Former NBC political analyst Chuck Todd has openly admitted the mainstream media’s approach to Donald Trump after January 6 was both constitutionally flawed and strategically counterproductive. This rare admission from a prominent media figure exposes how the coordinated censorship campaign not only violated core First Amendment principles but, ironically, enhanced Trump’s influence. How did Chuck Todd’s remarks challenge the conventional media wisdom about handling Trump?
Media’s Deplatforming Strategy Backfired
Chuck Todd made headlines with his candid assessment that the media’s collective effort to silence President Donald Trump after January 6 fundamentally backfired. “There’s no doubt Trump wants some revenge, but let’s not beat around the bush; all these institutions did wanna cancel Trump, did want him inoperable in mainstream public,” Todd stated during his appearance on the 13th & Park podcast.
The former Meet the Press moderator highlighted how the deplatforming strategy proved catastrophically counterproductive for traditional media outlets. “The decision to deplatform bit mainstream media in the ass,” Todd remarked, adding, “Donald Trump started his own information ecosystem. How do you like them apples now?”
🚨NEW: After leaving NBC News, Chuck Todd laments how media effort to "CANCEL TRUMP" completely backfired🚨
"All these institutions did want to cancel Trump, did want him inoperable in mainstream public."
"I think the biggest mistake — and I did not follow the pied piper on… pic.twitter.com/wAwhaIe5VA
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) April 19, 2025
Constitutional Concerns Over Censorship
Todd’s criticism extended beyond strategic miscalculation to fundamental constitutional principles. “I did not follow the Pied Piper on this one,” he declared. “This is a democracy. This is a First Amendment issue.”
His comments reflect a growing recognition that the post-January 6 censorship campaign contradicted core American values regarding free speech protections. Todd emphasized that the Constitution’s First Amendment exists specifically to protect minority viewpoints, not merely those endorsed by the majority or established institutions.
🚨NEW: After leaving NBC News, Chuck Todd explains why legacy media downplayed Biden’s issues🚨
"The only thing I can chalk it up to is this, whatever you want to call it, this fear that some members of the media had sometimes — that they would be perceived as helping Trump if… pic.twitter.com/w6TAhSZ4D8
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) April 9, 2025
Declining Trust and Media Relevance
The attempted silencing of Trump has accelerated the erosion of public trust in legacy media organizations, according to Todd’s assessment. His mockery of traditional newsrooms’ diminishing influence represents a striking admission from someone who occupied a prominent position within the mainstream media establishment.
Rather than weakening Trump’s influence, the coordinated deplatforming inadvertently strengthened his connection with supporters while undermining media credibility. The irony of this outcome appears not to be lost on Todd, whose comments signal growing awareness within media circles about the counterproductive nature of gatekeeping efforts.
Todd’s remarks serve as an implicit acknowledgment that institutional attempts to control the political narrative have increasingly failed in the digital age. His critique reveals how traditional media’s declining authority has coincided with the rise of alternative information channels that operate beyond establishment control.
While not offering an explicit apology, Todd’s assessment represents one of the most significant admissions from a mainstream media figure regarding the mishandling of Trump coverage. The acknowledgment comes at a time when many conservative commentators have long criticized what they view as coordinated efforts to suppress certain political viewpoints across major platforms.
The fallout from this censorship approach appears to have cemented divisions within the American information landscape rather than healing them. Todd’s forthright analysis suggests that some within the media establishment may be reassessing the wisdom of strategies that have further eroded public trust in journalistic institutions.