In today’s fast-paced news cycle, some of the most important actions taken by President Donald Trump often go unnoticed or are buried beneath an avalanche of controversy and scandal-driven coverage. While his administration has taken significant steps on immigration enforcement, federal workforce restructuring, trade policy adjustments, and government efficiency, these efforts receive little media attention. Instead, the headlines are dominated by legal battles, sensationalized statements, or issues that fit a particular narrative. In my view, this is not accidental—it is a deliberate choice by much of the media to shape public perception rather than simply report the facts.
One of the main reasons for this, in my opinion, is media bias. Studies have shown that mainstream outlets tend to cover Trump far more negatively than other presidents. A Harvard University study from the Shorenstein Center found that in his first 100 days in office, Trump received 80% negative coverage across major news networks. Similarly, the Media Research Center has repeatedly documented how Trump’s policy moves are either ignored or framed in the most negative light possible. If these outlets were to highlight policy successes that align with his campaign promises, it could lend legitimacy to his presidency, which they appear reluctant to do.
Let me point out that another factor is selective framing. Even when Trump’s actions are reported, they are often spun to emphasize controversy over substance. For example, his crackdown on illegal immigration is rarely presented as enforcing existing laws. Instead, outlets frequently use terms like “mass deportations” or “draconian policies” (as seen in reporting from The New York Times and CNN). Likewise, efforts to reform federal employment to improve efficiency are framed as “politicizing the civil service.” I believe this approach is designed to stir opposition rather than inform the public.
Public distraction is another powerful tool the media uses. Sensational legal battles, social controversies, and culture war issues generate far more clicks and engagement than policy discussions. For instance, while Trump’s administration has moved to revoke parole status for over 500,000 migrants, this major immigration policy shift has received little coverage compared to stories about courtroom proceedings. According to a Pew Research Center study, the media overwhelmingly prioritizes scandal over policy, a trend that has only intensified in recent years. This suggests that even when critical policy shifts occur, they are overshadowed by emotionally charged stories.
Corporate and establishment interests also play a role in shaping what is covered and what is ignored. Large corporations, federal agencies, and political elites all benefit from maintaining the status quo. When Trump implements policies that disrupt these interests—whether by cutting regulations, imposing tariffs, or reforming bureaucratic structures—there seems to be little incentive for major media outlets, many of which have corporate sponsors, to highlight these changes. This was evident when Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) early in his presidency, an action that fulfilled a major campaign promise but received minimal positive coverage despite its significance.
I believe the media fears legitimizing Trump. If they acknowledge that his administration is delivering on promises—whether on border security, economic policies, or government efficiency—it could challenge their long-standing portrayal of him as reckless or incompetent. As a result, even when Trump’s policies align with the desires of many Americans, the reporting often downplays their importance or emphasizes opposition instead.
Social media and algorithmic suppression further contribute to the lack of fair coverage. The Twitter Files, released by journalists such as Matt Taibbi, exposed how tech companies worked to limit the reach of conservative voices and stories that did not align with mainstream narratives. Google has also been accused of suppressing certain search results related to Trump’s policies, as revealed in leaked internal documents. Even when independent news outlets report on these issues, their reach is often restricted through shadow-banning or algorithmic manipulation, making it harder for the average person to see balanced coverage.
Perhaps most troubling is the way the media, at times, steers away from facts and instead reports what best suits its narrative. There have been multiple high-profile examples of this, from the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story (which was initially dismissed as "Russian disinformation" before being verified) to the false claims about Trump colluding with Russia, which were later debunked by the Mueller Report. These examples, in my view, highlight how some outlets prioritize political goals over factual reporting, shaping public perception rather than allowing people to form their own conclusions based on unbiased information.
In the end, the lack of reporting on Trump’s policy actions is not an accident—it reflects a calculated effort by the media and political establishment to control what the public focuses on. While news organizations have the right to choose what they cover, their responsibility should be to present the facts rather than selectively filter reality to fit a partisan agenda. If the public is to make informed decisions, they deserve more than a media that curates the truth to serve its own interests.
