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

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: