First Amendment Watch media bias and reliability
First Amendment Watch is held by the ratings provider we draw on, and no rater has placed it on the political spectrum. We have seen it on 8 published stories of ours.
The short answers
Is First Amendment Watch biased?
First Amendment Watch is held by the ratings provider we draw on, and no rater has placed it on the political spectrum. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.
Is First Amendment Watch left or right?
First Amendment Watch is held by the ratings provider we draw on, and no rater has placed it on the political spectrum.
Is First Amendment Watch reliable?
We do not hold a factual-reliability assessment for First Amendment Watch. A political-leaning label would not answer that question on its own, so we do not infer reliability from left, centre or right.
What First Amendment Watch has been covering
Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with First Amendment Watch’s own report linked underneath.
Three major news organizations have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging a violation of First Amendment rights after their White House press credentials were revoked. The outlets seek immediate restoration of access.
First Amendment Watch reported it asCNN, MS Now, Politico Say They’ve Notified Trump They’re Suing Over Denied White House Access (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has filed a lawsuit against Columbia University, alleging the institution failed to protect him and other pro-Palestinian students from harassment and retaliated against them. The suit claims the university's actions led to doxing and Khalil's detention by immigration agents.
First Amendment Watch reported it asMahmoud Khalil Lawsuit Says Columbia Failed To Protect Pro-Palestinian Activists (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
A whistleblower alleges a Trump administration task force pressured Ivy League universities into settlements despite incomplete investigations or no evidence of legal violations. The complaint, filed by former Justice Department lawyer Haley Van Erem, claims the probes were politically driven and disregarded constitutional protections.
First Amendment Watch reported it asWhistleblower Alleges Political Pressure, Lack of Evidence in Antisemitism Probes Targeting Schools (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
Disney’s ABC filed a federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission on 18 August 2026, alleging the agency is retaliating against the network for its editorial decisions. The suit targets early licence-renewal orders for eight stations and an investigation into the talk show 'The View'.
First Amendment Watch reported it asDisney Sues FCC Over Challenge to Broadcast Licenses, Claiming Retaliation Over ‘Jimmy Kimmel’ (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
The U.S. Supreme Court on 17 August 2026 declined for the second time to hear Donald Trump’s appeal of a $5 million jury verdict in favour of writer E. Jean Carroll. The decision leaves intact a 2023 finding that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll in the 1990s.
First Amendment Watch reported it asSupreme Court Again Rebuffs Trump’s Push to Toss Out $5 Million Verdict in E. Jean Carroll Case (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
A Massachusetts judge ruled that the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office must release anonymized health records of immigrant detainees to the ACLU, rejecting the sheriff’s claim that federal law overrides state transparency rules. The ACLU sued after the records were withheld.
First Amendment Watch reported it asJudge Orders Massachusetts Sheriff To Hand ICE Detainee Records to ACLU (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
Four advocacy groups, including Human Rights Watch, filed a lawsuit in New York on 11 August 2026 challenging the Trump administration’s sanctions against the International Criminal Court. The plaintiffs argue the measures violate US constitutional rights and hinder prosecutions of war crimes. The administration calls the ICC a threat to US sovereignty.
First Amendment Watch reported it asGroups Sue the Trump Administration Over Its Targeting of the International Criminal Court (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
A federal appeals court indicated it may block a defamation lawsuit by New England fishing businesses against Monterey Bay Aquarium over its Seafood Watch programme's 2022 decision to list lobster as unsustainable. Judges cited free speech concerns during oral arguments on 26 July 2026.
First Amendment Watch reported it asAppeals Court Says Fishermen’s Claim in Lobster Defamation Suit Raises First Amendment Questions (opens First Amendment Watch in a new tab)
Who says so
No rating organisation we draw on has placed First Amendment Watch. We asked on 10 September 2026.
How reliably it reports fact
A rating of the newsroom in general, by others, and a different thing from the Trust score we publish on each story, which judges one piece of reporting.
We hold no factual-reliability rating for this outlet.
Who owns it
We hold no ownership record for First Amendment Watch.
Where it publishes from
- Official site
- firstamendmentwatch.org
- Seen publishing on
- firstamendmentwatch.org
- Access
- Free to read
What we have seen ourselves
Counted across the stories this site has published, which is the only denominator a reader can check: every one of them has a page, and every page lists the reports it was written from.
- Stories
- 8
- Reports listed
- 8
- We could read
- 0
- First seen
- 7 August 2026
8 of those reports were paywalled or blocked to us. Our reading of this outlet is built on the 0 we could open, not on everything it published.
A blindspot is measured against one side of the spectrum. First Amendment Watch has not been placed on the spectrum, so there is no side to count against and we publish no figure here.
Across the 8 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, another outlet was always ahead of First Amendment Watch: its report arrived a median of 30 hours after the earliest one we logged.
Measured 27 September 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 21 September 2026. Ratings pulled 10 September 2026.
Think this page is wrong?
The leanings above are published by AllSides, Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check, and we republish them rather than make them. If you think one is misapplied, the strongest place to say so is with the organisation that made it, and every verdict here links to their page.
What we are responsible for is everything else: the ownership chain, where First Amendment Watch publishes from, which of our stories we have listed it on, and whether we have the right publisher at all. Tell us what is wrong and an editor reads it.
Report something wrong on this page
Anything we correct is written up in the public corrections log. We do not publish reader votes as a rating, because an unattributed rating is the thing this site exists to argue against.
Every rating on this page is a named third party’s published work, republished with its author and, where one exists, a link to it. Our own coverage record is the section we measure ourselves. Neither is a judgement of any individual report: those are scored story by story, and the reasoning is on our methodology page.