Despite anti-media rhetoric, the government is still reading the news

Federal agencies have quietly maintained access to subscription news services that require payment, even after public statements from the White House and senior officials casting such spending in a negative light. According to government records reviewed this week, departments including the White House, the Environmental Protection Agency and others continue to pay for access to media outlets that put their content behind paywalls.

Earlier in 2025, President Trump and aides publicly criticized the practice of federal agencies paying for premium access to news sites, characterizing it as wasteful and problematic. At one point, administration officials described such contracts as a scandal that needed to end. Those statements reflected longstanding skepticism from the president and some advisors toward mainstream news organizations.

Following those pronouncements, an effort was made within the executive branch to reduce or cancel these subscriptions. Spending on certain services was sharply reduced compared with the previous fiscal year. Some contracts were terminated entirely. The administration’s leadership argued that rolling back taxpayer‑funded access to expensive media products was consistent with broader goals to rein in government spending and challenge perceived bias in news coverage.

But a detailed review of recent federal contract data shows that many agencies have retained or reinstated subscriptions to the very services officials had publicly disparaged. These include access to legislative tracking tools, research platforms and reporting from outlets that require paid memberships. Agency officials say these subscriptions serve specific operational purposes, such as monitoring developments on Capitol Hill, tracking environmental policy details or following global events in foreign media.

For example, the EPA secured new access this year to services that provide specialized policy and legislative information. Transportation and other departments likewise maintained contracts that grant their staff access to premium reporting and data. A White House spokeswoman said agencies need to stay informed about developments that affect their missions, even as leadership works to reduce overall expenditures.

Critics of the administration’s mixed messaging see the continuing purchases as emblematic of a broader inconsistency between rhetoric and governance. They argue that federal agencies must have reliable information, but that public denunciations of news outlets coupled with continued spending undercuts messages about fiscal discipline and media criticism.

Officials involved in the subscription decisions emphasize that contracts for news access are fundamentally operational tools, not gifts or grants to media companies. They point out that such services often bundle news with data, research, and analytical tools that are important for policy work, legislative affairs, and diplomatic reporting.

The tension between political posturing and practical needs is not new in American government. Administrations of both parties have at times conveyed skepticism toward the press while simultaneously relying on news reporting to inform internal decision‑making. In this case, the situation highlights the practical constraints federal agencies face when communicating and coordinating across complex policy environments.

Some observers warn that continued reliance on paywalled services, even as leadership publicly criticizes the media, could contribute to confusion within the government about how best to balance transparency, accountability, and operational effectiveness. They note that when officials dismiss the value of certain news outlets while still subscribing to them, it may send mixed signals to both federal staff and the public.

Supporters of robust media access within the government argue that independent reporting plays a vital role in providing context and scrutiny that official channels cannot replicate. From tracking shifts in legislative language to monitoring global affairs, journalists often gather and synthesize information that would be difficult for agencies to compile internally.

At the same time, the debate underscores larger questions about how government should interact with the press in an era of sharply polarized views of media credibility. How agencies procure and use news services, and how leaders frame those decisions publicly, reflects broader tensions over trust, accountability and the role of information in democratic governance.

As federal agencies and the White House move into the coming year, the issue of news access contracts may continue to surface in debates about budgeting, press relations and administrative priorities. The choices made in offices and conference rooms about subscriptions and information sources have implications for how policy is developed and communicated — and how the public perceives the government’s relationship with the press.