Trump Scolds ABC Reporter and Urges Revocation of Network’s License

18 November 2025

President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in the Oval Office on Nov. 18, 2025. Win McNamee/Getty

Donald Trump erupted at an ABC News correspondent during a recent Oval Office press conference, declaring that the network is “fake news” and should have its broadcasting license revoked after she posed a question on his connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

The moment unfolded on November 18, 2025, when the president was speaking alongside Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and a reporter from ABC asked why he had not proactively released the Epstein-related files that have drawn both public and congressional scrutiny. Trump’s reaction was immediate and fiery. He accused the network of being “one of the perpetrators” of fake news and told the journalist directly that “your license should be taken away.” He referred to the network as a “crappy company” and told her she was not credible as a reporter.

Trump went further, telling the reporter that ABC was “97 percent negative” toward him and questioning the viewer loyalty that allegedly results from such bias. He claimed that because the network turned out to be so negative and yet he would win in a landslide, the network’s news must be unreliable. He urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair to review the network’s license.

The journalist stood at the podium attempting to continue with her follow-up, but the president interjected angrily and told her to go back and “learn how to be a reporter.” The audience and press corps were visibly uneasy. The confrontation has raised questions about the dynamic between power and the media, freedom of the press, and the legitimacy of political outrage igniting regulatory threats.

This episode comes on the heels of another antagonistic incident earlier in the month when Trump aboard Air Force One told a female reporter “Quiet. Quiet, Piggy” after she asked about whether there was anything incriminating in the Epstein files. In that instance he pointed a finger into her face as she spoke.

The larger backdrop to this exchange is the controversy surrounding recently released Epstein-related documents and the push by Congress for full transparency. Last month a bill known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the House with overwhelming support, demanding the release of the remaining files related to the convicted sex trafficker and his network. The president had opposed similar efforts for months but pivoted on November 17, calling on House Republicans to “vote to release the files” because “we have nothing to hide.”

Media experts and legal analysts say that while the president can express criticism of media outlets, the FCC does not have the power to revoke broadcast licenses simply on the basis of content that a political figure deems unfavorable. The agency issues licenses to stations rather than networks and has not revoked one in more than four decades.

Beyond the technical regulatory issues, the incident underscores a broader worrying pattern in which expressions of hostility by public officials toward the press may contribute to a chilling effect. Reporters covering powerful institutions may feel increased pressure to self-censor or avoid follow-through questions in fear of backlash. For the audience and for accountability in democracy the stability of that interaction between politician and press matters deeply.

For his part, Trump made no public effort to clarify or soften his remarks. His team maintained that the reporter’s behavior was “inappropriate and unprofessional,” offering no further detail. The immediate question for critics becomes whether this was a one-off outburst or a continuing strategy toward media outlets that he perceives as adversarial.

As the dust settles on this confrontation, the unanswered issue remains the substance of the reporter’s question. The inquiry about the Epstein files documents tied to a high-profile trafficking scandal and powerful figures was arguably a core responsibility of the press: to seek explanations from the highest office in the land. Rather than addressing the question, the exchange shifted focus to the reporter’s identity, network reputation and regulatory threat.

Whether the administration intended it or not, the spectacle will likely fuel further discussion about the role of journalism in democracy, the accountability of media power, and the boundaries of political rhetoric. For now the public has a clip of a president chastising a reporter, demanding professional retraining and using regulatory firepower as a rhetorical weapon. How the press corps adjusts, how the FCC responds, and how viewers interpret all of it remain to be seen.