Can NYT And NPR Court Wins Against Trump Administration Help Freedom Of Press Globally?

In less than two weeks, the US government has been found liable for obstructing freedom of press under First Amendment rights twice—first in a New York Times case and second by public broadcaster NPR. In times of uncertainty about how free our press really is— both in the US and in India— such rulings can be a glimmer of hope. But their existence raises a fundamental question; who has the right to ask questions, and who among these presses are credible enough to deliver information to the general public?

And while these two ‘wins’ for free press are encouraging, governments have been equally enthusiastic in suing or even arresting journalists for exercising the right of free press. 

But first, let's unpack the two US cases from last month. A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and for the public to choose what it reads, free of any official proscription—this is the first sentence in the court order against the Pentagon in a New York Times lawsuit.

The District Court of Columbia order, in the New York Times vs Department of Defence notes, ‘Times and its reporter have this lawsuit to preserve and defend these principles against the overzealous actions by the secretary of defence and the department he leads’. So why did one of most recognisable newspapers globally for English speaking audiences file a case against the government?  The lawsuit was filed in December 2025, shortly after the Pentagon introduced new restrictions on reporting about the military. Under these restrictions, the reporters must sign an affidavit to publish material only approved by the US military. Failing to do so, or reporting on defence and military updates or investigations without approval, would lead to the reporter losing access to the Pentagon. 

This is not unlike the highly censored press of Israel. Outlook had accessed a circular by the Israeli military on ‘censorship’ rules for reporting from the country. It stated journalists were not allowed to report on anything related to injuries, death count, and loss of military equipment. It further stated anything to be published must be approved by the military. Israel is known to tightly control information and is very selective what the public in the country and the world outside can know. So this eerily similar move by the US government, the land of the free and First Amendment, raised suspicion among members of the media. 

During the court hearings, and siding with the New York Times, the federal judge found this move to be ‘unconstitutional’ and an infringement of the First Amendment.

Fast forward two weeks, and NPR’s case was heard in the court. NPR et al also won the case against the US government. Judge Randolph Moss of the The District Court for the District of Columbia, said “the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power – including the power of the purse – 'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others,” as quoted by NPR. 

The case pertains to Presidential executive order 14290, which had barred federal funding for NPR and PBS—both state broadcasters—accusing them of ‘ideological biases’. In essence, their news was not very favourable to Trump, unlike his Fox and friends. 

Katherine Maher, President & CEO, NPR said in their article, “The court made clear that the government cannot use funding as a lever to influence or penalize the press, whether as a national news service or a local newsroom. Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official. NPR and our Member organizations will continue delivering independent, fact-based, high-quality reporting to communities across the United States, regardless of the administration of the day.”

Though both the court orders are reassuring in their essence, do they hold any real world impact? For instance, on March 23rd, New York Times accused the Pentagon of adopting new ways to restrict journalists after the court loss. The area which journalists used forever as their media centre is being closed off, a new area will be built, and only those journalists with a government escort will be allowed. 

As Ian Malcolm in says in Jurassic Park, ‘life finds a way’, in the real world, the post-truth, democratically authoritarian world, press suppression also finds a way. 

While one can dissect court orders and its real world impacts, here is something happening constantly. Trump’s direct and indirect threats to journalists. 

In January this year, former CNN host and now independent journalist Don Lemon was arrested for covering an anti-ICE protest in Minnesota. Protesters held banners like ‘Pam Bondi Has To Go’, ‘F*** ICE’, ‘Free The Press’ and more. Critics claimed ‘Lemon was arrested for literally reporting news’.

Press suppression doesn’t always come with handcuffs. When Bloomberg’s Catherine Lucy tried to ask Trump about Epstein, he heckled her by saying ‘quiet piggy’. In 2025, after Mary Bruce’s questions related to killed journalist Jamal Kasshogi, Trump called her ‘terrible person, terrible reporter’. He has repeatedly called news outlets that don’t paint in positive colours as fake news, rabid leftists, lunatics. He even threatened those with unfavourable Iran war and Trump coverage could lose their media licences forever.

So things are clearly bad for free press in USA. But how does India, which hasn’t had any press conferences by a prime minister in eleven years, fare comparatively? 

In March of 2026, MEITY introduced new amendments to draft IT rules which would disallow news content from individuals on social media and other platforms. In a way, it is ringing the death knell for independent journalists. 

India has also frequently arrested journalists for the crime of reporting, such as Siddique Kappan who was detained en route to report on the Hathras rape and murder, and charged with serious charged like the UAPA. Gauri Lankesh was even allegedly killed for unfavourable reporting.

Outlook’s Voices from the Prison issue featured many more voices from journalists like Siddique Kappan who were silenced with arrests and court cases. 

While credible journalists get silenced, misinformation get amplified. It was a journalist, several actually, who popularised the disinformation of ‘40 beheaded babies’ by Hamas which turned public sentiment against Gaza. During Operation Sindoor, news channels became a breeding ground for misinformation; even showing missile strikes in Gaza as ‘current’ strikes in Jammu. Even in the current war, the US-Israel war on Iran, misinformation (aided by AI) gets more visibility than journalists attempting to report on the truth. 

For all its flaws, the US has something the Indian press does not. Freedom of Press protected by the Constitution.

For India, press members can quote article 19 which protects freedom of speech and expression for its citizens. But the media itself isn’t explicitly protected anywhere.

For the USA, freedom of press is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment. The press is also protected from government interference explicitly. It is the duty of the judiciary, the democracy, the constitution to ensure a journalist is neither suppressed nor influenced nor threatened with undue consequences for simply doing their job.

In press freedom global rankings 2025, USA slipped this year to be at 57 (problematic) and the RSF credits this to Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on free press.

India bettered its stand slightly, placed at 151 (very serious) out of 180 countries. RSF believes there is legal pressure, threats, and media ownership concerns against journalists