March 27, 2025

With Trump in Office, How Much Will TV Networks Self-Censor?

US broadcasters’ cowardice around the “Gulf of America” throws into question their future coverage of climate change.

Mark Hertsgaard

The White House Press Briefing Room on February 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.


(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

“When the other three estates fail, when the judiciary and the executive and the legislative branches fail us, the Fourth Estate has to succeed,” actor George Clooney said last Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, America’s top rated TV news program for 50 years. Clooney was promoting his appearance in the Broadway production of Good Night, and Good Luck, his 2005 movie about Edward R. Murrow, the legendary CBS News broadcaster who, in the 1950s, stood up to the witch hunting of McCarthyism. A lesson from that era applies today as well, Clooney added: “Journalism and telling truth to power has to be waged, like war is waged. It doesn’t just happen accidentally. It takes people saying, ‘We’re going to do these stories and you’re going to have to come after us.’”

Unfortunately, America’s major TV networks sent quite the opposite message in their coverage of stranded NASA astronauts’ return to Earth. Eagle-eyed media writer Oliver Darcy disclosed the details in his Status newsletter, focusing on the refusal of ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and CNN “to call the body of water [the astronauts] splashed into….the Gulf of Mexico, the water feature’s name since the 16th century.”

“Instead,” Darcy continued, “television news organizations tied themselves in knots, performing linguistic gymnastics to stay out of Donald Trump’s crosshairs, while also tiptoeing around audiences who would have surely been incensed to see them bend the knee and call it the ‘Gulf of America.’”

The corresponding question for climate reporting almost asks itself: Will US broadcasters now be similarly squeamish about stating as fact the long-settled science that climate change is real, extremely dangerous, and caused mainly by burning fossil fuels? Will news organizations perhaps stop using the term “climate change” altogether, now that Trump has had it removed from many government websites? Such self-censorship would not only mislead the public but betray journalism’s civic responsibility to hold power accountable. “Words are the front lines of truth,” Darcy wrote, “and once they’re ceded, it becomes far easier for strongmen like Trump to shape reality.”

The deeper problem is that journalists are under pressure not only from Trump but from their corporate owners. It’s no accident that ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN all capitulated by employing “off the coast of Florida” or other euphemisms for the Gulf of Mexico, Darcy argued. Broadcast news operations, he noted, have “standards departments” that rule on what their reporters can and cannot say on the air—departments that answer to corporate superiors.

It’s understandable that TV networks want to retain their White House access. But Trump has an insatiable craving for attention and wants TV cameras inside the White House as much as the networks do. Instead of caving to his absurd demands, TV networks and their owners might want to remember a lesson from grade school: Not standing up to a bully only encourages more bullying.

Bear in mind as well the animating fact of Covering Climate Now’s 89 Percent Project: The vast majority of the world’s people—80 to 89 percent, according to recent science—want their governments to take stronger climate action. This overwhelming majority is but one indication among many that Trump’s authoritarianism, like his long-standing climate denial, isn’t popular with the mass public that TV news in particular targets. Leaning into better climate coverage is likelier to appeal to that mass public than bending the knee to a wannabe dictator.

Mark Hertsgaard

Mark Hertsgaard is the environment correspondent of The Nation and the executive director of the global media collaboration Covering Climate Now. His new book is Big Red’s Mercy:  The Shooting of Deborah Cotton and A Story of Race in America.

More from The Nation

A man holds a plaque reading “No War for Oil” in front of the US Embassy in Dublin.

The US Is a Violent Petro-State The US Is a Violent Petro-State

Trump’s attack on Venezuela illustrates fossil fuels’ many perils.

Mark Hertsgaard

The Park Fire burns through the night on July 30, 2024, near Chico, California.

What Justice on a Burning Planet? What Justice on a Burning Planet?

Andreas Malm and Thea Riofrancos joined The Nation’s Wen Stephenson in an urgent conversation about the left and the climate emergency.

Q&A / Wen Stephenson, Andreas Malm, and Thea Riofrancos

Salmon swimming against the current to spawn in the streams in Alaska in August 2025.

The Fight for the Last Wild Salmon The Fight for the Last Wild Salmon

In Alaska, the last stronghold for wild salmon, Native tribes and conservationists are working to save the fish from both climate change and decades of corporate greed.

StudentNation / Colin Warren

What Your Cheap Clothes Cost the Planet

What Your Cheap Clothes Cost the Planet What Your Cheap Clothes Cost the Planet


A global supply chain built for speed is leaving behind waste, toxins, and a trail of environmental wreckage.

Feature / Sachi Mulkey and Rebecca McCarthy

Chris Packham addresses the audience at a National Emergency Briefing on the climate and nature crisis, at Central Hall Westminster on November 27, 2025, in London, England.

The UK’s Climate National Emergency Briefing Should Be a Wake-Up Call to Everyone The UK’s Climate National Emergency Briefing Should Be a Wake-Up Call to Everyone

The briefing was a rare coordinated effort to make sure the media reflects the science: Humanity’s planetary house is on fire, but we have the tools to put that fire out.

Mark Hertsgaard

A man on a rooftop looks at approaching flames as the Springs fire continues to grow on May 3, 2013, near Camarillo, California.

AI Will Only Intensify Climate Change. The Tech Moguls Don’t Care. AI Will Only Intensify Climate Change. The Tech Moguls Don’t Care.

The AI phenomenon may functionally print money for tech billionaires, at least for the time being, but it comes with a gargantuan environmental cost.

Juan Cole