The FTC's Probe of Media Matters for America Is a Blatant Assault on Freedom of Speech: In the Guise of Investigating 'Potentially Unlawful Advertiser Boycotts,' the Commission Is Punishing the Organization for Its Views

Jacob Sullum
Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:40:12 -0700
Opinion

In November 2023, about a year after Elon Musk took over Twitter, Media Matters for America made a splash with a report claiming that the platform, by then rebranded as X, was "placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content." Musk responded by threatening a "thermonuclear lawsuit" against Media Matters, while Stephen Miller, now a White House deputy chief of staff, suggested that "conservative state Attorneys General" should investigate the organization for "fraud."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey took Miller's advice, launching investigations that were ultimately blocked by federal courts on First Amendment grounds. But after those threats fizzled out, the Federal Trade Commission began its own probe of Media Matters — a blatant assault on freedom of speech at the center of a case that a federal appeals court heard on Monday.

To recognize the danger posed by the FTC's investigation of Media Matters, you do not have to like the left-leaning group or accept its critique of X. Whatever the merits of the organization's advocacy, it is indisputably protected by the First Amendment.
Updated: Wed Apr 15, 2026

In November 2023, about a year after Elon Musk took over Twitter, Media Matters for America made a splash with a report claiming that the platform, by then rebranded as X, was "placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content." Musk responded by threatening a "thermonuclear lawsuit" against Media Matters, while Stephen Miller, now a White House deputy chief of staff, suggested that "conservative state Attorneys General" should investigate the organization for "fraud."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey took Miller's advice, launching investigations that were ultimately blocked by federal courts on First Amendment grounds. But after those threats fizzled out, the Federal Trade Commission began its own probe of Media Matters — a blatant assault on freedom of speech at the center of a case that a federal appeals court heard on Monday.

To recognize the danger posed by the FTC's investigation of Media Matters, you do not have to like the left-leaning group or accept its critique of X. Whatever the merits of the organization's advocacy, it is indisputably protected by the First Amendment.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson nevertheless seems to view speech that discourages businesses from placing ads on certain platforms as evidence of a crime. Ferguson signaled that attitude even before President Donald Trump picked him to run the FTC in December 2024.

When Marc Andreessen — like Musk, a major Trump donor — complained about "the orchestrated advertiser boycott against X" that November, Ferguson, then a member of the FTC's Republican minority, agreed that "concerted refusal to deal can violate the antitrust laws." Touting his qualifications for the job that Trump later gave him, Ferguson bragged about his "track record" of "standing up" to "the radical left" and promised to "investigate and prosecute collusion" on "advertiser boycotts."

As FTC chairman, Ferguson brought in several vociferous critics of Media Matters as senior staff members. And in May 2025, four months after Ferguson took office, Media Matters received a sweeping civil investigative demand from the FTC, which sought a long list of internal documents, including financial records and sensitive journalistic material.

The FTC, which has no authority to regulate nonprofit organizations such as Media Matters, initially did not explain the justification for those highly invasive and burdensome demands. But after Media Matters challenged the CID in federal court, the commission said it was investigating "potentially unlawful advertiser boycotts."

It was not clear why the FTC thought Media Matters had any records relevant to that inquiry. And last August, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan concluded that the commission's putative motive, like the rationales for the Texas and Missouri probes, looked like a cover for unconstitutional retaliation against Media Matters.

Sooknanan issued a preliminary injunction against the FTC's investigation, saying "Media Matters is likely to show that retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the FTC's CID." Although the FTC is now asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn that injunction, its arguments reinforce the impression that the commission targeted Media Matters because of the views it had expressed.

"Even publicly available information makes clear why Media Matters might receive a CID in an investigation into advertiser boycotts," the FTC's lawyers say. "For example, Media Matters' website calls for an advertiser boycott even today. Moreover, Congressional testimony has suggested that Media Matters participates in deplatforming and demonetization campaigns."

That supposed evidence "confirms that the FTC is simply targeting Media Matters for speech," the organization argues. According to the Supreme Court, it notes, "the First Amendment protects the right to engage in politically motivated boycotts as a means of encouraging social change."

Media Matters says the FTC's investigation has hurt the organization financially by scaring away donors and deterred it from pursuing journalistic projects that might irk Ferguson or his allies. The chilling impact of Ferguson's vendetta belies his perverse claim that he is protecting "Americans' freedom of speech."