On Jan. 20, 2025, the White House official website announced how the administration would be “Restoring Freedom of and Ending Federal Censorship,” which is ironic considering the only thing that has come from this is more censorship from the current administration and that is inherently against the law of the constitution.
Since the beginning of President Trump’s current term, he has taken clear actions affirming that he will not allow slander or humor to be made about him, his policies, or the Republican Party. This has been reflected in the unjust suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, as well as the defunding of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. President Trump is attempting to censor those who speak out against him and his ideologies.
Last October, President Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS’s parent company, claiming they would “tip the scales in favor of the Democrat party,” after they interviewed Kamala Harris, his political opponent at the time. Later, with Trump winning the candidacy, the whole administration joined forces in financially pressuring CBS. In the end, to settle the lawsuit, Paramount paid a sum of 16 million dollars.
According to Payton LeCesne, a PEACE Junior, her definition of unjust censorship is “When someone or a company tries to censor the press for their own benefit,” and she would consider “defunding and lawsuits a form of censorship because I would usually think a company is trying to hide something.”
The last time the United States had seen any form of press censorship at such a large level was in 1971, with the Pentagon Papers. These 7,000 pages of documents shed light on the truth of the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. Daniel Ellsberg, an analyst for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, reported these documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post. Despite attempted censorship, attempted arrest of Ellsperg, and government burglary of Ellsperg’s office, the documents were released and revealed the true nature of the war with Vietnam.
Similar to Nixon’s attempt to mislead the American people and keep his reputation squeaky clean, Trump is trying to pressure the media into writing or speaking in his favor. Along with this lawsuit, the Pentagon announced on the week of Sept. 20, a new policy that would restrict the movement of journalists within the Pentagon and other government buildings, which, according to Time Magazine writer Rebecca Shneild on Sept. 20, 2025 would “heavily restrict the movement of journalists who, for the most part, were previously able to walk the halls.” When trying to inquire more about the Pentagon’s new policies for the press, Editor in Chief of LBCC’s Viking News replied, “I have no comment.” Similar responses, or lack thereof, came from the Professor of Journalism and Communications at CSULB and the CSULB publication.
Regardless of the administration’s personal or even public views, the government should not interfere with or try to silence the press, as the law of the Constitution requires. President Trump and his current administration are shamelessly trying to limit what and who the press can report on.
Robert DeFrance • Nov 21, 2025 at 9:43 am
21 November 2025
Alisa Barth’s opinion article about censorship during the second presidency of US President Donald Trump was brave and thought-provoking. I was immediately drawn to the article because of the title, “Trump’s attempts to censor publications has caused a flood of controversy.” It is a very brave thing to write. As Mark Twain said, “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear”.
Olivia • Nov 18, 2025 at 1:58 pm
Dear Corydon Editor,
On November 4, 2025, Alisa Barth wrote an article titled “Trump’s Attempts to Censor Publications has Caused a Flood of Controversey.” I was incredibly fascinated by this article because of all the issues that have been happening recently with not just Trump in office but the Epstein Files and their impact on the government. Barth did a great job on providing examples of Trump’s censorship on a variety of platforms including Jimmy Kimmel’s talk show and Paramount. I felt through this evidence I, the reader, was able to get a good sense of how Trump has reacted to critiques on his time in office and I think it demonstrates a lot about the person who is supposed to inspire, lead, and support our nation.
One thing I noticed within this article is the quote from the junior in PEACE, Payton LeCesne. While I agree with LeCesne’s definition of unjust censorship, how does she add to Barth’s writing? Due to the fact that LeCesne has neither credibility nor reliability, I felt it was a little unnecessary. Maybe for future reference, asking a teacher or a person from a credible background may be more beneficial for the validity of the writing, but it was eye opening to see the student point of view and how their definition can connect back to Trump’s behavior.
Finally, I really liked the way Brath alluded back to Nixon’s attempt to clear his reputation and alter America’s perception of him. The correlation between Nixon and Trump really puts Trump’s behavior into perspective and highlights the similarities between both of their actions. There are clear red flags Barth demonstrates within her writing, and she did a great job at showing through Trump’s actions who he is, and how it has impacted our society.
Nora • Nov 18, 2025 at 1:39 pm
October 18, 2025
Dear Corydon Editor,
On November 4, 2025, Alisa Barth,wrote an article titled “Trump’s Attempts to Censor Publications has Caused a Flood of Controversy” Growing up in Gen Z, I have witnessed numerous impacts that Trump’s presidency has had on funding and censorship. This article has an interesting topic for me as it is relevant to the U.S. today and poses the threat of limited access to information and an infringement on our 1st amendment rights. Alisa begins with a background on the beginning of Trump’s new policies on the white house website at the beginning of this year. She then defines unjust censorship as “When someone or a company tries to censor the press for their own benefit,”(Payton LeCesne a PEACE junior) Alisa follows this statement up with direct examples of Trump’s policies that reflect this definition. For instance the pentagon papers or a new policy that would restrict journalists ability to publish freely in the pentagon. She concludes the article with her opinion on this issue. That the government should never silence or alter any journalist’s work. Alisa’s argument is extremely well structured and supported with evidence from trusted sources like the New York Times or the official white house website.
Sincerely,
Nora Schrock
Lina Modica • Nov 18, 2025 at 9:30 am
Alisa Barth’s article was cutting and direct, as well as well-structured and backed up with an army of strong, damning evidence. I wholeheartedly approve of both the essay and the topic, but it was plagued by a few certain mistakes (such as the typo in the title).
Alisa’s evidence was relevant and refreshingly to-the-point (unlike some other articles on this site), but some of it was introduced in a rather awkward manner. For instance, Alisa arbitrarily sticks in a quote from a junior in PEACE, Payton LeCesne, in order to explain what exactly unjust censorship is.
While Alisa was correct in thinking that a definition of this term would be helpful to us, it shouldn’t have come from some random junior that the majority of the audience doesn’t know. A more official definition would have been far better. Additionally, the placing of the quote itself is a bit strange, since it’s dropped in the middle of her background information.
Despite these minor flaws, my final takeaway is that Alisa wrote a solid article. She’s clear on her stance, scathing in her diction, and secure on her evidence. In short−well done!
Avery Paul • Nov 17, 2025 at 4:59 pm
Dear Corydon Editor,
On November 4, 2025, Alisa Barth wrote an article entitled, “Trump’s Attempts to Censor Publications has Caused a Flood of Controversey.” This piece takes the reader through the US government’s history of attempted and successful cases of censorship and into the present day, where our current president appears to be perpetrating similar acts. The extensive list of infringements provided makes for an undeniable conclusion: These infringements are Unconstitutional. Whether that be defunding the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, suspending prominent figures in entertainment, or preventing the free movement of the press, it has become increasingly clear that the Trump administration is actively interfering with the press and censoring free speech. Calling back to the Nixon era, Barth details the cover-up that took place regarding the ruinous Vietnam War. Both Nixon then and Trump now desire to maintain their reputations and silence opposition. Essentially, government censorship is not a new phenomenon in the US. I could suggest further detailing on the actual reasons for the censorship, as well as exploring which press is allowed to conduct business as usual, and what makes these groups different from those that face censorship. Overall, this article is an important reminder to practice vigilance and to stay skeptical.
Sincerely,
Avery Paul
Lillian Kotlarski • Nov 17, 2025 at 1:47 pm
Here, Barth explains recent actions of the Trump administration related to censorship and the history of censorship in the United States. I found it intriguing to see an article on politics and political actions mixed in with local, school news, and trends. I admire the effectiveness of the article at bringing attention to current political events by describing multiple instances of the Trump administration attempting to limit journalism and free speech. However, I find it interesting that no opinion from actual journalists was included in the article after the description of the new policy limiting journalists in government buildings. Including journalists’ opinions may help emphasize the severity of this issue, outline the impacts it will have, and give more credibility to the argument. Similarly, Barth references to the Constitution in order to bring up the legality of the President’s actions, yet fails to quote the part of the Constitution that the President goes against. To continue the theme of unjustness in censorship I suggest including the part of the constitution that protects the right to a free press in order to effectively call out wrongdoing. Overall, the article provided important information to connect regular high school students to national affairs.
Ella Nguyen • Nov 17, 2025 at 11:45 am
First of all, Alisa Barth created a well-done deep dive into the contradictions of President Trump’s actions, and even the government’s actions, regarding the censorship of the press nationwide. Barth revealed many papers and news sources across the United States that were censored by the government, and she included local sources such as LBCC Viking News and the CSULB publication to indicate the negative effects of the censorship on surrounding communities.
Moreover, in terms of what America has represented and written in the Constitution, Barth declared that the White House administration announced that they would end the censorship of the press, but she provides abundant evidence of President Trump, who is expected to be the face of the United States, not upholding their promise and even going against the freedom that keeps Americans informed with the truth. This contrast supports her argument that Trump is creating a large controversy due to his authority and his actions that go against what the United States’ history has built.
Lastly, Barth considered and revealed the perspective of a current student at Millikan High School, and this gave readers a perspective to consider rather than only their own. As a suggestion, the writer’s article could be enhanced by adding if there was any reaction by the judicial branch of the government since the events of the loss of the freedom of the press are possibly unconstitutional.
Aubrey Bestelmeyer • Nov 17, 2025 at 11:34 am
Barth dives into the controversial, murky waters of current politics, structuring her argument and using language very well and persuasively. She ties together both her opinion and actual facts to inform her readers of something that is truly terrifying: our current president is taking away people’s freedom of speech. Barth notes the alarming nature of the current president, Donald Trump, and his legal action against anyone who disagrees with him. Especially in a nation that considers itself the ‘most free’ in the world, this heavily contradicts (as Barth mentioned), the president’s initial promises to give the people of America more freedom to end censorship. The issue is illustrated very well by Barth. It was clear and concise, while also being thorough and engaging.
This is a great article Alisa! Well done and I can’t wait to read more of your work!
(P.S. After reading this article, I have further questions on this topic. How is the government responding to this breach of Constitutional Law? Is it being legally challenged, and if so, what has/is happening?)