Amid the shock and whiplash of the first 60 days of Donald Trump’s second term as U.S. president, the global ecosystem in which news media companies operate has changed to favour Big Tech companies, the guardrails for AI have been lowered, and the principles on which journalism are based have come unhinged.

Beyond the fog of emotional issues such as immigration, tariffs, the Ukraine war, government cutbacks, withdrawing from international organisations, threats to traditional allies, and the deep cuts of U.S. aid worldwide, there are business topics that have made life for media publishers more challenging.

Much of what is happening with news media is being done without new laws, treaties, or executive orders. There is a lot of nodding, winking, and deference to the new Trump administration — inside and outside the United States. There is a lot of soft power being projected.

As if transforming from traditional business models to digital media isn’t challenging enough, now we must deal with the multi-front impacts of a U.S. administration that is changing the environment in which news media operates — with global ramifications. 

All the while, many of us are shifting from shock to anger to some kind of “new normal.” How media leaders react in the weeks and months ahead will say much for news media’s future. 

This blog attempts to break down the issues for news media executives so navigation is easier and remedies are quicker.

Big Tech repositions behind America First 

The biggest impact event thus far is how the Big Tech platforms are repositioning themselves behind the America First shield on regulation and legislation — threatening or delaying progress by news media leaders worldwide on fair compensation for content. 

This puts at risk:

• Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for the news media ecosystem. 

• The principle that publishers have the right to control how and where their content is used and shown.

With the tech titans sitting in front of the incoming Trump cabinet at the January inauguration, the message was clear. They have rallied behind the Trump agenda, and behind that shield they are acting more emboldened to challenge governments around the world on regulation and legislation.

In the past eight years, the Trump and Biden administrations worked sporadically with the U.S. Congress on a bipartisan basis to develop legal frameworks whereby news media companies would be compensated for the fair use of content — yet in both cases, the politicians came up short. 

Counterparts in Australia, Canada, France, Spain, and the European Union more broadly succeeded where the Americans failed by passing fair compensation laws — some with sharper teeth than others. Countries like Brazil, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have undergone detailed debate and review on fair compensation. 

These deals and draft laws are in limbo — and potentially in jeopardy. 

Despite inauguration appearances, the Trump Justice Department recently reaffirmed the Biden-era proposal to break up Google, which signals an antitrust aggressiveness on ad tech. Is this a solid policy signal or part of whiplash decision-making akin to Canadian tariffs? If the U.S. doesn’t proceed against Google, would the new European Commission ignore the trans-Atlantic chill and dare to proceed on its own?

Seven governments have initiated legal action against major tech companies, notably Google, over their advertising technology practices: France, United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, and Spain. 

Ad tech antitrust action by governments is one thing. The numerous legal class actions by media companies against Google on ad tech is another, bringing the ball directly into the media’s court. These cases are reaching final stages this year in many of the U.S. trading partner countries and will have vast ramifications whichever way they fall.

It is clear that the Trump administration’s America First shield has been having an effect in the past 60 days. 

For example, look at the Trump administration’s response to Australia’s proposal of a 3% digital services tax on Big Tech companies. The White House issued a memorandum warning of potential actions against countries imposing such “discriminatory” measures — unfairly targeting U.S. companies. 

As another example, the United States has warned countries to stop trying to tax the Big Tech platforms on their local earnings. 

The message from Washington is clear: Mess with our American Big Tech companies, and we might retaliate. 

In fact, the Big Tech shield is no longer a narrow defence but is part of a scattergun of broader attacks on trade deals, tariffs, taxes, and security. Apparently, governments are being conditioned to choose between becoming a trusted U.S. military and trade partner or continuing with their tech regulations.

The net effect of this environment is a new defiance from tech companies, some on the public record and others circulating in private conversations: 

• Ignoring fact-checking laws in Europe, and, transparently, informing the E.U. they were ignoring them.

• Threats to the U.K. government about pulling all funding in the country if its planned media bargaining laws are passed.

• Meta overtly ignoring the Australian and Canadian content payment laws, refusing further action. Both governments now concede defeat. Indeed, Canada has just resumed its ad spend on Meta’s platforms.

• Ignoring South Africa’s competition commission findings around algorithmic bias and data access disparities. 

The cruelest ramification is on actions not taken. INMA knows of multiple governments that have put regulations and legislation on hold out of fear of Trump administration tariffs or similar repercussions. Everyone is in “wait and see” mode. 

News media companies haven’t given up on seeking fair compensation and a cleanup of the ad tech ecosystem through legislative and judicial means, yet the America First shield is forcing a rethink of approach inside and outside the United States. 

Partially in reaction to these developments, top-tier media companies are increasingly seeking more direct connections with Big Tech. It also stems partially from the thinking that it’s best to take whatever money and software access you can, while you can. This dialogue is of rising importance. 

Yet that leaves the other 95% of the news industry in limbo. Without the collective power of legislative and judicial solutions, those smaller media companies don’t have the resources — and Big Tech has not yet expressed the will to meet them in the middle. 

The global pervasiveness of U.S.-based Big Tech means the adage “what happens in America stays in America” will never again be true in this space. In the case of the global tech giants, we know better.

A new environment for media companies 

While my eye has been on the Big Tech ramifications because these truly stretch around the world, so much else is happening around journalism and news media in the United States that has direct or indirect effects everywhere. 

For example: 

• AI regulation: As we saw in Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, the Trump administration is cautioning against stringent regulatory measures that could hinder the growth of AI — notably Europe’s regulatory approach. Parroting the Big Tech playbook, they argue the opportunities of AI are more important than the dangers. Some of the Trump administration’s AI goals are noble, such as prioritising AI to support job creation and economic development. Yet others are loaded with geopolitical dynamite, such as maintaining American leadership in AI and eliminating moderation of misinformation and hate speech.

• Weaponising lawsuits: We are seeing an acceleration of lawsuits aimed at U.S. news media as a primary weapon to tie up resources. Trump has championed this approach, and local clones are emerging. This is out of the anti-press freedom playbook from Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Venezuela, and elsewhere in recent years. The objective appears not to win in court but to flood the zone with lawsuits to neuter the press, delay indefinitely and tie up resources, or pocket a token settlement to declare a P.R. victory. The Trump administration revived investigations into major U.S. news broadcasters for alleged bias, while seeking to end federal funding for public broadcasters NPR and PBS. 

• Pullback of fact-checking: With the new relationship between Big Tech and the Trump administration coming into focus, Meta ended its third-party fact-checking programme and replaced it with a community moderation model used by X (formerly Twitter). YouTube also has relaxed its policies around fraud claims. Less spending on professional moderation saves Meta up to US$5 billion per year and 40,000 people on the payroll. 

• Withdrawal of U.S. aid for press freedom: Mostly through the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) programme, the Trump administration in February halted funding for government programmes supporting press freedom, democracy, and human rights internationally — freezing projects promoting independent media and democratic values, notably under repressive regimes. Trump cut funding to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which will impact pro-democracy groups in Asia that support independent journalism. 

• Voice of America and Radio Liberty: Vital U.S. government-funded international broadcasters Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty were financially gutted in March. VoA and RL supported journalists from localities where press freedoms are under pressure or non-existent.

• Cancellation of news subscriptions: The Trump administration has directed federal agencies to cancel media subscriptions under the guise of reducing government spending and eliminating left-wing biases. The State Department paused all media subscriptions worldwide that are not mission-critical. The White House has ordered all media contracts terminated. 

• Tariffs on Canadian newsprint: The threat of tariffs on Canadian imports could be a “last nail in the coffin” for many U.S. print products — notably smaller newspapers that rely heavily on those imports. 

All the while, the new Trump administration has manipulated how its White House is covered through the exclusion of the Associated Press from the Oval Office or seating limits for Reuters and HuffPost in lieu of friendly news influencers.

Quiet changes we dare talk about 

Much of what I cover in this blog is from the public record. Yet I want to look briefly at equally important developments — some making headlines, some not.

The Trump administration never had to issue an executive action or pass a law eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programmes at U.S. companies, yet their zealous efforts at the federal government level and university threats were enough body language for many companies to proactively eliminate them anyway.

Similarly, there is a hidden hand at work on three important issues related to news media:

• Media companies are pulling their punches to project neutrality. At the big media companies in the United States, this is manifesting itself in ownership-driven debates on who owns the voice of the news brand on opinion matters. Yet there are many subtle moves happening at local media companies, which need to open the valve of potential readers to those who have otherwise abandoned them. It’s hard to say where the line between “politics” and “business” really is. Several major newspapers have changed their editorial policy for the opinion section, a major group is doubling down on projecting neutrality in reporting language, and several news brands are eliminating overly biased cartoons. 

• There is a quiet pullback of the 2017-2021 journalism era of “truth” and “false equivalencies” to a lower standard. This is an important subject best served by associations focused on editorial matters, yet it is one business leaders need to be aware of. It’s not just about the journalism but how business professionals market the journalism. Did the leading lights of journalism go too far eight years ago? The answer likely lies in who your readership base is. Here’s how this impacts how publishers package the news: The first Trump bump was partly driven by framing subscriptions as memberships to the “Democracy Club,” and academic research showed these were the best-performing subscription pitches. In a very different environment today, publishers are now toning down their marketing to focus on other benefits such as unlimited access, mobile apps, 24/7 news updates, lifestyle coverage, and games. 

• The stage is being set for a redefinition of the press freedom ecosystem in the United States. An antagonistic Trump administration and a potentially compliant judiciary may soon test concepts such as “actual malice” and “prior restraint” protections in court. Press freedom won’t go away in the United States, but it may be redefined for the first time in six decades.  

What all of this means for news media

Distilling the “shock and awe” of the first 60 days of the Trump administration for news media into a few themes, I would prioritise these:

• Search and social are dirtier: The search and social ecosystems are becoming even dirtier as guardrails, fact-checking, and the imperfections of AI create a less reliable and trustworthy soup of results. Will news media content stand out amid the tsunami of AI and creators’ content? News media’s competitive strategy depends on successful differentiation. 

• Fair revenue future under threat: Future revenue pipelines for news media via fair compensation from Big Tech are thwarted in the short term, prompting a rethink on legislative and regulatory strategy. This threat is already pushing publishers to focus rapidly on direct relationships with consumers and reduce exposure and reliance on the Big Tech platforms — triggering the need for innovation such as better products, bolder subscription marketing, and new revenue models such as commerce and events. 

• Thumb on the scales: The emerging relationship between the U.S. Big Tech players and the Trump administration threatens to put a thumb on the scale in search results for government priorities in a way that’s never been seen before. Whoever controls the search results and social media feeds not only controls what “alternative content sources” to show — but also what professional journalism not to show. If Big Tech aligns with the new administration priorities, some news sources might get elevated while others are deprioritised, as we have quickly seen on Elon Musk’s X. Again, this forces publishers toward direct consumer relationships. 

• Costs rising: The cost of doing business at news media companies is going up with the need for more lawyers, more editors, and perhaps even more local fact-checkers. Journalism has become more litigious. 

I hope this post gives you a helicopter view of this complicated landscape. You need to see the full picture before we can start work on the remedies in the weeks and months ahead.

INMA’s pledge to you 

INMA has been news media’s partner for nearly 100 years as big shocks to the system change the world: tech revolutions, economic contractions, mass disruption to consumer behaviour, wars, pandemics, terrorism. INMA serves as an independent intelligence tool as well as a facilitator for debate, ideas exchange, and validator of good practices. 

Together, in solidarity, INMA members overcame. We rose to meet each moment. 

INMA members are again being called upon to work together, to collect sharper solutions, and to become smarter in our resolutions.

We will recalibrate our approaches to the tech companies, leaning into expanded dialogue. The time has also arrived to moderate a global dialogue with governments at all levels and in all places.

We will protect our news brands from the rising filth around us in the open Web as well as the walled gardens. 

We will figure out how to smartly operate in the new legal landscape. 

We will find new funding to replace lost funding. And we will work to strengthen a free press that remains a pillar of liberal democratic society. 

News media have an amazing history of recording and questioning actions of those in power in a way that constructively leads to policy changes. News media also have a history of responding to business disruption, from the Internet to the pandemic. Our belief in news media is not just based in faith or ideology — but a demonstrable track record. 

It’s time for a new global playbook for news media. It’s time for a new ambition.

Work with INMA on these matters. In stable times. In unstable times.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .