The White House is coming after me. This impacts ALL of independent media.

The Trump administration has created an official catalog of media critics. I just found my name on it.

Jun 05, 2026

The White House put me on a list.

An enemies list is what authoritarian governments do, not what democratic governments are supposed to do. And for years, we've discussed the dangers of governments treating criticism as something to be managed rather than answered.

Now the Trump White House has created a section on WhiteHouse.gov called “Media Offenders,” and I am on it.

This is not a parody site. It is not a random social media account. It is an official page on the federal government’s website.

The page categorizes journalists, commentators, and independent creators that the administration apparently views as problematic. Under a section labeled “Leftist Influencers,” there is a page dedicated to me.

Here’s the link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/media-bias-reporter/david-pakman/

That should concern everyone, regardless of their politics.

Now this would be different if it were simply a politician criticizing a commentator. That happens every day. Public figures criticize me constantly, and I criticize public officials constantly. That is part of living in a free society.

The issue is that there is a fundamental difference between a journalist or commentator criticizing the government and the government creating a catalog of its critics.

One is accountability.

The other is something entirely different.

A familiar pattern

This did not happen in isolation.

Over the last several years, Trump and his allies have repeatedly escalated attacks against institutions and individuals they view as obstacles: political opponents. prosecutors, judges, universities, law firms, news organizations, public broadcasters.

Now independent media creators appear to be joining that list.

The progression is worth paying attention to because it follows a familiar pattern. When governments become hostile to criticism, they often stop engaging with the substance of what critics are saying. Instead, they focus on labeling the critics themselves.

The conversation shifts from “Are these claims true?” to “Who are these people, and why should you distrust them?”

History offers plenty of examples.

Authoritarian governments around the world have frequently relied on registries, blacklists, and public campaigns against critics, often portraying them as threats rather than responding to their arguments. In the U.S., the Nixon administration famously maintained an enemies list of journalists, activists, politicians, and donors.

No, I am not suggesting that being placed on a page on WhiteHouse.gov is equivalent to the worst abuses of authoritarian governments.

But the instinct is recognizable.

When those in power begin cataloging critics instead of debating them, it is worth asking why.

Why this matters

Some people have responded by saying this is simply politics.

“You talk about Trump, and now Trump talks about you.”

That misses the point.

The government possesses powers that private citizens do not.

A commentator criticizing elected officials is exercising free speech. The government identifying critics on an official federal website carries a very different implication because it comes from the institution that holds power.

Even if no further action is taken, the message is clear: these are people the administration believes its supporters should view as adversaries.

And if further action is taken, whether through pressure campaigns, attempts at deplatforming, harassment, or something else, the implications become even more serious.

That is why this deserves attention now rather than later.

We are not backing down

The specific issue that appears to have triggered the administration’s attention involves our coverage of Donald Trump’s health. If that coverage struck a nerve, so be it.

My job is not to avoid topics that powerful people find uncomfortable. My job is to examine claims, ask questions, and follow evidence wherever it leads.

Being placed on a government list does not change that responsibility.

If anything, it reinforces it.

I do not yet know what, if anything, comes next. We are consulting with attorneys and advisors and taking the situation seriously.

I would be naïve not to consider the possibility that publicly identifying critics on an official government website could encourage harassment or threats. When people in positions of power label individuals as enemies, some supporters inevitably interpret that as a signal. Whether the result is online abuse, coordinated harassment campaigns, or something more serious, those risks cannot simply be ignored.

Further, I am reaching tens of millions of people across all platforms. If a platform like YouTube decides to pull my channel due to pressure from the White House, my almost 4 million followers would lose access to the show.

But we are not intimidated. My team and I are going to continue doing the work.

The larger lesson here extends beyond me or this show. A healthy democracy requires independent voices that are willing to scrutinize those in power. Once governments start treating criticism itself as the problem, everyone should pay attention.

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. If platforms fold, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.