ABC Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment; The New York Times, May 8, 2026

 Jim Rutenberg and John Koblin , The New York Times; ABC Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment

The network’s argument, made to the F.C.C., is the most aggressive posture taken yet by a television network toward the Trump administration.

"ABC has accused the Federal Communications Commission of violating its free speech rights, potentially setting the stage for a protracted, high-stakes legal battle between the network and the Trump administration.

The company said in a filing with the agency that regulators had a “chilling effect” on free speech by trying to punish political content they disagreed with. The filing, made public on Friday, is the most aggressive defense from any television network since President Trump kicked off an extended campaign last year to bring media organizations to heel.

It represented a striking departure for ABC. The network, under the corporate stewardship of the Walt Disney Company, set an early tone of compliance toward Mr. Trump when it settled a defamation lawsuit with him for $15 million in December 2024. Many legal experts considered Mr. Trump’s case unlikely to succeed in court.

The filing was registered on behalf of a single ABC station in Houston and involved a minor regulatory dispute over the talk show “The View.” But in a signal of its importance, the company’s paperwork was signed by one of the most experienced Supreme Court litigators in the country, Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush."

Trump Library Saga Takes Dark Turn: Where Did Millions in Funding Go?; The New Republic, April 20, 2026

 Greg Sargent, The New Republic ; Trump Library Saga Takes Dark Turn: Where Did Millions in Funding Go?

Four huge media conglomerates forked over $63 million in “settlements” earmarked for Trump’s presidential library. Democrats are trying to track that money—and the latest developments don’t inspire confidence.

"Last year, four huge companies pledged tens of millions of dollars to help fund the creation of Donald Trump’s presidential library, a planned monstrosity in Miami that—in a perfect Trumpian twist—may also double as a hotel. The companies—ABC; Paramount; Meta; and X, formerly Twitter—entered into the agreements with Trump to settle legal cases he’d brought against them, which experts had dismissed as dubious.

Now there’s been an important new turn in this saga. The four companies have provided fresh information to Senate Democrats in written responses to their questions. For these Democrats, those responses—obtained by The New Republic—raise more questions than they answer. 

In these formal replies, all four companies confirmed that they did pledge that money to Trump’s library—itself a notable development. More importantly, however, the Democrats say the responses reveal that the money is still largely unaccounted for.

“Not one of these companies can say with any clarity where their multi-million-dollar donations to Donald Trump’s library slush fund are, or where they will go,” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who’s taken the lead in tracking this money, tells me in a statement."

Democrats ask what happened to millions earmarked for Trump’s library; The Washington Post, March 11, 2026

 

Dan Diamond

 and 

Aaron Schaffer

, The Washington Post; Democrats ask what happened to millions earmarked for Trump’s library

ABC, Meta, Paramount and X reportedly agreed to pay at least $63 million in settlements with the president. The original fund was dissolved last year.

"Congressional Democrats are opening a probe into millions of dollars private companies pledged to President Donald Trump’s planned presidential library, asking what happened to the money after the original fund was dissolved last year.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) and Rep. Melanie Stansbury (New Mexico) wrote Monday to the leaders of ABC, Meta, Paramount and X, requesting information about the terms of their agreements and the status of the funds they pledged to hand over to the president’s representatives. The letters were shared with The Washington Post."

ABC just took a moral stand on Roseanne. Spoiler alert: Donald Trump won't.; CNN, May 29, 2018

Chris Cillizza, CNN; ABC just took a moral stand on Roseanne. Spoiler alert: Donald Trump won't.

"ABC's decision to cancel Roseanne Barr's eponymous show following a racist comment she made about former Obama administration official Valerie Jarrett on Twitter was shocking for two reasons.

First, because it amounted to a TV network drawing a moral line in the sand -- insisting that no amount of money or ratings gave Roseanne the right to express views that ABC described in a statement as "abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values."

Second, because that decision to take a moral stand represents a stark contrast from the moral relativism preached by the president of the United States.

Donald Trump is different from anyone who has held the office before him in all sorts of ways. But, to my mind, the biggest -- and most critical -- difference between Trump and his predecessors is his total abdication of the concept of the president as a moral leader for the country and the world."