In a move that’s sure to send shockwaves through the hallowed halls of mainstream media, President Donald Trump has ordered the General Services Administration (GSA) to cancel all federal media subscriptions. Yes, you heard that right. The federal government will no longer foot the bill for publications like Politico, BBC, and Bloomberg. It’s a bold move, and one that’s already got the chattering classes in a tizzy.
The directive came hot on the heels of revelations that federal agencies had been shelling out millions of taxpayer dollars on media subscriptions. According to reports, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) alone spent over $8 million on Politico services in 2024. That’s a lot of coin for a publication that’s never been shy about its left-leaning tendencies.
Politico’s top brass were quick to defend their honor, insisting that they’ve never received government funding—no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. They argue that their Politico Pro service is a professional subscription used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. It’s a transaction, not a handout, they say. But when those transactions are funded by taxpayers, it starts to look a lot like the latter.
The New York Times, another beneficiary of government largesse, raked in nearly $2 million last year through federal subscriptions. Their spokesman, Charlie Stadtlander, was quick to point out that these subscriptions are standard practice, allowing government officials to stay informed. But in an era where information is more accessible than ever, do we really need to spend millions to keep bureaucrats in the loop?
Critics of the president’s move are already crying foul, accusing him of trying to silence the free press. They argue that this is just another example of his ongoing war against the media. But let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t about suppressing information; it’s about cutting unnecessary expenses. In a government that’s $31 trillion in debt, every little bit helps.
Moreover, this move could level the playing field for smaller, independent media outlets. By cutting off the spigot of federal funds to the big players, there’s an opportunity for a more diverse range of voices to be heard. It’s a chance to break the monopoly of the mainstream media and encourage a more vibrant and varied press landscape.
Of course, the mainstream media is unlikely to take this lying down. We can expect a barrage of op-eds decrying the death of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. But at the end of the day, this is about accountability. The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the media landscape. By canceling these subscriptions, the administration is taking a stand against the cozy relationship between the government and the press.
So, is this move draining the swamp or cutting the cord? Maybe it’s a bit of both. But one thing’s for sure: it’s a wake-up call for the media establishment. The days of relying on government contracts to pad their bottom lines may be coming to an end. And that’s a development that’s long overdue.
