answer: “The aid we provided to Israel enabled it to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles aimed at attacking Israelis and the people of Israel.” In reality, this was an answer to Harris’s question.
In contrast, her response to the Netanyahu question was essentially “word salad,” indicating extreme incoherence in her answers. Harris replied to the interviewer: “The work we’ve done has led to several steps in this region by Israel, which were a result of, or driven by, many things, including our support for what needs to happen in the region.” Of course, this response was omitted, benefiting the Democratic candidate.
Trump alleged that CBS edited the interview to portray Harris as “coherent and decisive,” harming his election prospects. The lawsuit demanded the release of the full interview transcript, and on October 20, 2024, the news network claimed the editing was routine, intended to meet time constraints, and the interview “was not distorted” nor “concealed” any parts of her response.
The lawsuit, currently in mediation, led to upheaval within “60 Minutes.” Longtime producer Bill Evans resigned in April, stating that “corporate pressure” compromised his editorial independence. He opposed a settlement with Trump and said he would not apologize for the Harris interview. His resignation came amid reports that CBS’s parent company was pushing for a deal in the lawsuit to receive Trump’s approval for a merger with another media company, whose owner is close to the president. While some journalists at the network expressed concern that a settlement could damage CBS’s reputation, many see the editing of the Harris interview as emblematic of the public’s mistrust of the media.
“Biden Sharper Than Ever”
To understand just how extreme the coverage of Trump has become, it’s helpful to compare it to other presidents at the start of their terms. During Trump’s first term in 2017, MRC reported 89% negative coverage. Joe Biden, by contrast, received 59% favorable coverage in 2021, with praise for his handling of the COVID crisis. Barack Obama, in 2009, received 60% positive coverage and was seen as “America’s hope” due to his economic recovery plan. George W. Bush, in 2001, received balanced coverage—28% negative and 50% neutral—due to a less polarized political climate.
The same media that has relentlessly targeted Trump for years whitewashed the cognitive state of the previous president, Joe Biden. Concerns about his health were portrayed as “Republican propaganda” or “conspiracy theories,” and the media described him as sharp and focused. Joe Scarborough of MSNBC said in March 2024: “I spent hours with Biden, and he’s sharper than ever. He’s at his intellectual peak.” Evan Osnos of The New Yorker wrote in January 2024: “I interviewed Biden, and his mind hasn’t changed. He didn’t flub any names or dates.” A CNN article from October 2022 claimed: “There is no medical evidence of dementia in Biden. These claims are dirty politics.” The New York Times 2023 praised the then-incumbent president: “Biden demonstrates sharpness and capacity to lead, despite his advanced age.” Joe Concha, quoted on Fox News in 2023, warned: “The media keeps saying Biden is sharp and focused, but anyone watching him can see he’s struggling. They protect him because he’s a Democrat.”
After Biden’s disastrous debate against Trump and his replacement by Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, the media changed its tone. Articles in The Washington Post and The Atlantic from February acknowledged that “Biden showed signs of cognitive decline” and that his team had “managed his schedule to conceal it.” Scarborough, who had previously raged at anyone who dared question Biden’s condition, suddenly admitted that “it was clear he wasn’t always at his best.” After years of denial, these admissions sparked criticism over media hypocrisy, as the press was seen as having shielded Biden until he became irrelevant. This comparison also underscores the media’s double standards—harsh with Trump, forgiving with Biden—and reinforces claims of bias.
Biden Scandals Branded “Propaganda”
The scandals surrounding Hunter Biden, son of the former president, were also significantly downplayed by mainstream media, particularly regarding allegations of money laundering involving the Biden family. Hunter, engaged in questionable business dealings in Ukraine, China, and other countries, became the focus of Republican-led investigations. Still, the media often minimized the severity of these cases or ignored their potential connection to the former president.
- Burisma Affair (2019–2021): Hunter Biden served on the Ukrainian energy company Burisma board from 2014 to 2019, during which time his father served as vice president. He received payments of about $50,000 a month despite lacking experience in the energy sector. Republicans claimed that Joe Biden used his influence to shield the company from Ukrainian investigations, including pressuring for the dismissal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2016. The New York Times reported on October 22, 2020, that the affair consisted of “unproven suspicions,” focusing on Biden’s denials without deeply investigating the financial ties. The next day, CNN stated that “there is no evidence Joe Biden did anything illegal,” ignoring reports of meetings between Joe and businesspeople introduced by his son.
- Hunter Biden’s Laptop Emails (2020): In October 2020, the New York Post published articles based on emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which indicated he tried to leverage his father’s position to close business deals in China and Ukraine. The emails revealed that Hunter arranged a meeting between his father and a Ukrainian businessman, and that some of the proceeds from the deals were funneled into family accounts. The Washington Post and CNN downplayed the significance of the emails, calling them “unverified” and “part of a Republican smear campaign against Biden.” On October 15, 2020, The New York Times wrote that “the emails do not prove Joe Biden’s involvement,” while ignoring later reports from the FBI (2022) that confirmed the authenticity of the emails.
- The Biden Family’s Money Laundering Network: A report by the House Oversight Committee, led by Republican James Comer, revealed in September 2024 that the Biden family received over $20 million from foreign companies between 2014 and 2019, including payments from Chinese firms like CEFC China Energy. The report claimed that Biden met with Hunter’s business associates at least 20 times and that some funds were routed through a network of shell companies to various family members, including Joe (“The Big Guy,” according to the emails). On September 5, 2024, CNN reported on the document as “Republican suspicions without direct evidence,” focusing on White House denials. The Washington Post, on September 6, claimed there was “no evidence that Joe Biden received money directly,” ignoring reports of joint bank accounts where funds were deposited.
As noted, the mainstream media avoided in-depth investigations into the link between Hunter’s business dealings and Joe Biden’s involvement, often portraying the scandals as “Republican propaganda.” While the media consistently attacked Trump over similar allegations, it gave Biden a “free pass,” deepening public distrust in the press.
Between the Media and Public Opinion
Polls from April 2025 reveal a complex picture of public sentiment toward Trump. His overall support is 40%–42%, with opposition ranging from 53%–55%. This marks a decline from the beginning of his term, yet remains reasonable for a president facing such intense criticism, especially as much of his policy agenda is still in early stages.
Trump has lost support since January, particularly among independent voters, where his approval dropped to just 29%, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll from April 26. Nevertheless, he maintains a loyal base among Republicans, with 54% saying he is focused on “the right priorities,” according to a Guardian poll from April 27, 2025. On immigration—a significant point of media criticism over Trump’s mass deportation policy—public opinion is split: 90% of Democrats, 56% of independents, and 11% of Republicans oppose the policy, while a large majority of his supporters view it as a necessary step against what they call an “illegal invasion.”
The media, however, does not necessarily reflect public opinion. While mainstream coverage continues to be overwhelmingly negative (92% negative, according to an MRC study), polls show that significant portions of the public support parts of Trump’s agenda, such as stricter immigration policies and government budget cuts. A CBS News/YouGov poll from April 2025 found that 45% of Americans support immigration restrictions, despite the negative coverage of cases like that of Kilmer Abrego Garcia. Additionally, a Fox News poll from the same period showed that 48% of the public believes the media is “too biased” against Trump, reflecting growing mistrust of the mainstream press.
This gap between media narratives and public sentiment reinforces Trump’s claims of “fake news.” His supporters view the negative coverage as a deliberate attempt to undermine his administration, while the media insists it is reporting “the truth” and defending democracy. However, the press’s disregard for achievements such as 2.7% economic growth and new limits on Iran’s nuclear program only deepens the divide between it and large segments of the public. The $20 billion lawsuit against CBS over the edited Kamala Harris interview has become a symbol of this struggle—Trump’s supporters see it as further proof of media bias. At the same time, his critics view it as an effort to silence legitimate scrutiny.
Photographer in the Briefing Room
With Trump’s entry into the White House, the administration announced a new policy that changed the makeup of the White House briefing room, granting unprecedented access to independent media outlets, including podcasters and digital content creators, at the expense of traditional media. The move, led by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, included removing permanent seats of news agencies like Reuters and Bloomberg from the press pool, replacing them with a rotation in which independent media received more consistent access. Leavitt stated that the goal was “to open the briefing room to diverse voices that represent the American people,” giving preference to outlets that “adhere to truth and accuracy.” The move sparked a media storm, exposed the polarization between traditional and independent media, and ignited a lively debate on government-media relations, public trust in journalism, and the rise of right-wing conservative independent press.
Tim Pool, a popular conservative podcaster added to the press pool in late March, became a central figure in the debate after his first appearance in the briefing room on April 23. Wearing his iconic beanie and a “hoodie” shirt, Pool opened his question with a scathing speech against the traditional journalists in the room. He accused them of “collaborating with false narratives,” saying: “Many of the media outlets in this room marched along with lies, including the current one about the so-called ‘Man from Maryland’ hoax, where an MS-13 gang member, convicted by two separate judges, is repeatedly portrayed simply as a ‘man from Maryland.’” His remarks caused an uproar among the reporters, but Leavitt responded positively: “We welcome diverse perspectives, and Tim is here because we value journalists who stick to the truth.”
Unsurprisingly, the traditional media reacted with outrage to the new policy. The New York Times published an editorial titled “Trump Attacks Press Freedom with New Briefing Room Policy,” claiming the move was “a deliberate attempt to silence legitimate criticism,” warning of harm to democratic transparency. CNN aired a panel on April 25 in which anchor Jim Acosta said: “Trump doesn’t want journalists who ask tough questions – he wants fans who praise him.” Acosta called the move “a dangerous step toward government propaganda.” The Washington Post published an opinion piece by David Ignatius on April 26, arguing that “bringing in independent media like Tim Pool, known for supporting Trump, turns the briefing room into a circus.” The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) urged the administration to return to an equitable policy, calling it essential for democracy.
In contrast, the independent media, mostly aligned with conservative right-wing views, celebrated the move. Pool praised the policy on his podcast: “We finally have a seat at the table – the mainstream media has lied to the public for years, and now the American people can hear the truth from us.” The Daily Wire joined the celebration, with its founder Ben Shapiro writing: “Trump did the right thing – the mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for the left, and it’s time conservative voices get equal airtime.” Podcaster Megyn Kelly added: “This is a blow to the mainstream media, which thought it could control the narrative forever.”
Moderate voices expressed mixed concern and recognized the need for reform. Axios published an analysis titled “Trump’s Briefing Room: Revolution or Propaganda?” stating: “Introducing new voices can enhance transparency, but prioritizing pro-Trump media raises concerns about journalistic independence.”
This policy is a strategic step aimed at reshaping the relationship between the administration and the media, leveraging the public’s loss of trust in traditional outlets and the rise of right-wing independent press. In addition, it allows the administration to control the media narrative by providing direct access to conservative audiences through digital platforms and independent media that attract millions of viewers who feel unrepresented by legacy networks. The move also pressures traditional media to alter their coverage, fearing complete loss of access to the broader public. The rapidly growing conservative independent media has gained significant momentum and strengthened its status as a legitimate player, particularly among younger audiences who consume news via YouTube and podcasts.
In the U.S., as in Israel, attitudes toward the media are a central litmus test of the public’s political worldview. This underscores how much the media has become biased and politicized, in contrast to its claim to be “the messenger simply delivering information.”
