A President’s Crusade Against Criticism
One of the defining characteristics of Donald Trump’s presidency—and his life in the public eye—has been his relentless campaign against critics in the press. From the earliest days of his administration, he attacked major news outlets, branding them “fake news” or “enemies of the people” whenever they challenged his narrative. Most recently, this approach found a new target: The Wall Street Journal, a flagship of American business journalism long respected for its investigative rigor and center-right editorial stance.
Publicly, Trump has never shied away from voicing his frustrations with outlets that question his policies. During a particularly memorable episode aboard Air Force One, he sparred with a Wall Street Journal reporter, dismissing the paper as “rotten,” according to several present. The heated exchange did little to deter the Journal’s editorial board, who continued to publish pointed analyses warning about the dangers of Trump’s trade wars and tariffs. Their editorial page plainly stated that his global tariffs were doing “the opposite” of strengthening the U.S. economy—they drove prices up and risked creating shortages for American businesses and consumers alike.
Such editorials were not isolated. Since 2018, the Journal’s commentary has repeatedly criticized Trump’s protectionist bent, characterizing his attempted trade deals with the UK as “trade war defeats” and warning that these measures could “sink his presidency.” According to a 2023 Pew Research Center analysis, outlets that provided business coverage—like the Journal—were especially likely to raise the alarm about the longer-term impacts of unpredictable trade policies.
Tabloid Tactics vs. Business Integrity
Trump’s response to these warnings has not been an attempt to address legitimate policy concerns. Instead, he’s aired grievances on his Truth Social account, escalating calls for Rupert Murdoch to oust the Wall Street Journal’s leadership and install Keith Poole, the New York Post’s top editor.
For those less familiar with the inner workings of Murdoch’s media empire, some context is critical. The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal both operate under the News Corp umbrella, but share little else. The Post, with Keith Poole at its helm, has long been notorious for its tabloid bravado, splashy headlines, and overtly conservative, pro-Trump slant. The Journal, by contrast, has cultivated a reputation as the sober paper of record for Wall Street, producing deeply researched investigative pieces—sometimes at the expense of currying favor with high-profile politicians.
The notion that Poole could simply transition from the tabloid chaos of the Post to the investigative gravitas of the Journal reveals much about the president’s transactional approach to news coverage. Would this kind of editorial swap benefit readers, investors, or the broader public? Many media experts are skeptical. As Harvard journalism professor Samantha Klein puts it, “Blurring the line between tabloid sensationalism and financial reporting risks eroding trust not just in individual outlets, but in the very notion of objective journalism.”
“When a president openly threatens or attempts to influence who leads a major news outlet, that’s not bravado—that’s a warning sign for democracy and press freedom. The Wall Street Journal’s value is in its willingness to scrutinize those in power, not to serve as their public relations desk.”
— Jane Dougherty, Media Ethics Fellow
Murdoch, whose immense News Corp conglomerate spans continents, is no stranger to behind-the-scenes editorial dealings. Yet, as of this writing, he’s shown no inclination in public to bow to Trump’s wishes. Perhaps Murdoch, ever the pragmatist, recognizes that The Wall Street Journal’s brand—and its credibility among investors—depends on rigorous, independent journalism, not on serving as an echo chamber for one politician’s grievances.
Media Influence, Political Power, and the Stakes for Democracy
Why does Trump’s campaign against the Journal’s leadership matter far beyond the walls of News Corp? When the nation’s most powerful public officials pressure media owners to remake editorial boards in their own image, the lines between press and politics start to blur dangerously. The chilling effect is real: Reporters and editors may feel pressured to temper honest analysis for fear of retaliation or loss of their jobs. On a larger scale, as journalism historian Marvin Ellis notes, “authoritarian regimes throughout the last century have often started by commandeering or silencing the independent press.”
Beyond that, Trump’s framing of this editorial replacement as a strike against a “China Centric” Journal and a “great day for America” is telling. This rhetoric deftly exploits nationalist sentiment—casting principled criticism of his trade policies as the handiwork of foreign interests. The real casualty, of course, is honest debate about what’s best for U.S. workers and businesses.
Progressive values—open debate, factual reporting, institutional independence—are at stake whenever politicians attempt to chum the waters of major newsrooms with loyalists. The Wall Street Journal hasn’t always been a progressive ally, but its independence and analytical rigor matter for democracy. Readers and investors alike deserve a business press that calls it straight, not one that bends each headline to the will of whoever occupies the Oval Office.
For those who value diversity of opinion (and who understand how vital an independent press is for functional democracy), the latest Trump-Murdoch drama isn’t just tabloid fodder—it’s a flashing red light. The consequences of capitulating to one man’s campaign of editorial retaliation would echo far beyond the columns of the Journal, sending a dangerous signal about who calls the shots in our public discourse.
