My Bosses Were Afraid of Crossing Trump. So, I Quit.

The censorship you never hear about may be the worst, or at least the most insidious. Thankfully, many journalists are speaking out at a crucial moment for the press. Virtually every major outlet refused the Pentagon’s edict that they publish or broadcast only information handed to them by the Department of Defense (which the administration calls the Department of War). And there have been several other examples just in recent days of journalists leaving their jobs in response to censorship pressures.

Let me add my name to that list. Until Oct. 10, I was the editor of Governing, a magazine and website covering state and local governments. But after facing increasing internal censorship pressures — largely to avoid critical coverage of President Donald Trump — I refused to go along, and I resigned.

My decision was a long time coming. Earlier this year, the chief content officer for our parent company, e.Republic, stated in a meeting that we should not run articles that could draw the attention of the Trump White House and have them try to shut us down.

At the time, her position struck me as wrong in a couple of ways. Chiefly, there was the obvious betrayal of journalistic ethics. Secondly, however, Governing is such a small (although I’d like to say prestigious) publication that the idea anyone in the current White House was reading it, let alone preparing to hammer it, struck me as dubious.

Governing was started nearly 40 years ago by editors from Congressional Quarterly who thought state policy should get more news coverage. Even after it was bought in 2009 by e.Republic, Governing remained one of the few outlets to pay continuous attention to governments outside of Washington. It often receives compliments such as being called “the Rolling Stone of state of the state addresses.” It’s a wonky publication, and it’s not huge, but it has a sterling reputation for covering a crucial niche.

The notion that the litigious Trump would hit us with a lawsuit was not impossible, but it was unlikely. We certainly weren’t reliant on federal contracts to stay afloat. But after Trump’s second term began, the corporate anxiety about rocking the boat with our coverage became a constant.

That’s one of the saddest parts of Trump’s anti-media drive. After the government has gone after the big guys — Trump has engaged in court fights this year with CBS, ABC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, not to mention defunding NPR, my former employer — the little guys too often decide they lack the resources to stand up. Capitulation becomes the easier course.

We’ve seen this happen in other countries. Self-censorship is particularly damaging because it takes place in private; in the absence of photos of reporters walking out of the Pentagon, no one even knows it’s happened. And individuals and institutions do a more thorough job of stifling themselves than governments ever could. Not knowing where the line might be, they grow hyper-cautious and shy away from publishing anything that might cause offense.

In my role as editor of Governing, I received edicts from above throughout this year warning me to stay away from a variety of topics. For example, I was told that an article about attitudes toward vaccines caused “consternation” among the higher ups because that issue has become partisan. I warned my boss that if we weren’t going to reflect reality — if we weren’t going to do journalism — I’d have to quit.

Things came to a head last month, at the height of the free speech debate about the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel, the temporarily deposed ABC late-night host.

I had drafted an article defending the First Amendment and free speech, noting that Trump has gone after individuals and institutions that he finds too critical or “not fair” to him. To me, it was measured and probably would have seemed anodyne at almost any other moment. But I immediately faced resistance. Although my boss said the piece was “very well done,” she asked if it was necessary given the amount of coverage the free speech issue had already drawn. She also asked, using an in-house corporate slogan, what it did to make government better. I argued that the piece added some new perspective and that pushing back against government overreach is indeed a way of making government better. My boss didn’t budge. She told me she did not think running the piece was a good idea; after all, she noted, it violated the stated company policy against setting off alarm bells within the Trump White House.

The piece went unpublished, and the words “I quit” came flying out of my mouth.

Being told I couldn’t defend free speech was almost too on the nose. Although e.Republic executives praised my “integrity” in seeking to persuade me to stay, they were unwilling to offer me the assurances I sought regarding editorial independence. After spending 20 years at Governing and proudly working my way up the ranks to become editor, I knew it was no longer my professional home.

In response to a request for comment, an e.Republic spokesperson said, “Governing’s mission is to inform and support the state and local leaders working to make government more effective. … Our journalism is intentionally nonpartisan, aimed at ensuring all perspectives are considered. That’s what our audience expects from us and what we strive to deliver. The only editorial direction we prescribe to our team is to stay within the focus of our mission and approach.”
 

I got interested in politics early. When I was 8 years old, my mom convinced me to change the channel from “George of the Jungle” so she could watch the Senate Watergate hearings. At probably a premature age, I read about Americans who defended basic rights throughout our history. A phrase returned to my mind recently from the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when the playwright Lillian Hellman wrote, “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”

I’m not alone in worrying that we’re living through a similar historical moment. Dan Conaway, a columnist with the online Daily Memphian, quit after being told his pieces were too critical of Trump. Jim Rodenbush, the director of student media at Indiana University, was fired after resisting internal calls to restrict what student journalists could print. Don Craven resigned as CEO of the Illinois Press Association after his board wanted him to get out of litigation against the Trump administration regarding coverage of anti-ICE protests. Last month, a quartet of journalists in Alaska resigned after an article about Charlie Kirk was altered after publication in response to complaints from a GOP state lawmaker.

I applaud all of them. Still, their departures are a loss. Fewer people who are willing to stand up and demand honest coverage remain in positions where they can make that happen. Surely the public will suffer at least a bit now that nearly all Pentagon reporters have left the building.

Although it’s been gratifying to have friends call me a hero — and the support of my wife and son have been essential — integrity won’t pay the electric bills. If I hadn’t quit, I could be planning my next vacation, rather than telling the dog she’ll have to wait for treats to go on sale.

No one should shed any tears for me. My point is that all the incentives run the other way. It’s easier, and can be highly rewarding, to placate the bear rather than poking it. We know this is happening not only in journalism but in other fields. We just don’t know how much. No one puts out news releases saying they’ve squelched information the administration wouldn’t like.

But we do know that dozens of people have lost their jobs for posting critical comments about Kirk following his assassination. And it’s clear that Trump is a president who, much like the witch in “The Wiz,” don’t want nobody bringing no bad news. Publish a sour jobs report? Lose your job as the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Insist on seeing scientific data regarding vaccine guidelines? Hope you enjoyed your month as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As official government data becomes more politicized, it’s increasingly important that independent sources maintain their integrity. Journalists in particular have a professional obligation to pursue and provide the truth to the best of their abilities. That’s the job. I hope and trust that most of my colleagues still have the courage to do it right.