A preview of what may be in store for even well-funded targets of President Trump’s revenge efforts is provided by the nonprofit organization Media Matters, which has been vital in left politics, as it struggles to survive months of legal attacks by his friends.
The group, which receives funding from some of the largest donors to the Democratic Party, has spent roughly $15 million on legal fees in the last 20 months to defend itself against Elon Musk’s lawsuits, as well as investigations by Republican state attorneys general and Mr. Trump’s Federal Trade Commission.
Documents and interviews with 11 people familiar with the organization’s struggle for survival reveal that the group has cut staff and rushed to garner more money from wary donors.
That might not be sufficient. Media Matters made compromises in an attempt to reach a settlement with Mr. Musk, but the parties were too far apart, and the negotiations broke down. Mr. Musk has launched additional cases elsewhere or appealed even when the group has won in court. According to an internal document and interviews, it has contemplated shuttering as a last resort.
The group has publicly said that it has no intention of closing and that it is dedicated to self-defense out of moral obligation.
We recognize that this fight is bigger than us, in contrast to several significant media organizations that have recently given in to pressure, said Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, in a statement. We continue to fight in court and fulfill our objective because of this.
Even though the fight is still ongoing, Media Matters serves as an illustration of how legal battles led by strong ideological rivals may silence political opposition and important voices. The group claims to have toned down its criticism of the Trump F.T.C. and Mr. Musk. Some allies have also excluded Media Matters. Additionally, it has experienced a decline in employee morale, an increase in internal strife, and security issues.
All of that has resulted in a significant shift in the group’s fortunes.
Between its founding in 2003 and the end of 2023, Media Matters raised around $250 million and became a powerful force in Democratic politics by successfully discrediting prominent right-wing politicians and media professionals.
The group’s current dire situation highlights the grave consequences that can result from the Trump administration and its allies using the enormous resources of government or billionaire bank accounts to target those who are viewed as adversaries.
Targets are left with a difficult decision: bargain settlements that run the danger of retribution for renunciating their beliefs, or spend a lot of money and fight back.
Case in point: When the parent corporations of ABC News and CBS News decided to pay millions of dollars to Mr. Trump’s presidential library foundation in order to settle litigation that experts believe the media outlets could have won in court, they came under fire for bowing in to Donald Trump.
When the Mr. Trump administration targeted elite law firms with executive orders and probes after their attorneys acted against him or his administration, their approaches changed. Those that retaliated were concerned about losing customers and money, but they won in court. Due to what some perceived as a surrender, those who made agreements have lost a number of important partners.
The Trump administration withheld $2.2 billion in federal research funds from Harvard after the university failed to comply with its demands.
Instead of defending itself against a lawsuit filed by Mr. Musk’s social media platform over studies that accused the platform of facilitating hostile online content, the nonprofit Global Alliance for Responsible Media shut down last year.
Targeting Donors
Compared to most Trump allies, Media Matters has been defending itself on more legal fronts and for a longer period of time, and its identity is more closely associated with opposing Republicans and their allies. Because it depends on preserving the trust and privacy of wealthy Democratic backers, it is also especially vulnerable.
David Brock, a self-described right-wing hitman who changed sides and started working for Democrats, founded Media Matters in 2003 with the goal of dismantling what he perceived to be a potent Republican information ecology. The organization became the centerpiece of a network of organizations that Mr. Brock founded or purchased with the goal of supporting Democrats and undermining Republicans.
The two distinct nonprofit organizations that make up Media Matters are registered under different tax code sections—one for charities and the other for social welfare groups—that let them to take donations without revealing the identities of their supporters to the public, a practice known as “dark money.”
Some significant donors, such as hedge fund manager Stephen F. Mandel Jr., apparel entrepreneur Susie Tompkins Buell, and investor George Soros, have been made public through press reports or voluntary disclosures.
Media Matters first used fact-checking, boycotts of advertisers, and what Mr. Brock called “guerrilla warfare” and “sabotage” to target Fox News and conservative talk radio.
After taking over as president in late 2016, Mr. Carusone started working to reposition the organization as a news organization that covered the emergence of the so-called alt-right as well as hateful and disinformational content on the internet, particularly social media. Although he gave up day-to-day leadership, Mr. Brock continued to serve as chairman before departing the organization in 2022.
After acquiring Twitter earlier that year, Mr. Musk started to loosen the platform’s content management guidelines. The platform, which Mr. Musk later dubbed X, was the focus of Media Matters.
Media Matters reported in November 2023 that advertisements on X were displayed alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content. An flight of advertisers from X cost the firm about $75 million in revenue until the end of that year, and the article and a post in which Mr. Musk supported an antisemitic conspiracy theory were contributing factors.
Later that month, X filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging that Media Matters had hacked the website to get around security measures and put ads next to offensive content in an attempt to harm X’s connections with advertisers.Mr. Musk attacked Media Matters in a December 2023 broadcast on X, saying, “We will pursue not just the organization, but anyone funding that organization.”
Requests for comment from X and Mr. Musk were not answered.
Investigations by the offices of Republican attorneys general Andrew Bailey of Missouri and Ken Paxton of Texas swiftly followed the lawsuit, looking into Mr. Musk’s allegations that the nonprofit had falsified data in its study of X and raising the possibility that donors in their states had been duped.
A federal court blocked the Texas inquiry after Media Matters filed a lawsuit, finding that the state attorneys general were probably violating the organization’s First Amendment rights. Missouri consented to end its inquiry. Nevertheless, Media Matters lost around $2 million as a result of the court battles.
Mounting Bills and Disputes
Mr. Brock rejoined Media Matters to assist in navigating the X litigation following Mr. Trump’s retake of the White House last autumn. However, he quickly ran afoul of others and was sidelined.
Since Mr. Musk, the richest man in the world, appeared unfazed by the expense or delays, several group members wanted it to think about filing for bankruptcy or offering concessions to end the lawsuit. Attorneys for the advocacy group described X’s litigation against Media Matters in other nations, such as Singapore and Ireland, as a vendetta-driven campaign of libel tourism. X filed an appeal after a U.S. federal judge decided that the Singaporean lawsuit should be stopped and the Irish case should be closed.
In early February, frustrated by what some at Media Matters saw as the high cost and slow pace of their lawyers at theinfluential Democratic firmElias Law Group, the advocacy group began transitioning the X cases to different law firms. The group was informed by an Elias attorney that it owed approximately $4 million.
We understand this case has been and remains very difficult for everyone involved, as was Musk s intention when he brought it, Ezra Reese, the chair of Elias s political law group, wrote in an email to Mr. Carusone and Media Matters s lead fund-raiser, Mary Pat Bonner.
Mr. Reese promised to pay $2.25 million within a week in exchange for wiping out almost half of the outstanding balance. If the group did not commit to the payment plan, Mr. Reese wrote, his firm would expect full payment of the original amount and would go pens down and take steps to withdraw from the case by the end of the month.
Within Media Matters, the ultimatum was not well received.
You’ve got to be kidding! Mr. Reese was answered by Ms. Bonner. Is this how you handle friends who have been your clients for sixteen years?
In a statement to The New York Times, Mr. Reese defended his firm s work, noting that it helped with matters including the effort to shut down the state attorneys general investigations. These victories, he predicted, would help Media Matters and other organizations stand up to politically-motivated investigations and lawsuits brought by the right wing.
While Elias Law Group continued representing Media Matters on some matters, the advocacy group shifted much of its defense to other law firms, including Susman Godfrey.
The new legal team in April worked to reach a settlement with X s lawyers. X demanded that Media Matters retract its report about antisemitic content, pay X all the money left in the group s bank account and shut down. Media Matters proposed explaining its methodology in its report, adding a statement from X and donating to a mutually agreed charity.
No deal materialized. Media Matters soon had even more worries.
In May, the F.T.C.launched an investigationinto whether Media Matters and roughly adozen other watchdog and advertising groupsillegally colluded to dissuade companies from buying ads on X and other platforms. The commission s investigation echoed Mr. Musk s claims and sought similar internal information about Media Matters, including communications with other watchdog groups that monitor social media and news outlets.
The F.T.C. declined to comment.
Chill and harms
Inside Media Matters, the F.T.C. investigation was seen as an example of the Trump administration doing the bidding of Mr. Musk. Andrew Ferguson, the F.T.C. s chairman,suggestedbefore he was chosen to lead the agency that advertiser boycotts might violate antitrust laws. He praised Mr. Musk s purchase of Twitter as helping to preserve the free exchange of ideas that s so indispensable to the American way of life.
While Mr. Trump and Mr. Muskhave feuded of late, the Trump administration has continued its investigation, underscoring an alignment based on shared enemies that may outlast the personal alliance between the two men.
In June, Media Matterssued to halt the investigation, arguing that the F.T.C. was using sweeping governmental powers to attempt to silence and harass an organization for daring to speak the truth.
Inthe lawsuit, Media Matters lawyers wrote that the F.T.C. investigation caused many Media Matters reporters, writers and researchers to pare back their investigative journalism, especially on any topics that could be perceived as relating to the F.T.C. or its investigation.
The legal situation also impaired the group s ability to recruit and retain employees, according to the lawsuit.
Remaining staff members have expressed concern for their safety amid a torrent of threatening messages, requiring the group to hire an outside security firm, according to an internal memo laying out what it called the chill and harms of the legal attacks.
The memo, prepared for the group s lawyers and reviewed by The Times, indicated that allies of the group have pulled back communications with us or ceased proactively engaging with us, while some donors and funders delayed or withheld gifts because they feared retaliation.
Mr. Mandel, in a meeting in Connecticut this spring, suggested to people raising money for Media Matters that the group should consider shutting down a possibility that the memo also had broached.
But Mr. Carusone in his statement suggested that was not being considered, casting the legal assaults as a revenge campaign against Media Matters intended to stymie or stop us entirely from exercising our constitutional rights.