Judge denies the emergency hearing but locks in 48 hours' notice… 61 Trump-related media suits since 2015, 25 of them in the past 20 months
ABC sued the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 18, in Case 1:26-cv-02902. Parent company Disney and the eight owned stations whose licenses are under review joined as plaintiffs; the defendants include the FCC, Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioners Olivia Trusty and Anna Gomez.
The claim rests on the First Amendment. ABC argues that the order for an accelerated review of its local station licenses is retaliation for its reporting and programming choices, and it moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the proceeding.
The court's first ruling came on Aug. 20. Judge Loren L. AliKhan denied ABC's request for a hearing before Aug. 25 and instead set a schedule: the FCC's response and motion to dismiss by Sept. 3, ABC's reply and opposition by Sept. 17, and briefing closing Sept. 24, with a hearing during the week of Oct. 5. She also ordered the FCC to give at least 48 hours' notice before issuing a hearing designation order, which would move the license renewals into an administrative hearing process, and to file any such order with the court the same day. If that happens, argument on the restraining order takes place the next business day.
By Axios' count as of Aug. 18, media and defamation lawsuits involving Trump, his businesses and his administration total 61 since 2015. Sixteen were filed in 2025 and nine through Aug. 18 of this year, putting 25 cases in the past 20 months against 36 across the decade from 2015 through 2024. The ABC filing is the sixth case since 2025 between a press organization and the FCC, and the first in which a major broadcast network has taken the commission to court over alleged retaliation for its programming.
ABC and Disney sued the FCC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 18. Photo: Federal Communications Commission
Early review began in April… six of the eight stations were not halfway through their terms
The FCC ordered all eight ABC-owned stations in April to file renewal applications well ahead of schedule. According to ABC's complaint, six had not reached the halfway point of their eight-year terms, and the stations were given 30 days to prepare applications that normally take months.
The order came a week after the president and first lady Melania Trump again called for the firing of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. The FCC said the accelerated review was part of an existing investigation into whether Disney's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices violated federal law and whether the stations were operating in the public interest. Conservative groups later filed petitions asking the commission to deny the renewals, citing alleged discrimination and political bias.
Separately, the FCC is reviewing whether ABC's daytime program “The View” qualifies as a bona fide news program exempt from equal-opportunity requirements for political candidates. A month after revising its guidance to exclude late-night and daytime talk shows from that exemption, the agency opened an inquiry after Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate, appeared as a guest. Carr later said ABC's decision to limit its carriage of Trump's July primetime address would also factor into the license review.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Photo: Federal Communications Commission
The first fight is jurisdiction and ripeness… FCC says the appeals court should decide
In the joint status report filed Aug. 20, the FCC's lawyers signaled a motion to dismiss on two grounds. The first is jurisdiction: challenges to FCC decisions ordinarily go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rather than a district court. The second is ripeness: the suit is premature while the administrative proceeding is still running, and the agency argued the network is trying to bypass that proceeding and the appellate review that follows it. The filing also argued that although the complaint is framed as First Amendment retaliation, its real target is the commission's statutory authority to ensure that licensees serve the public interest.
The Justice Department said a hearing designation order is not a sanction, describing it as the opening of an administrative process in which Disney and ABC would be able to make their case. ABC countered that the arrangement would let the FCC impose severe measures on 48 hours' notice.
ABC's argument is that the proceeding is itself the penalty. The complaint contends that the burden and uncertainty operate as punishment whether the commission ultimately denies the renewals or leaves them unresolved for years. Beth A. Wilkinson of Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, counsel for ABC, framed the case as a question of whether the administration can use the federal regulatory apparatus to punish a media organization for editorial decisions and coverage it dislikes. ABC also cited the unanimous 2024 Supreme Court decision holding that officials may not use regulatory threats to coerce private parties out of protected speech.
Judge declines the emergency hearing but secures 48 hours' notice
AliKhan was nominated by former President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in December 2023. On Aug. 18 she ordered the parties to file a joint status report by noon on Aug. 20 proposing three possible hearing dates; that afternoon she declined the emergency request and fixed the September briefing schedule and October hearing.
An FCC spokesperson said the court had rejected what the agency called a meritless attempt to rush into court and had sided with the commission on the schedule. The FCC has said it investigated allegations of illegal DEI discrimination at Disney for more than a year, accused the company of a disinformation campaign, and pledged to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.
Carr called Disney’s suit “meritless” in a conversation with CNN’s Brian Stelter on the afternoon of Aug. 18, the day it was filed. According to Stelter’s account posted that day on social media, Carr said no final decision had been made on the next steps regarding ABC or their timing, and added that the commission was comfortable with its position and would keep going.
Brian Stelter of CNN relaying Carr’s remarks on Aug. 18. Photo: capture from Brian Stelter’s social media post
Regulatory observers in Washington read the order the other way. With argument due the next business day if a hearing designation order issues, they say, the commission has less room to move quickly.
Timeline in ABC and Disney v. FCC, as of Aug. 22, 2026. Sources: court orders and reporting by Deadline, Reuters and TV Technology
Experts lean toward ABC… “abuse of regulatory process” versus “no free pass on license obligations”
In an analysis published Aug. 19, TheWrap found most specialists leaning toward ABC. Blair Levin, a New Street Research analyst and former FCC chief of staff, said Disney's case against Carr is stronger than the reverse, and doubted any court would uphold a refusal to renew the licenses.
Blake Reid, a University of Colorado Boulder law professor who works on telecommunications and free speech, called ABC's First Amendment case “about as strong as they come,” pointing to Carr's public statements and the commission's conduct as evidence of retaliation. Whether a district court can intervene before the administrative process concludes is a separate question, he said, and he does not expect the matter to be resolved this year.
Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), described the FCC's actions as a textbook abuse of regulatory process for an unconstitutional purpose. FIRE had previously filed comments opposing efforts to deny the early renewal applications. He argued that the more clearly it is shown that such pressure can be resisted, the more other companies will take the same course.
There is a counterargument. Daniel Suhr, president of the Center for American Rights, which challenged the station renewals, called the suit an attempt to short-circuit the investigation and said the First Amendment does not exempt Disney from its obligations as an FCC licensee.
The consequences run both ways. Corey Martin, managing partner and chair of the entertainment finance practice at Granderson Des Rochers LLP, said an FCC win would either embolden the agency or deepen the chilling effect on the industry, and that a Disney loss would discourage other companies from taking up a similar fight. Levin said the ruling's significance could extend beyond ABC's licenses: clarifying how far the First Amendment limits the FCC's use of the broad public interest standard would bear on future license disputes and on any effort to block a merger for reasons unrelated to competition.
Where Disney's posture changed… from Iger's settlement to D'Amaro's lawsuit
Through last year Disney chose to manage the conflict. Under former CEO Bob Iger the company settled Trump's defamation suit against ABC for $15 million (approx. 20.9 billion won) in December 2024, and in September 2025 it briefly suspended Kimmel's late-night show. Iger maintains the suspension was about the taste of the remark.
The approach changed under Josh D'Amaro, who took over as CEO in March. Disney launched a viewer awareness campaign about the FCC proceedings and then filed suit. In a CNBC interview during last week's D23 Expo, D'Amaro said the company was taking a principled position and would not be told how to run that side of its business.
Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro, who took over in March and shifted the company’s posture toward the FCC proceedings. Photo: Disney
Not everyone in the industry has made the same choice. Paramount settled the case over CBS's editing of the “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris for $16 million (approx. 22.2 billion won) in July 2025 while seeking regulatory approval of its Skydance merger — a company with an approval timeline choosing settlement over litigation.
Programming effects already claimed… no candidates on “The View,” 600 information requests
ABC's filings argue that the pressure has already changed its editorial decisions. No political candidate has appeared on “The View” since the FCC opened its inquiry into the program, and the show passed on further consideration of several potential guests. The network also said it livestreamed Trump's July address on election fraud partly because of concerns about government retaliation, and that it would not traditionally have carried it.
The ABC website. Licenses for eight ABC-owned stations are under accelerated FCC review. Photo: ABC website capture
The company also quantified the compliance burden, saying it has received more than 600 requests for information and documents and produced over 13,000 pages in response. Reid said such examples could help establish that government pressure caused ABC's speech to be altered or suppressed.
The commission itself is split. Gomez, its only Democratic commissioner, called the early review unprecedented, unlawful and unlikely to hold when it was ordered, and after the filing wrote that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience and that the First Amendment protects news and commentary even when those in power would prefer otherwise. ABC's decision to name her as a defendant appears to be a procedural matter.
25 of 61 cases filed in the past 20 months… 16 in 2025 alone
The Axios tally covers suits involving Trump as a private citizen and as president, along with those involving the administration and its officials while he was in office. It includes cases brought by news outlets, press freedom groups and other entities. From 1984 through 2014 filings were sparse, with many years at zero.
Annual case counts. 2015, 2017 and 2019 are omitted because individual figures were not disclosed. Source: Axios
Much of the increase comes from disputes over regulation and funding. The tally includes suits by outlets such as the Associated Press and The New York Times alleging that the administration or its officials sought to penalize them over their reporting, along with several cases over cuts to public broadcasting funds.
36 cases over the decade from 2015 through 2024; 25 in the 20 months since. Source: Axios
Public broadcasting funding cuts draw a wave of suits… CPB closed in January after 58 years
Trump signed Executive Order 14290 on May 1, 2025, directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and federal agencies to end direct and indirect funding for NPR and PBS. Congress had appropriated $535 million a year (approx. 744 billion won) to CPB for 2025 through 2027. NPR and three Colorado stations sued on May 27, and PBS filed separately.
Congress passed a rescission package in July 2025 that eliminated $1.1 billion (approx. 1.53 trillion won) in public broadcasting funding for the following two years. CPB shut down in January 2026, 58 years after its creation.
Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on March 31, 2026 that Section 3(a) of the order was unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction. His 62-page opinion held that the First Amendment draws a line the government may not cross when it uses the power of the purse to punish or suppress disfavored expression, and that the order crossed it. The ruling does not restore the funding Congress had already rescinded.
The White House said at the time of the filing that CPB was producing media supporting a particular political party with taxpayer money and that the president was exercising lawful authority. International broadcasters funded through the U.S. government, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), also filed suits over the funding cuts.
The president and his officials as plaintiffs… $10 billion against the BBC, $250 million against The Atlantic
Trump filed a $10 billion (approx. 13.9 trillion won) claim against the BBC (영국방송공사) and BBC Studios in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 15, 2025, seeking $5 billion each on counts of defamation and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The subject is the Panorama episode “Trump: A Second Chance?”, broadcast Oct. 28, 2024, and specifically an edit that joined separate passages of his Jan. 6, 2021 speech.
The BBC apologized in November 2025, saying the edit unintentionally created the impression of a direct call for violent action, and Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness resigned. The broadcaster nonetheless rejected the defamation claim and moved to dismiss on jurisdiction and actual malice grounds. In July 2026 a court ordered Trump to produce financial records; his lawyers then withdrew the claim of harm to his businesses and brands, narrowing the case to personal reputational injury. An emergency stay on Aug. 6 paused the document deadline. Trial is scheduled for February 2027.
The $15 billion (approx. 20.85 trillion won) suit against The New York Times and Penguin Random House was filed in September 2025. Judge Steven Merryday of the Middle District of Florida struck the complaint that month as exceeding the bounds of a pleading and ordered it refiled within 40 pages. On July 27, 2026 he deferred ruling on the Times' motion to dismiss and set an Aug. 27 deadline for an amended complaint. Trump called the order a win; the Times said the court had made no statement supporting the claims and had simply given him another chance to draft one with legal merit.
FBI Director Kash Patel sued The Atlantic and staff writer Sarah Fitzpatrick on April 20, 2026 for $250 million (approx. 347.5 billion won) over an article describing excessive drinking and unexplained absences on the job. The magazine moved to dismiss on July 27 and asked to begin factual discovery from the FBI and the Justice Department. Patel previously sued Politico in 2019 and CNN in 2020, and won a default judgment against a blogger in 2025.
Several claims have failed. The suit against The Wall Street Journal over its Jeffrey Epstein reporting was dismissed in April 2026, and a $3.8 billion (approx. 5.28 trillion won) claim by Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) against The Washington Post was also dismissed. TMTG sued 20 news organizations, including Axios, for defamation in 2023, and that litigation is ongoing.
AP won on access at the district court, then lost the injunction on appeal
The AP sued three White House officials on Feb. 21, 2025 after it was barred from the Oval Office and Air Force One over its decision to keep using the name Gulf of Mexico. Judge Trevor McFadden ruled on April 8 that if the government opens its doors to some journalists it cannot close them to others because of their viewpoints, and ordered access restored.
The appeals court took a different view. In June a D.C. Circuit panel stayed most of that order 2-1, holding that restricted presidential spaces are not forums opened for private speech and that the White House retains discretion over who is admitted, with East Room events left as an exception. Oral argument on the merits was heard on Nov. 24, 2025.
Three tracks — licenses, funding and defamation — against Korea's standing renewal conditions
The U.S. cases divide into three tracks: broadcast license review (ABC and the FCC), federal funding (NPR, PBS and the international broadcasters), and defamation claims (BBC, The New York Times, The Atlantic). In the first two the news organizations are plaintiffs and the government is defendant; in the third the positions are reversed. On the rulings so far, the outlets prevailed on funding, the government prevailed on press access at the appellate stage, and the defamation track has cycled through dismissals and refilings. The license track is still at the threshold stage of jurisdiction and ripeness.
Korea's system enters the question at a different point. In the United States the flashpoint was an exceptional early review of eight-year licenses; in Korea, terrestrial broadcasters and general programming and news channels undergo renewal review every three to five years as a matter of course. The Korea Communications and Media Commission (방송미디어통신위원회) approved renewals for 13 stations held by 11 terrestrial and community radio operators at its 29th plenary meeting on Aug. 21. Eight stations scoring 700 or more out of 1,000 received five-year terms and five scoring between 650 and 700 received four-year terms, with conditions attached covering programming and viewer committees and financial soundness plans.
Delay in the review process has itself been a business variable. Renewal work at the commission was suspended while commissioner appointments were held up; it convened its first plenary meeting on April 10, 2026 and, over 14 meetings in the two months to June 2, cleared a backlog covering 152 terrestrial and pay-TV stations. The injury ABC identifies in its own case is likewise not a denial but a proceeding left open without resolution.
Effects in Korea — distribution, acquisition review and domestic policy
Disney is one of the principal global distribution windows for Korean content. The dispute concerns ABC station licenses, but a prolonged regulatory fight can affect resource allocation and decision speed across Disney’s media operations. For Korean producers and distributors, a counterparty’s regulatory calendar becomes a variable in negotiating pace and in when programming commitments are confirmed.
The second effect is on acquisition review. One of the questions in this case is how far the FCC may stretch the public interest standard in the Communications Act. Levin argued that once that is settled, it bears not only on future license disputes but on efforts to block transactions for reasons unrelated to competition. For Korean companies weighing U.S. broadcast or media assets, the predictability of that standard feeds directly into deal structure and closing deadlines.
The third is domestic policy. Korea is reorganizing how renewal review operates following the three broadcasting acts and the launch of the Korea Communications and Media Commission. The U.S. case narrows to two questions: how the grounds for a review and the timing at which they are raised should be documented, and how the persistence of an unresolved proceeding should be limited by rule. The injury ABC identifies is not a denial but a proceeding left open.
The litigation environments themselves differ. U.S. law requires proof of actual malice for public figures, so plaintiffs rarely prevail and the pressure comes instead from cost and duration. Korea places mediation through the Press Arbitration Commission and correction claims at the front of the process, with comparatively modest damages. Korean companies contracting with U.S. media should establish in advance which jurisdiction’s process applies to a dispute and who bears the cost.
What this means for Korean operators
What is being litigated in the United States is not the existence of license review but the link between its timing and its stated grounds. ABC's argument rests on the gap between the reason given (the DEI investigation) and the trigger (programming that drew the president's displeasure), with Carr's public remarks cited as evidence of that link. Keeping a documented record of grounds and timing serves as a defense for operators and regulators alike.
Local station licenses are the transmission base for channel businesses entering the U.S. market. Models that use the transmission resources of American local stations, such as K-Channel 82 and the BAST Alliance, need to account for political volatility in license review through contract terms and backup distribution paths. That the harm ABC claims is procedural delay rather than denial is worth carrying into the drafting of force majeure and termination clauses.
Public-figure defamation in the United States carries a high actual malice burden and plaintiffs rarely win. But the litigation costs and business pressure borne by defendants persist through cycles of dismissal and refiling. ABC and Paramount each chose to settle while facing major merger and approval timelines. Korean companies signing co-production and distribution agreements with U.S. media should check cost-sharing and termination clauses covering editorial disputes before signing.
Merger review sits on the same line. Levin argued that a ruling here could reach efforts to block transactions for reasons unrelated to competition. For Korean companies weighing acquisitions of U.S. media assets, the predictability of the review standard feeds directly into deal structure and closing deadlines.
What this means for Korean broadcasters
Broadcasters sit differently from operators generally. They are the direct subject of renewal review, the party responsible for programming autonomy, and under continuous monitoring for compliance with renewal conditions. ABC's argument is that once programming decisions enter the scoring of a regulatory review, they become a free speech question. Korean renewal reviews likewise include public responsibility and fairness criteria, and the commission said on Aug. 21 that it will keep checking compliance with the conditions it imposed. Where the boundary sits between an evaluation criterion and an editorial judgment remains the operative question.
The cost of procedural delay also falls on broadcasters. While renewals were stalled during the commission's vacancy period, operators continued running on expired terms, and the commission said it took the elapsed time since the close of review into account in its decisions. Setting a ceiling on review periods and a rule for handling delay would reduce the burden on operators and regulators both.
Judicial review is what has produced results in the U.S. cases. A court found the executive order on public broadcasting funding unconstitutional, and in the ABC case the court attached a condition that argument follows the next business day if a hearing designation order issues. In Korea the route for challenging a denial or a conditional renewal is an administrative suit, which can only be brought after the decision. The records kept during review and the opportunity to submit comment become the material for any later challenge.
The legal character of public funding is the last point. CPB was structured as a private nonprofit precisely to insulate funding from political intervention, and it was dissolved after 58 years once an executive order and a congressional rescission converged. The funding already cut was not restored when a court found the order unconstitutional. For Korean public broadcasters funded by license fees and government support, a challenge to procedural legality and the restoration of funding are distinct paths.
Major pending cases
As of Aug. 22, 2026. Sources: Axios, court filings and press reports
Sources
1. TheWrap, “Disney Takes on Trump: Can ABC Win Its First Amendment Suit Against the FCC?” (Aug. 19, 2026; A.J. Katz and Lucas Manfredi) — https://www.thewrap.com/industry-news/public-policy-legal/can-abc-win-lawsuit-against-trump-fcc/
2. Brian Stelter (CNN), social media post relaying his conversation with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr (Aug. 18, 2026)
3. Axios, “Trump's media and defamation legal battles skyrocket” (Aug. 18, 2026; Sara Fischer and Kerry Flynn) — https://www.axios.com/2026/08/18/abc-fcc-first-amendment-lawsuit
4. Deadline, “ABC Files First Amendment Lawsuit Against FCC” (Aug. 18, 2026) — https://deadline.com/2026/08/abc-sues-fcc-first-amendment-lawsuit-1237044059/
5. Deadline, “What’s Next For ABC Vs. FCC” (Aug. 21, 2026) — https://deadline.com/2026/08/abc-fcc-lawsuit-explained-whats-next-1237044502/
6. Deadline, “ABC’s Lawsuit Against FCC Gets October Hearing Date” (Aug. 20, 2026) — https://deadline.com/2026/08/abc-trump-fcc-lawsuit-hearing-1237046311/
7. Reuters (David Shepardson), “US judge rejects Disney bid for quick hearing in FCC lawsuit” (Aug. 20, 2026) — https://www.staradvertiser.com/2026/08/20/breaking-news/judge-rejects-disney-bid-for-quick-hearing-in-fcc-lawsuit/
8. TV Technology, “Judge Sets Early October Hearing for ABC Lawsuit Against FCC” (Aug. 21, 2026) — https://www.tvtechnology.com/regulatory-legal/judge-sets-early-october-hearing-for-abc-lawsuit-against-fcc
9. Radio & Television Business Report, “ABC Sues FCC Over Perceived First Amendment Violations” (Aug. 19, 2026) and “Does Denial Of ABC’s Expedited Hearing Ask Aid FCC Fight?” (Aug. 21, 2026) — https://rbr.com/abc-sues-fcc-over-perceived-first-amendment-violations/ · https://rbr.com/abc-request-for-expedited-hearing-in-fcc-fight-rejected/
10. AP via PBS News, “ABC sues FCC over challenge to broadcast licenses” (Aug. 18, 2026) — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/abc-sues-fcc-over-challenge-to-broadcast-licenses
11. NPR, “ABC and Disney sue FCC, alleging First Amendment violations” (Aug. 18, 2026) — https://www.npr.org/2026/08/18/nx-s1-5936406/abc-and-disney-sue-fcc-alleging-first-amendment-violations
12. The Washington Post, “ABC sues FCC, claiming First Amendment violations” (Aug. 18, 2026) — https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/08/18/abc-sues-fcc-claiming-first-amendment-violations-escalating-months-long-feud/
13. Reason / Volokh Conspiracy, complaint text in ABC, Inc. v. FCC (Aug. 18, 2026) — https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/18/abcs-first-amendment-lawsuit-against-fcc/
14. RCFP, “Trump executive order targeting NPR, PBS is unconstitutional, judge rules” (April 1, 2026) — https://www.rcfp.org/trump-executive-order-npr-pbs-ruling/
15. Variety, “Judge Rules Trump’s Order to End Funding for PBS, NPR Was an Illegal First Amendment Violation” (2026) — https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/judge-rules-trump-order-funding-pbs-npr-illegal-first-amendment-1236703871/
16. AP via PBS News, “NPR sues Trump administration over executive order to cut funding to public media” (May 27, 2025) — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/npr-sues-trump-administration-over-executive-order-to-cut-funding-to-public-media
17. CNBC, “Trump sues BBC for $10 billion” (Dec. 16, 2025) — https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/16/trump-bbc-panorama-election-defamation-lawsuit.html
18. CNBC, “Trump blocks BBC access to financial records in $10 billion lawsuit” (Aug. 6, 2026) — https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/06/trump-bbc-lawsuit-financial-records-court-stay.html
19. TheWrap, “Trump Ordered to Turn Over Financial Records in $10 Billion BBC Defamation Suit” (July 2026) — https://www.thewrap.com/industry-news/public-policy-legal/trump-bbc-panorama-editing-defamation-lawsuit-financial-records/
20. Bloomberg, “Trump Allowed by Judge to Amend $15 Billion Suit Against NYT” (July 27, 2026) — https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-27/trump-allowed-by-judge-to-amend-15-billion-suit-against-nyt
21. NOTUS, “Judge Allows Trump to Refile His $15 Billion New York Times Defamation Suit” (July 28, 2026) — https://www.notus.org/courts/judge-trump-amend-refile-15-billion-new-york-times-defamation-lawsuit
22. Axios, “Kash Patel files $250M defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic” (April 20, 2026) — https://www.axios.com/2026/04/20/kash-patel-lawsuit-the-atlantic
23. TheWrap, “The Atlantic Files Motion to Dismiss Kash Patel’s $250 Million Defamation Lawsuit” (July 2026) — https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/journalism/the-atlantic-files-to-dismiss-kash-patel-lawsuit/
24. RCFP, Associated Press v. Budowich case page — https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/associated-press-v-budowich/
25. NBC News, “Trump can bar AP from White House events for now, appeals court rules” (June 6, 2025) — https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-bar-associated-press-white-house-events-now-appeals-court-rules-rcna211543
26. Al Jazeera, “Associated Press, Trump argue Oval Office access in federal appeals court” (Nov. 24, 2025) — https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/11/24/associated-press-trump-argue-oval-office-access-in-federal-appeals-court
27. Korea Communications and Media Commission (방송미디어통신위원회), 29th plenary meeting, license renewals for 13 stations (Aug. 21, 2026) — https://www.kmcc.go.kr/user.do
28. Newsis (뉴시스), report on the Aug. 21, 2026 renewal decisions — https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20260821_0003757310
29. Edaily (이데일리), “KCMC clears backlog: 152 stations renewed” (June 2, 2026) — https://edaily.co.kr/News/Read?mediaCodeNo=257&newsId=05011846645477784
On quotation — material inside quotation marks reproduces a remark as reported by the outlet cited; statements without quotation marks summarize reported content. Where an interview given to another outlet is quoted second-hand, that outlet is named in the text.
* Axios notes in its report that it is one of 20 news organizations sued for defamation by TMTG in 2023, and that the litigation is ongoing.