Tag: media matters
Fight, Don't Fold: Trump FTC Concedes Defeat In War On Media Matters

Fight, Don't Fold: Trump FTC Concedes Defeat In War On Media Matters

Media Matters has secured a complete and total victory in its case against the Federal Trade Commission (Media Matters v. FTC).

In an effort to avoid another damaging decision from a federal court of appeals, the FTC sought to withdraw its appeal of the preliminary injunction awarded to Media Matters to halt the FTC’s retaliatory actions. Media Matters made clear that it would oppose that gamesmanship. Facing the prospect of a loss from what’s often considered the nation’s second highest court, the FTC ultimately submitted to a legally binding settlement agreement with Media Matters, withdrawing its blatantly retaliatory demands and committing to forgo ever reissuing or issuing a substantially similar Civil Investigative Demand to Media Matters.

The FTC also stated — in writing — that Media Matters is not the target of any investigation and that any similar future litigation would occur in D.C. The agreement — and the decisions Media Matters won in the district court and the court of appeals — offers a roadmap for other newsgathering and nonprofit organizations facing, or at risk of, government retaliation.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, Senior Counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, explained: “At issue in the case was whether the Trump administration’s Federal Trade Commission could misuse the machinery of the federal government to investigate, exhaust, and ultimately silence the nonprofit watchdogs that hold government and powerful platforms accountable. Media Matters won legal decisions in the District of Columbia District Court and the D.C. Circuit that provide a roadmap for anyone who is similarly targeted. This historic victory shows that the rule of law matters — and that courts can and do hold this government accountable.”
Media Matters President Angelo Carusone said: “The FTC agreed to this historic settlement agreement after it became clear the FTC had misled the courts. Our victory shows the importance of holding power to account and the importance of fighting instead of folding.
“This extends well beyond Media Matters, though. Washington Litigation Group’s excellent lawyering helped to secure this victory and establish precedent that will protect others targeted with retaliatory investigations in nakedly unlawful ways.”
Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the CATO Institute, who observed the appeals proceedings, said: “It is likely that the injunction against the FTC will be affirmed by the panel, which would be a win for free speech and a blow against the use of burdensome information requests as a tool of government intimidation.” He added, “It now appears the FTC is afraid of setting a bad precedent for themselves based on how oral arguments went."

In June of 2025, Media Matters for America sued to block the U.S. FTC's retaliatory investigation into the organization. Subsequently, MMFA filed for a preliminary injunction to block the FTC investigation from moving forward, documenting ongoing, irreparable harm to its ability to exercise its First Amendment rights. In August 2025, the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC, granted a temporary injunction blocking the FTC from enforcing a civil investigative demand against Media Matters, ruling, among other things, that the agency likely acted with “retaliatory animus,” and that “Media Matters engaged in quintessential First Amendment activity when it published an online article criticizing Mr. Musk and X.”

In October of 2025, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to stay the lower court decision, temporarily preventing the investigation from moving forward. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins found the FTC had not shown it was likely to win on the merits. In April, at a brutal oral argument for the government in which the judges relentlessly grilled the FTC’s counsel, Judge Millett demanded that the FTC explain whether there was something “radically left” “about being anti-Nazi.” Shortly thereafter, the FTC sought to withdraw its own appeal, and Media Matters stated it would oppose strategic gamesmanship. In response, the FTC ultimately agreed to a binding agreement that guarantees it will never reissue the investigative demands to Media Matters and confirms that Media Matters is not a target.

Media Matters president Angelo Carusone discussed the organization's victory on MSNOW on May 4:

Trump and Jack Keane

Fox's Ultra-Hawk Military Pundit Keane Also Works For Defense Contractors

Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane is a vocal supporter of the Iran war from his perch as a Fox News senior strategic analyst, regularly arguing that the United States and Israel should escalate their joint military campaign and avoid diplomatic off-ramps. In addition to his TV gig, Keane also sits on the boards of directors of two defense contractors which potentially stand to benefit from the conflict with Iran — a fact that Fox appears not to have disclosed to its viewers since the beginning of the war.

The two contractors, United States Antimony Corp. and REalloys Inc., are both rare earths companies that provide crucial material to the Defense Department for use in weapons and other military equipment. Keane has been on the board of US Antimony since August 19, 2025, and on the board of REalloys since February 9 of this year.

Both companies tout the extensive DOD applications for their products in promotional materials and other outward facing statements. In a publicly available investor presentation from 2025, US Antimony Corp. claimed that 32% of its business comes from “military & defense,” including supplying antimony — a critical mineral — for use in “armor-piercing rounds,” “laser guided missiles,” “military electronics,” “night vision,” and other uses. The REalloys website goes into even greater detail, detailing how its products — critical minerals and magnets — can be used in everything from F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighters jets to Tomahawk cruise missiles to Predator drones and JDAM guided bombs. (The United States has used several of those weapons and platforms in the Iran war.)

As a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, Keane is one of the most important and longstanding pro-war voices at Fox, having appeared on Fox News at least 44 times and on Fox Business at least 15 times since the U.S-Israeli campaign began on February 28. A Media Matters review found that Fox did not appear to mention Keane’s position on the board of directors for US Antimony Corp. or REalloys Inc. in any of those appearances. Fox News’ website also does not appear to have covered Keane’s connections to the two defense contractors, and does not list those affiliations in his official biography on the site.

The recent lack of disclosures are not the first time Keane and Fox have failed to mention his business ties and potential conflicts of interest. In 2017, Media Matters reported that Keane repeatedly called for an increase in military spending while sitting on the board of directors of General Dynamics, a major defense contractor. (Keane is no longer a board member at General Dynamics.)

Keane’s calls to escalate the Iran war and avoid a ceasefire

Even before the Trump administration began attacking Iran, Keane was on Fox downplaying the risks of a conflict.On February 27, Keane listed various examples of U.S.-led regime changes, advising that “there is always ambiguity in terms of what follows after that. And you can't let that distort what the opportunity is in front of you, here. And that's the reality of it."

On March 2, Keane cautioned against any negotiations that didn’t end in Iran’s total surrender.“The only thing we should negotiate with the Iranians is — not talking about nuclear weapons, don’t negotiate with them about ballistic missiles, don’t negotiate with them about support for proxies — we know they’ve done all of that and that’s why we’re in the war,” Keane said. “The only thing we want to negotiate with them about is surrender.”

The same day, Keane argued for a maximalist military approach that would result in regime collapse. “When you put — you're going to take that regime and put it on a pathway for its eventual collapse, and what follows after that is not particularly clear,” Keane said. “And I think that's OK.”As President Donald Trump’s war dragged on, Keane continued to agitate for a military victory rather than a diplomatic settlement.“We should not go to a ceasefire,” Keane said on Hannity on March 24. “I mean, if we go into a ceasefire it’s playing right into their hands — we want to keep the pressure on them to make a deal that makes some sense."

Keane continued to call for escalation on April 6. “What we need to do is keep our pedal to the metal here, so to speak,” he said on America’s Newsroom.“What I don’t think we should do is go to a ceasefire to get it open,” Keane argued, referring to the Strait of Hormuz. He argued that if that were to happen, Iran “will claim victory — and they’re really good at the propaganda."

Following Trump’s apocalyptic threat to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” and the subsequent ceasefire announcement on April 7, that evening Keane said his “preference would have been to keep the war going as leverage to make that deal,” and that “we have to finish what we started."

The next morning, Keane argued to restart the war. “I wouldn't have done what we're doing,” he said, adding: “I think we should take control of the Strait of Hormuz ourselves."

Waging the kind of war Keane has advocated for costs a lot of money, and that means a big payday for the defense industry as a whole.

The Iran war could be a windfall for critical mineral weapons contractors

The war against Iran has proved costly for the U.S. government, both in terms of dollars spent and munitions used. The Pentagon told Congress that the first week of the war ran a price tag of more than $11.3 billion, and over the course of the war the military has fired more than 850 Tomahawk missiles, leading some in the Pentagon to worry about its overall stockpile. The United States and Israel may also both be running low on interceptors, which are expensive and time-consuming to produce.

To address these significant military expenditures, the Pentagon initially asked Congress for over $200 billion in addition to its annual budget, though that request is expected to be roughly cut in half following the tenuous ceasefire. Beyond that, the Trump administration is reportedly preparing to ask Congress for what Bloomberg calls a “massive” amount of new military spending for fiscal year 2027, sending the defense budget north of $1.5 trillion from its current level at just under $1 trillion.

Which specific contractors will benefit from the deluge of public money remains to be seen, and so far the war hasn’t led to an increase in defense stocks overall. The story is rosier for US Antimony Corp., however, which has seen its year-to-date stock price rise 74 percent as of April 13, significantly outperforming both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq. (REalloys enjoyed a major rally in early March, then a steep decline before a partial rebound in April.)

Both companies have recently announced significant defense contract wins.On March 2, Reuters reported that REalloy had gotten $1.7 million from the Pentagon to “fund design of a processing facility for metals used to make magnets for weapons and electronics,” which signaled “an ⁠initial vote of confidence in REalloy's technology.”In an article highlighting rare earths companies hiring retired generals, The Wall Street Journal reported that US Antimony Corp. secured a $245 million contract a month after it brought on Keane, though he was reportedly not involved in its procurement:

Gary Evans, the CEO of U.S. Antimony, said Keane’s presence has been a boon. “We have three grant requests going to D.C. this month for different things,” Evans said in January. “So, we just felt like having someone of his caliber and his connections on our board, to give us advice, to give us direction when we need it, would be helpful."

In interviews, Evans has been open that the Iran war could be good for his business.

“We’re trying to meet the demands of the United States, not only industrial demand but the military demand," Evans told the New York Stock Exchange’s YouTube channel. “As you can see, over the last 60 days we’re using up that stuff pretty quick, when you look at Venezuela and Iran — so we anticipate this being a great business."

Evans made a similar pitch during a recent earnings call, even going so far as to name-drop Keane. “We keep a very high dialogue going on at any given time with senators, house members, governors, and as I mentioned before, General Keane is on our board, so we kinda hear what’s going on,” Evans said. “There’s a lot of need for additional munitions, as everybody knows, with the activities we’d had in Venezuela and now Iran.”

On March 11, Evans appeared on Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria Bartiromo to discuss a recent defense contract win. Neither Bartiromo nor Evans mentioned Keane or his ties to the company during the interview.

“US Antimony Corporation recently receiving a $27 million grant from the Department of War to help support domestic critical minerals used in military weaponry and other defense technology,” Bartiromo said, using the Trump administration’s name for the Defense Department.

She began the interview by asking Evans to “tell us about the grant from the Department of War and how this conflict has impacted your business."

Evan described the antimony ingots his company makes, which “go to the Department of War, the DLA [Defense Logistics Agency], to serve as inventory for wars like we’re in right now."

“We have the lowest stockpile since World War II, so we’re trying to ramp up” production “to help our military,” Evans continued. “[In] 2026, we’re expecting revenues north of $125 million, 2027, north of $200 million,” Evans said. “So we’re moving at warp speed."

The United States and Israel have killed more than 3,000 people in Iran since February 28, according to an Iranian medical official.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

A Defeat For Musk: Media Matters Wins Ruling On 'Retaliatory'  FTC Probe

A Defeat For Musk: Media Matters Wins Ruling On 'Retaliatory'  FTC Probe

A federal court in Washington, D.C. issued a preliminary injunction today blocking the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation into Media Matters for America from moving forward while the court considers the lawsuit Media Matters filed on June 23.

In response, Angelo Carusone, Chairman and President of Media Matters, issued the following statement:

“The court’s ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration. This case is not just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however. It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration - from any political party - to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power. We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American.”

A copy of the court’s ruling is available here. Media Matters’ motion for a preliminary injunction is available here.

Key excerpts from the court’s opinion:

  • “Speech on matters of public concern is the heartland of the First Amendment. The principle that public issues should be debated freely has long been woven into the very fabric of who we are as a Nation. Without it, our democracy stands on shaky ground. It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting.”
  • “Media Matters engaged in quintessential First Amendment activity when it published an online article criticizing Mr. Musk and X.”

The FTC’s investigation is the latest effort by Elon Musk and his allies in the Trump administration to retaliate against Media Matters for its reporting on X, the social media site Musk controls, and it’s another example of the Trump administration weaponizing government authorities to target political opponents. In fact, following federal court rulings against regulatory investigations from Attorneys General Ken Paxton and Andrew Bailey, this is the third time a federal court has stepped in to block this campaign of retaliation by Republican elected officials and protect Media Matters’ constitutional right to free speech.

Musk has led a coordinated assault on Media Matters since November 2023, when the group published a report showing that X was displaying ads beside pro-Nazi posts.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Media Matters Names Its 'Misinformer Of The Year'

Media Matters Names Its 'Misinformer Of The Year'

The role of the free press, enshrined by the Constitution’s First Amendment, is an essential element of our democracy. The public cannot become informed about the problems facing our country and the efforts to improve or worsen them without robust protections for journalism.

But powerful people hate the light journalism shines on them and the dissent it can spur. A coalition of right-wing billionaires, Republican law enforcement officials, and an authoritarian once and future president are using wealth, lawfare, and government power to silence the press and carry out their political agenda unimpeded. And they are perilously close to succeeding.

Media Matters is naming anti-media intimidation the Misinformer of the Year for 2024 for its chilling effect on essential press freedoms.

ABC News’ agreement to settle Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit is a foreboding sign of the current media climate and where it may be headed.

Legal experts and executives at ABC News parent company Disney reportedly thought that the outlet would eventually prevail. But its lawyers reportedly feared “litigating against a vindictive sitting president and risking harm to its brand.” They even worried that the suit could “become a vehicle for Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan,” The New York Times reported.

If media lawyers are worried that a defamation lawsuit could ultimately demolish the bedrock legal precedent limiting such suits, then that protection functionally no longer applies.

The results of that shift could prove devastating to news outlets large and small and chill speech across the nation.

Trump’s lawyers have already filed a new lawsuit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, her polling firm, The Des Moines Register, and the Iowa paper’s parent company Gannett, accusing them of consumer fraud for publishing Selzer’s poll.

Other suits from anyone else who benefits from a cowed press will surely follow.

The purpose of these intimidation tactics — to which we had already been subjected — is to silence adversarial speech. If powerful individuals can force critics to pay a hefty price, they will be much more hesitant to take risks. And those without the financial resources for protracted legal fights will either back down or risk crippling costs. With journalists silenced, crucial stories will go unwritten — and the American public will lose out to right-wing power.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World