Press freedom was affected during this period by verbal harassment from the highest levels of power. Stigmatization remains a persistent feature of official discourse, with President Javier Milei at the center of a strategy aimed at discrediting critical journalists and media outlets. The phrase “we don’t hate journalists enough” and its acronym “NOLSALP” became a slogan repeatedly used by him and his followers, with a corrosive effect on journalism’s credibility.
Although in recent weeks there has been a slight moderation in the president’s language, the disparagement has not ceased. At the same time, this discourse has been systematically amplified on social media by influencers and accounts associated with the ruling party, leading to digital harassment campaigns against journalists that include threats, coordinated attacks, and a level of pressure that drives many reporters to self-censorship.
In a massive campaign rally led by Milei in Buenos Aires, broadcast on YouTube and carried by most TV channels, a video was shown in which cannons bearing the logos of independent media outlets fired at the president, who then emerged unscathed from a thick cloud of smoke.
There has been an increase in defamation and libel lawsuits, many of which have been filed by public officials, including the president. Although judges have so far acted with caution and refrained from imposing disproportionate sanctions, these cases serve as a wear-down mechanism and have a chilling effect on journalism.
There were also attempts to undermine the constitutional protection of journalistic sources, such as a request to raid the homes of journalists who published audio recordings allegedly belonging to the president’s sister, who serves as the Secretary General of the Presidency. The courts rejected the request, reaffirming the validity of Article 43 of the Constitution, which guarantees the confidentiality of sources.
In addition, there have been judicial restrictions on the publication of information, such as an order prohibiting the dissemination of audio recordings related to the same presidential official. This decision was widely criticized by organizations promoting freedom of expression. These actions were ultimately nullified.
An additional concern is an attempt to eliminate the tax benefits granted to the press—benefits with a long-standing tradition and supported by both law and a Supreme Court ruling—through the national budget proposal submitted by the Executive Branch. Since the benefits for all other sectors—books, museum tickets, theaters, concerts, and sporting events—remain intact, the measure, if approved, would clearly be discriminatory and arbitrary.
According to monitoring by the journalistic organization FOPEA, most attacks came from police, security agents, and public officials. Some of the most serious incidents occurred during coverage of social mobilizations, such as pensioners’ marches in front of Congress. There are no protection mechanisms in place for journalists, nor are there any preventive actions by the State.
Regarding access to public information, there have been setbacks. The president has chosen not to hold press conferences, restrictions have been imposed on journalists accredited at the Government House, and there have been attempts to reinterpret the law to expand the exceptions allowing information to be withheld.
The role of public media has been a subject of controversy. Under the premise of dismantling oversized structures and reversing the partisan use made by previous governments, the government drastically reduced resources. Some organizations warn that this has harmed the quality of reporting in the provinces, as the state news, radio, and television agency supplied numerous regional media outlets.
Shortly after taking office, the government announced the suspension of official advertising. Although some allocations persisted from decentralized agencies and state-owned companies, there were notable exclusions, such as Grupo Perfil. In addition, a proposal reintroduced in the 2026 budget seeks to eliminate historical tax benefits for newspapers, a measure interpreted as disregarding the tradition and practices of major democracies, which promote access to information as a public good comparable to culture and education.
Verbal harassment, legal pressures, and economic difficulties have led to increased self-censorship and a growing departure from the profession by journalists due to job insecurity and stigmatization campaigns. The phenomenon of “news deserts” has reached alarming levels. A recent FOPEA report indicates that in 70 percent of the country, conditions are very difficult for practicing journalism. The lack of media has a substantial negative impact on democracy.
