ABC News Just Showed Trump Exactly How to Silence Journalists
Last week, ABC News made a decision that should alarm anyone who cares about press freedom: it agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million and issue a public apology over accurate reporting about his sexual abuse case. This wasn’t just a settlement—it was a surrender, and the implications for journalism are deeply troubling.
The details matter here. ABC is paying Trump $15 million (which will go to his “future presidential foundation and museum”) plus $1 million in legal fees because George Stephanopoulos used the phrase “liable for rape” when discussing Trump’s E. Jean Carroll case verdict. While the jury technically found Trump liable for sexual abuse rather than rape, even the judge noted this distinction was largely semantic, writing that the verdict didn’t mean Carroll had “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”
In other words, ABC is paying Trump $16 million over what amounts to careful, defensible journalism.
As Margaret Sullivan points out in her latest American Crisis newsletter, this settlement breaks a cardinal rule of journalism: Don’t cave to legal intimidation. Drawing from her experience as editor of The Buffalo News, Sullivan explains that news organizations traditionally refuse to settle defamation cases because “settling would only encourage more people to sue.” Once you show that bullying works, you invite more bullying.
But that was a different era of journalism, wasn’t it? Before news organizations were just small divisions of massive entertainment conglomerates. Today, ABC News isn’t just ABC News—it’s Disney. And Disney has theme parks to protect, movies to distribute, and countless other business interests that could be affected by a vindictive president.
The timing here is impossible to ignore. Just days before the settlement, Disney executives had dinner with Trump’s transition team in Florida. Sure, ABC claims this was just a routine meeting about transition coverage. But this is the same Trump who spent his campaign threatening to strip ABC of its broadcasting license and attacking its debate moderators for fact-checking him.
Legal experts say ABC likely would have won if it’d fought back. As law professor RonNell Andersen Jones told the New York Times, news organizations typically avoid these settlements because they have “the full weight of the First Amendment on their side.”
But Disney apparently decided that legal principle wasn’t worth the risk to its broader business interests. And that’s what makes this so dangerous.
Sullivan cites historian Timothy Snyder’s crucial insight about resisting autocracy: “Do not obey in advance.” When institutions preemptively submit to potential autocrats, they teach those autocrats what they can get away with. ABC News just gave Trump a blueprint for how to bend media organizations to his will.
Trump’s already taking his victory lap. “The media is tamed down a little bit,” he crowed at the New York Stock Exchange. “They like us much better now, I think. If they don’t then we’ll just have to take them on again, and we don’t want to do that.”
That’s not a subtle threat. It’s an explicit one. And ABC News just proved it works.
Remember back in May when Stephanopoulos appeared on Stephen Colbert’s show and declared he wouldn’t be “cowed out of doing my job because of the threat of Donald Trump”? The audience cheered. But apparently, Disney executives had other ideas.
This is how press freedom erodes—not through dramatic crackdowns, but through corporate calculation. When news organizations are owned by massive conglomerates, journalism becomes just another business interest to be traded away when convenient.
The message to other journalists is clear: Challenge Trump at your own risk. Your corporate owners might not have your back. And that’s exactly how authoritarianism grows—through institutions that choose appeasement over principle, that teach power what it can do by surrendering before they’re even asked.
ABC News didn’t just cave to Trump. It helped write the playbook for crushing press freedom. The question now is: Who’s next?