Muslim World Report

Trump's IRS Maneuver: A Threat to Press Freedom and Democracy

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | May 4, 2025 11:07 AM | 6 min read | 1268 words

TL;DR: Donald Trump’s call for the IRS to target journalists poses a serious threat to press freedom and democratic norms. This tactic, reminiscent of authoritarian regimes, could lead to increased self-censorship among journalists, a homogenized media landscape, and the erosion of investigative reporting, ultimately undermining democracy globally.

An Erosion of Democracy: The IRS Strategy and Its Implications for Press Freedom

The recent advocacy by former President Donald Trump for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to engage in punitive actions against journalists draws alarming parallels to tactics employed by former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Duterte’s administration has been widely criticized for weaponizing tax laws to silence dissenting voices within the media, a strategy that has had devastating effects on press freedom and democratic discourse in the Philippines (Francisca de Haan, 2010). Trump’s maneuver seeks to leverage tax enforcement to target journalists who criticize him and raises significant concerns about the future of press freedom in the United States and globally.

This development is concerning on two fronts:

  • Manipulation of Government Institutions: Political leaders manipulating agencies designed for public service for personal interests undermines the independence of the IRS and erodes public trust in government institutions (W. Lance Bennett et al., 2004).

  • Chilling Effect on Journalism: The fear of financial repercussions may compel journalists to alter their reporting or self-censor, ultimately stifling critical voices and curtailing the flow of information essential for a functioning democracy. If journalists face threats of financial annihilation for doing their jobs, it signals a grave risk to the robustness of democracy itself. The erosion of journalistic integrity may encourage further abuses of power—not only in the United States but also as a model that could inspire similar actions in other nations where democracy is under threat (Mary Margaret Frank et al., 2005).

As the world observes these developments, the potential repercussions of equating tax enforcement with silencing dissent could embolden authoritarian regimes globally. The gravity of this situation necessitates rigorous analysis and urgent action from various stakeholders—journalists, citizens, and global entities alike—to safeguard press freedom as a fundamental tenet of democratic governance.

What If Trump Gains Control of the IRS to Target Journalists?

If Trump successfully implements a strategy to use the IRS as a tool against journalists, the implications could be catastrophic. The first and most immediate effect would be the chilling of free expression. Potential consequences include:

  • Journalists facing audits or investigations, regardless of the legitimacy of their reporting. This creates a hostile environment for investigative journalism.

  • A homogenization of news coverage where media outlets prioritize content that avoids conflict with governmental entities, favoring narratives that are palatable to power rather than those that hold it accountable.

The repercussions of this shift would create a less informed public, ultimately undermining democratic engagement and accountability. Furthermore, Trump’s strategy could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations. If this model proves effective in stifling dissent, it may embolden leaders across the political spectrum to adopt similar tactics, leading to a systemic dismantling of press freedoms worldwide.

What If Other Leaders Adopt Similar Tactics?

Should the IRS strategy gain traction and be viewed as successful, other leaders around the world may emulate this approach, emboldened by the apparent effectiveness of using state apparatus to silence opposition. Potential dire implications include:

  • Countries with already frail democracies experiencing accelerated declines into authoritarianism as leaders justify these tactics as necessary for national stability.

  • A surge in civil unrest as citizens react to the increasing clampdown on freedoms, potentially leading to violent confrontations with security forces.

Moreover, the international community’s response to such abuses could become muted. If Western democracies allow such tactics to proliferate without objection, they risk normalizing violations of press freedoms globally. This failure to respond could embolden oppressive governments to disregard international human rights standards, believing they face little consequence.

The erosion of journalistic freedom poses significant risks, not only to individual nations but to the global order. If unchecked, it could create a world where critical journalism is viewed as subversive, ultimately leading to a collapse of democratic norms and values worldwide.

What If the Resistance Against This Strategy Grows?

If a robust resistance against Trump’s IRS strategy emerges—led by journalists, civil society, and political allies—the implications could be substantial. A united front against the weaponization of tax enforcement for political gain could catalyze a stronger commitment to protecting press freedoms both in the United States and beyond. Potential actions could include:

  • Legislative efforts to reform the IRS, ensuring its independence from political manipulation.

  • Creating legal frameworks to safeguard journalists against retaliatory actions.

  • Grassroots movements fostering a culture of support for investigative journalism, emphasizing its role in democracy and public accountability.

The emergence of a cohesive resistance would likely attract international attention, galvanizing support from global human rights organizations and allies. This pressure could compel governments to reconsider their stance on press freedoms, leading to international coalitions aimed at defending independent journalism against state-sponsored intimidation.

Moreover, effective resistance could encourage other democratic nations to reevaluate their practices regarding freedom of expression, inspiring a global renaissance for press rights. The impact of a steadfast defense against authoritarian tactics could resonate far beyond borders, reminding us that when faced with oppression, the collective will of citizens has the power to prevail.

Reflecting on historical contexts, the relationship between the state and press freedom is not novel; authoritarian regimes have consistently sought to suppress dissent through economic pressure and punitive legal frameworks (Hannah Arendt, 1951). As we witness these troubling developments, there is a pressing need for concerted efforts from journalists, civil society, and international entities to defend press freedom as a core tenet of democratic governance (Andrei Boutyline & Robb Willer, 2016).

Moreover, if Trump’s IRS strategy gains traction and is viewed as successful, it could precipitate a rise in similar tactics adopted by leaders across the globe. Political leaders who feel threatened by dissent may justify these measures as essential for national stability, further accelerating the decline of democratic institutions (Robert Axelrod, 1986). Countries with already fragile democracies may regress into authoritarianism, where dissent is not tolerated, and civil liberties are curtailed.

The ramifications of this IRS strategy transcend immediate political implications; they threaten to dismantle the fundamental backbone of democracy itself—the free press. As we observe these critical developments, it is imperative to remain vigilant and proactive in safeguarding the fundamental rights that uphold democratic values, both within the United States and on the international stage (Catherine Steele & Kevin G. Barnhurst, 1996). The collective response to this concerning trend will ultimately determine the future landscape of press freedom and democratic discourse.

References

  • Amanda Geller, & Jeffrey Fagan. (2010). Pot as Pretext: Marijuana, Race, and the New Disorder in New York City Street Policing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01190.x

  • Andrei Boutyline, & Robb Willer. (2016). The Social Structure of Political Echo Chambers: Variation in Ideological Homophily in Online Networks. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337

  • Catherine Steele, & Kevin G. Barnhurst. (1996). The Journalism of Opinion: Network News Coverage of U.S. Presidential Campaigns, 1968–1988. Critical Studies in Mass Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039609366975

  • Francisca de Haan. (2010). Continuing Cold War Paradigms in Western Historiography of Transnational Women’s Organisations: The Case of the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF). Women’s History Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2010.502399

  • Hannah Arendt. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt.

  • Mary Margaret Frank, Luann J. Lynch, & Sonja O. Rego. (2005). Does Aggressive Financial Reporting Accompany Aggressive Tax Reporting (and Vice Versa)? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.647604

  • Robert Axelrod. (1986). An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960858

  • Thomas A. Koelble, & Edward LiPuma. (2008). Democratizing Democracy: A Postcolonial Critique of Conventional Approaches to the ‘Measurement of Democracy’. Democratization. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340701768075

← Prev Next →