The Trump administration's strategy for control isn't writing new authoritarian laws, but aggressively using latent executive authority that past administrations ignored. This demonstrates how a democracy's own structures can be turned against it without passing a single new piece of legislation, as seen with the FCC.

When facing government pressure for deals that border on state capitalism, a single CEO gains little by taking a principled stand. Resisting alone will likely lead to their company being punished while competitors comply. The pragmatic move is to play along to ensure long-term survival, despite potential negative effects for the broader economy.

The NYT CEO frames lawsuits and public denigration from political figures not as genuine legal or reputational threats, but as a calculated tactic to intimidate and deter high-quality, independent reporting. The company's explicit stance is to refuse to be cowed by this strategy.

Contrary to the belief that banning a book increases its sales (the Streisand effect), the current wave of book bans is successfully creating a chilling effect. This leads to decreased sales and access for authors, particularly those from marginalized groups.

Opponents with deep pockets can initiate lawsuits not necessarily to win, but to drain a target's financial resources and create immense stress. The astronomical cost and duration of the legal battle serve as the true penalty, forcing many to fold regardless of their case's merit.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is reversing decades of deregulation by reasserting control over broadcast TV content while maintaining a hands-off approach to the internet. This creates a free speech double standard where the delivery mechanism, not the content, determines government scrutiny, targeting weaker legacy media.

To circumvent First Amendment protections, the national security state framed unwanted domestic political speech as a "foreign influence operation." This national security justification was the legal hammer used to involve agencies like the CIA in moderating content on domestic social media platforms.

When faced with sustained political attacks and threats, a media organization may strategically shift from cautious appeasement to aggressive, adversarial journalism. This pivot reflects a calculation that defending journalistic integrity is a better brand and survival strategy than attempting to placate a hostile political actor.

Unlike Big Tech firms with nearly unlimited resources to fight legal battles, traditional media companies are financially weaker than ever. This economic vulnerability makes them susceptible to government pressure, as they often cannot afford the protracted litigation required to defend their First Amendment rights.