First Amendment blues: Trump's press bans stir echoes of the past

Watching Donald Trump’s White House security snatch the credentials of journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, I couldn't help but feel a chilling wave of déjà vu. I've seen all this before.

For those of us who fought the original script, this isn’t just a assault on the First Amendment—it’s a direct page from the autocrat’s playbook. Decades ago, during my time with the Philippine News, we proudly wore our bias on our sleeves: we were unabashedly, fiercely, and unapologetically against the brutal Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship. From the safety of the diaspora, we published the truth that Marcos tried to bury when he declared martial law in 1972.

Seeing history rhyme like this in the American press briefing room is a stark reminder of what happens when a leader decides the truth is his enemy.

Shuttling the Truth: The Marcos model vs. today

When Marcos signed Proclamation 1081 in September 1972, his very first move wasn't just to arrest political rivals—it was to send the military to shut down independent newspapers like The Manila Times and television networks like ABS-CBN. He silenced the free press overnight because tyrants cannot survive a spotlight.

At the San Francisco-based Philippine News, we knew the stakes. We saw how Marcos arrested our fellow journalists and replaced legitimate journalism with "crony media" — outlets owned by his billionaire buddies who served up state-sanctioned sycophancy. 

Fast forward to 2026: Trump’s ban of major news organizations from the White House might not involve tanks at the printing presses, but the DNA of the action is identical. He isn't even hiding the motive, explicitly posting on Truth Social that the ban could be lifted if these outlets start giving "favorable coverage." That isn't press relations; that is demanding a crony press.

The lie: "Threat to the State" 

Every dictator needs a bogeyman to justify censorship. Both Trump and Marcos used the same lie to justify their actipns.

Marcos claimed independent journalists were communist subversives destabilizing the Philippines.

Similarly, Trump claims these targeted outlets report "fiction and lies" and calls independent media a "threat to our National Security."

When you label reporters as enemies of the state, you open the door to stripping away their rights. We saw it in Manila, and we are seeing the groundwork laid right here in Washington.

“This is a serious concern for the public, because an attack on one outlet is an attack on everyone,” said former White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) president Weijia Jiang in a Fox News interview. “No matter where that outlet falls on the political spectrum. It is limiting the amount of information that reporters inside can gather, can excavate, to give back to the public.”

The edge we hold today

There is, however, a critical difference that gives this old journalist hope. When Marcos declared martial law, the Philippine democratic institutions collapsed under military force with the tacit support from the US under then President Richard Nixon.

Today in the US, the resistance is immediate. The banned outlets have already thrown down the gauntlet with major First Amendment lawsuits. Even better, competing networks—including ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox — showed a flash of real spine by suspending the White House TV pool in solidarity.

At the Philippine News, we had to fight from the margins to keep the flame of a free press alive for a captive nation. Today, the American press corps is fighting back in real-time. We’d better hope they win, because once you let a president decide who gets to ask the questions, you no longer live in a democracy.

The swift retaliation came not a moment too soon. Following President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to lock reporters out of the White House, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico fired back on Monday by filing a joint First Amendment lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

"A free press is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the public depends on independent reporting to hold those in power accountable," stated the Asian American Journalists Association.  "AAJA urges the government to respect the First Amendment and restore full, equal access to the journalists."

View from the edge

The legal challenge aims to immediately halt a selective ban that stripped journalists of their press badges simply because the administration dislikes their coverage. But as this high-stakes battle over press freedom unfolds, legal analysts are already looking past the lower courts, eyeing a much steeper uphill climb that most likely ultimately land before a deeply conservative Supreme Court.

While the banned outlets have secured top-tier legal representation—enlisting attorney Ted Boutrous, who famously won back press access during the first Trump administration—their path forward is fraught with judicial uncertainty.

Lower courts have historically protected journalists against arbitrary viewpoint discrimination, ruling that the government cannot yank credentials merely because it detests a reporter’s tone. However, getting past an emergency injunction hearing is only the first step. 

If the aTrump regime appeals successive rulings, the case could wind its way upward to a conservative-majority Supreme Court that has increasingly favored broad executive authorities and reshaped long-standing constitutional interpretations. 

Whether this current bench — known for its conservative judicial philosophy — will strictly enforce traditional First Amendment protections against government gatekeeping remains the ultimate, precarious question for the future of American independent journalism.

Ultimately, it was the people who chased Marcos out of the Philippines in what has become known as the People Power Revolution urged on by the clergy and backed by principled military leaders.

In the US, hopefully, we hopefully don't have to resort to that level of resistance. We, the people, still can express their disppleasure of the swannabe strongman occupying the White House today at the ballot box. We don't have to wait until 2028 for the Presidential elections, our revolt can start this November.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.