COLUMN: Trump Attacks the Press in Times of War — The Reflex of Autocrats Who Feel the Ground Shaking

One billion euros a day for a war no one asked for

According to estimates by Libération, the military operation in Iran costs about one billion euros a day. One billion. Per day. While Americans are rationing their medications, while the road infrastructure is crumbling, while the national debt continues to swell like a financial tumor. Trump had promised to end the “endless wars.” He has just launched a new one. And Americans have taken notice.

The gap between triumphant rhetoric and reality

Opinion polls reveal what Trump is desperately trying to drown out with insults: widespread skepticism. The term comes from Libération, but the reality is harsher. Americans don’t buy into the narrative of “resounding success.” They see images of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. They see gas prices soaring. They see Southeast Asian countries forced to “adapt to the oil crisis.” Propaganda works as long as reality doesn’t hit people in the wallet. When filling up the tank feels like a war every time you pull up to the pump, no angry tweet can contain the discontent.

Nixon, Bush, and now Trump

The major U.S. media outlets, notes Libération, “acknowledge that attempts at censorship in times of war are as old as war coverage itself.” They’re right. Nixon had his “media enemies.” Bush turned patriotism into a weapon to discredit anyone who questioned the Iraq War. And yet, there is a fundamental difference. Nixon did not have an FCC chairman ready to revoke licenses. Bush did not have an allied billionaire ready to buy out recalcitrant networks. Trump has an anti-press arsenal that his predecessors would not even have dared to imagine.

Takeover as Disguised Censorship

Hegseth publicly rejoiced—from the Pentagon’s official podium—that David Ellison would soon take control of CNN through Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Consider the obscenity of the scene. A Secretary of Defense, in the midst of a war, is using his official position to celebrate the takeover of a critical media outlet by a political ally. This is no longer intimidation. It is authoritarian consolidation in real time, filmed, broadcast, and presented as a victory.

Mark Thompson’s Response

In the face of this coordinated offensive, CNN published a lengthy article reiterating the right—and above all the necessity—for the media to cover the war in Iran. Mark Thompson, the network’s CEO and former head of the BBC and The New York Times, stated: “No threat or political insult will change that. ” It’s a powerful statement. It’s necessary. But it masks a more fragile reality. CNN knows Ellison is coming. CNN knows that defamation lawsuits—even if lost—cost millions in legal fees. CNN knows that every day of resistance is one more day under financial pressure.

The First Amendment as the Last Line of Defense

And yet, the First Amendment holds. For now. It holds because newsrooms refuse to bow down. It holds because journalists continue to ask the tough questions. It holds because the American tradition of a free press—imperfect, commercial, and sometimes failing—remains, despite everything, the immune system of democracy. But an immune system can break down. It can grow weary. It eventually gives way if the attacks are repeated often enough and coordinated effectively enough.

When “treason” Replaces “Criticism”

Trump accused the media of “treason.” The word is not insignificant. Under U.S. law, treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution. It is punishable by death. When a sitting president labels media coverage of a war “treason,” he isn’t just engaging in rhetoric. He is weaponizing language. He is turning democratic debate into a criminal act. He is singling out targets. And in a country where death threats against journalists have skyrocketed since 2017, the president’s words are never just words.

The word “criminal” as a tool of dehumanization

“Criminals.” That’s the other term Trump uses to describe the journalists covering his war. Not “opponents.” Not “critics.” Criminals. The semantic shift is deliberate. An adversary is someone you fight in debate. A criminal is someone you lock up. By labeling the press as criminal, Trump isn’t trying to win an argument. He’s laying the groundwork to make repression seem legitimate.

A Full-Scale Test for Institutions

The offensive against the media in the context of the war in Iran is not an isolated incident. It is a systemic test. Trump is testing how far he can go in using executive power to silence dissent. The FCC as his enforcement arm. The Pentagon as his political platform. The courts as a tool for wearing down opponents. Billionaire allies as buyers of recalcitrant media outlets. Every piece of the puzzle is in place.

Nervousness as a Sign

Libération uses the right word: nervousness. The intimidation attempts “betray a certain nervousness on the part of the Trump camp.” That is the crucial point. A president confident in his war does not make three phone calls to a journalist to ask if it’s “impressive.” A Secretary of Defense confident in his strategy doesn’t devote his press conference to attacking CNN. Aggression toward the press is inversely proportional to confidence on the ground.

Why CNN Was Specifically Targeted on This Issue

Of all the possible media coverage, it was the reporting on the Strait of Hormuz that sparked Hegseth’s fury. This is no coincidence. The Strait of Hormuz is the Achilles’ heel of any military intervention in the Middle East. Its closure—already underway, according to reports—directly affects oil and gas supplies to Europe, Asia, and the entire world. Southeast Asian countries are “adapting to the oil crisis,” according to Libération. Gas prices are skyrocketing. The world is trembling.

When Economic Reality Contradicts the Heroic Narrative

Trump is selling an “impressive” war. Reality responds with a global energy crisis. It is this dissonance that the media is exposing and that the administration is trying to stifle. Because you can lie about the number of targets destroyed. You can lie about strategic objectives. But you can’t lie about the price of gas. Every American, every European, every Asian who fills up their tank feels firsthand that this war has consequences Trump refuses to acknowledge.

Who is Trump’s real enemy in this war?

Ask yourself this question. In three weeks of war, has Trump devoted as much energy to explaining his military strategy as he has to attacking journalists? Has he made as many phone calls to the families of deployed soldiers as he has to reporters seeking praise? The answer lies in the question itself. And that answer paints a picture of a president for whom the main enemy is not Tehran—it’s the truth.

What History Will Remember

The history of the American press in times of war is a history of constant tension between national security and the right to information. This tension is healthy. It is constitutional. It is necessary. What is neither healthy, nor constitutional, nor necessary is for a president to use federal regulators as a club, the courts as a machine for financial exhaustion, and corporate takeovers as a tool for bringing people to heel. That has a name. And that name is not “democracy.”

The scenario no one wants to imagine

Let’s imagine for a moment. Ellison buys Warner Bros. and takes control of CNN. A $15 billion defamation lawsuit forces The New York Times to tone down its coverage. The FCC revokes a regional media outlet’s license to set an example. The others get the message. And suddenly, the war in Iran is covered only by official sources. The death toll is no longer reported. Mistakes are no longer documented. Lies are no longer exposed. This scenario is not science fiction. Every piece of it already exists.

Resistance as a Duty

Mark Thompson said, “No political threat or insult will change that.” That “that” is the right to cover a war. To ask questions. To document the facts. That right exists only if it is exercised. A right that is no longer exercised out of fear is no longer a right—it is a memory. And yet, in the face of a president who turns the word “criticism” into “treason” and the word “journalist” into “criminal,” exercising this right becomes an act of physical courage.

When the Attack on the Press Is an Admission

There is a bitter irony in this war against the media being waged in parallel with a war against Iran. Trump bombs Tehran in the name of democracy and fundamental rights. At the same time, he is destroying press freedom at home. He claims to be liberating Iranians from a regime that censors the media—while threatening to revoke the licenses of American media outlets. The mirror is merciless, but Trump has long since stopped looking into it.

What Americans see when they look for themselves

The polls don’t lie. Americans’ “widespread” skepticism isn’t just a rejection of war in Iran. It’s a rejection of institutionalized lies. When a president calls reality a betrayal, citizens eventually come to understand that it isn’t reality that’s treacherous—it’s the president who’s afraid of it.

Three Weeks of War, Three Observations

First observation: Trump lacks the narrative tools to sustain his war. Public opinion isn’t on his side. International allies are reluctant. The economic cost is visible and mounting. Second observation: the attack on the media isn’t just another authoritarian reflex—it’s the central pillar of the war’s communication strategy. Without control over the narrative, the war becomes unsellable. Third observation: The resistance of the American media, though real, is subject to financial and legal pressures that are unprecedented in modern U.S. history.

What’s at Stake Beyond Iran

The war in Iran will end. All wars end. But the mechanisms for controlling the press put in place during this war will survive the final bombardment. Brendan Carr’s FCC will remain. The legal precedents set by the $15 billion lawsuit will remain. The takeover of CNN by a Trump ally will remain. What is being built today under the guise of “national security” will become tomorrow’s permanent architecture of information control. And on that day, it will be too late to protest.

A choice that belongs to each individual

When a president calls the truth “treason,” when a secretary of defense insults the press from the Pentagon, when a regulator threatens to destroy media outlets for the crime of expressing an opinion—silence becomes complicity. Not the spectacular complicity of tyrants. The mundane complicity of those who look the other way. Who change the channel. Who shrug their shoulders. Who say, “It’s always the same anyway.” No. It’s not always the same. A U.S. president waging a war that costs a billion euros a day and devoting more energy to attacking journalists than to justifying his bombings—that’s not normal. And the day it becomes normal is the day we’ve already lost.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost