A federal judge has blocked the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation into nonprofit media watchdog Media Matters, ruling that the agency’s actions were retaliatory and violated the First Amendment. The case stems from Media Matters’ reporting on advertising practices at Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, which highlighted high-profile ads appearing alongside antisemitic and offensive content following Musk’s acquisition of the company.
The investigation, initiated in May 2025, involved sweeping requests for budgets, communications, and other internal documents. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan criticized the FTC’s demands as politically motivated, emphasizing that they could intimidate journalists and nonprofits from engaging in public discourse. The ruling underscores the tension between government authority, corporate influence, and constitutional protections for free speech.
Read More: The White House Launches Official TikTok Account
Judge Cites First Amendment Violations
Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sharply criticized the FTC’s demands, saying the case “presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.” She described the agency’s actions as a “retaliatory act” that could chill constitutionally protected public debate.
“This should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,” Judge Sooknanan wrote in her ruling.
The judge’s comments signal growing judicial scrutiny over the potential misuse of federal investigative powers in matters involving political and media entities.
Background: Media Matters vs. X
The dispute between Media Matters and X dates back to November 2023, when the nonprofit released research highlighting the presence of high-profile ads adjacent to antisemitic and otherwise offensive posts on Twitter following Elon Musk’s acquisition.
This research, which focused on advertiser behavior and content moderation practices under Musk, drew national attention. Reports indicated that advertisers had been fleeing the platform after Musk’s controversial policy changes, including:
- Reducing content moderation
- Selling access to verified status
- Overhauling platform governance
Musk, meanwhile, responded publicly with combative messages to advertisers, including the now-infamous remark: “Go fuck yourself.”
X and Musk have argued that organizations like Media Matters, as well as the advertisers themselves, bear responsibility for the decline in ad revenue rather than the changes Musk implemented. In addition to targeting Media Matters, X also sued a nonprofit ad group representing 150 brands and more than 60 advertising associations for pulling their spending from the platform.
FTC Investigation and Civil Investigative Demand
In May 2025, the FTC initiated an investigation into Media Matters, probing whether the organization had improperly coordinated with advertisers. The agency issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID), requesting extensive documents, including:
- Internal budgets
- Communications with other nonprofits
- Marketing and fundraising materials
The timing of the FTC investigation raised eyebrows, coming shortly after the nonprofit’s report on X advertising practices. Judge Sooknanan’s ruling emphasizes that the scope of the FTC’s demands “should have come as no surprise,” given the political context surrounding the agency’s leadership.
Political Context and Allegations of Retaliation
Judge Sooknanan highlighted the political backdrop to the case. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, before his appointment by President Trump, appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast, where he advocated for aggressive investigative steps against “progressives” and others “fighting disinformation,” stating these groups would not relent after the election.
“Before President Trump selected him to head the FTC, Mr. Ferguson appeared on Steve Bannon’s podcast, where he said it is ‘really important that the FTC take investigative steps in the new administration’,” the judge wrote.
Sooknanan further noted that Ferguson had appointed senior staffers who had previously made public comments about Media Matters, reinforcing concerns that the FTC’s investigation may have been politically motivated.
State-Level Involvement
The ruling also references prior actions by state-level officials. Before the federal investigation, the attorneys general of Missouri nd Texas, both Republicans, issued their own CIDs to Media Matters. The judge noted that these state-level demands appeared to be coordinated or encouraged by Steven Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff.
These earlier CIDs had already been preliminarily blocked by the court as potentially retaliatory, underscoring a pattern of legal pressure against Media Matters.
Legal Analysis: Media Matters’ First Amendment Defense
Judge Sooknanan framed Media Matters’ reporting as a textbook example of First Amendment activity. By publishing research critical of Musk and X, the nonprofit was exercising its right to speak freely on matters of public concern.
“Media Matters engaged in quintessential First Amendment activity when it published an online article criticizing Mr. Musk and X,” she wrote. “And the Court finds that the FTC’s expansive CID is a retaliatory act. There can be no doubt that such a CID would deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from speaking again.”
The ruling reflects a broader principle in U.S. law: government authorities cannot use investigatory powers to punish or intimidate entities for engaging in protected speech.
Reactions From Media Matters
Angelo Carusone, Chairman and President of Media Matters, welcomed the ruling. He described it as a critical defense of journalistic freedom and nonprofit independence:
“This case is not just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters. It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration from any political party to bully media and nonprofit organizations through illegal abuses of power. We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American.”
Carusone emphasized that the case underscores the importance of resisting intimidation from political authorities, particularly when such intimidation targets organizations engaged in public-interest reporting.
Broader Implications for Social Media and Corporate Accountability
The dispute between Media Matters and X sits at the intersection of media oversight, corporate influence, and government regulation. Musk’s approach to platform management—including controversial monetization strategies and a hands-off stance on content moderation—has drawn scrutiny from advertisers, nonprofits, and regulators alike.
Media Matters’ research highlighted real-world consequences for both platform governance and advertiser behavior. The FTC investigation, while framed as an inquiry into potential collusion, raises broader concerns about the use of government power to influence or silence organizations critical of corporate actors.
Previous Legal Challenges Involving Musk and Nonprofits
The legal conflict is not isolated. Elon Musk and X have previously sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that criticized the platform for failing to curb racist, homophobic, and antisemitic content. That case was dismissed in March 2025, setting a precedent for challenges involving nonprofit organizations and social media companies.
These incidents collectively highlight the increasingly contentious legal landscape surrounding social media platforms, nonprofits, and the limits of government oversight.
Political Overtones and Future Oversight of the FTC
Judge Sooknanan’s ruling also raises questions about the politicization of federal regulatory agencies. By referencing Chairman Ferguson’s past statements and the selection of staffers with publicly expressed opinions about Media Matters, the judge underscored the need for independent, impartial oversight at agencies like the FTC.
Critics argue that without such independence, regulatory power can be weaponized against media organizations, nonprofits, and other entities that hold powerful private actors accountable.
Media Matters’ Commitment to Free Speech
Despite the legal battles, Media Matters has reaffirmed its commitment to investigative reporting and public accountability. Carusone stressed that the nonprofit would continue to scrutinize corporate and political actors, relying on constitutional protections to defend its work.
“The ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting rather than folding when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,” Carusone said.
This case may serve as a bellwether for other media organizations, signaling that courts are willing to step in when government investigations appear to cross the line into retaliation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Media Matters?
Media Matters for America is a nonprofit media watchdog organization that monitors and reports on misinformation, corporate behavior, and public discourse in media. In this case, the nonprofit published research highlighting how high-profile ads were appearing next to antisemitic and offensive content on X after Elon Musk acquired the platform.
What triggered the FTC investigation?
In May 2025, the FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Media Matters, requesting internal budgets, communications with other nonprofits, and other documents. The investigation was reportedly linked to allegations that Media Matters may have improperly coordinated with advertisers, though critics argue the timing suggests political motivation following Media Matters’ research on X advertising practices.
What did the judge rule?
U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan blocked the FTC investigation, ruling that the agency’s demands were a “retaliatory act” that violated the First Amendment. The judge emphasized that Media Matters’ reporting constituted constitutionally protected speech and that the CID could deter future journalistic activity.
What does “retaliatory” mean in this context?
Retaliatory refers to actions taken by a government agency in response to speech or activity it dislikes. In this case, the judge determined that the FTC’s investigative demands were motivated by Media Matters’ critical reporting about Musk and X, rather than legitimate legal concerns.
Did state governments play a role?
Yes. The attorneys general of Missouri and Texas previously issued their own CIDs to Media Matters. These were also blocked by the court as likely retaliatory. The judge suggested these actions may have been coordinated with White House officials.
How does this relate to Elon Musk and X?
Media Matters’ research criticized the platform’s advertising environment after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X), highlighting ads appearing alongside offensive content. Musk and X have denied wrongdoing, arguing that organizations like Media Matters and advertisers were responsible for ad revenue losses, and have filed multiple lawsuits against nonprofits critical of the platform.
Conclusion
The federal judge’s decision to block the FTC investigation into Media Matters underscores the enduring tension between free speech, government authority, and corporate influence. By labeling the investigation as retaliatory, the ruling affirms the principle that political motivations cannot justify targeting organizations for their speech.
As social media platforms continue to play a central role in public discourse, the case illustrates the need for robust legal protections for nonprofits and journalists. For Media Matters, the ruling represents not just a legal victory, but a reaffirmation of the essential role that investigative reporting plays in American democracy.
