The Federal Trade Commission has launched an investigation into Media Matters for America, demanding records of its communications with major advertising bodies. The move has sparked concerns of political retribution and raised questions about whether the FTC is responding to pressure from Elon Musk and his allies. At stake is not just the future of one progressive media watchdog, but the boundaries of government oversight, free speech, and corporate influence in the digital age.
A sweeping probe with unclear boundaries
Media Matters for America, a nonprofit watchdog group known for its critiques of right-wing media, is now under federal scrutiny. On May 20, the organization received a letter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) demanding it turn over all communications with a wide range of advertising industry groups, including the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The letter is part of a broader probe into whether Media Matters improperly influenced advertisers to cut ties with X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
The letter, obtained by CNN, signals that the FTC is exploring potential “collusion” between the watchdog group and advertising bodies to orchestrate a boycott of X. One source familiar with the investigation described the request as sweeping and intentionally vague — a “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” approach. The vague language has fueled fears that this may be less about regulatory enforcement and more about silencing a frequent critic of Musk and the far-right media ecosystem.
The Musk connection: Legal battles and political overtones
The investigation comes in the wake of Musk’s escalating feud with Media Matters. In late 2023, X Corp. sued the organization, claiming its reporting on extremist content on the platform deliberately sought to drive advertisers away. The lawsuit alleged that Media Matters carried out a coordinated media campaign to “destroy” the platform by revealing how ads from major brands appeared alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content.
Musk’s frustrations with Media Matters extend beyond the courtroom. He has repeatedly accused the group of undermining the platform’s viability through manipulation and bad-faith tactics. His anger boiled over publicly in 2023 when he told advertisers who left the platform to “go f**k yourself” during a tech summit.
That year also saw Musk take legal action against GARM and the WFA, claiming the groups violated antitrust laws by coordinating a boycott. He later expanded the lawsuit to include companies like Lego, Nestlé, and Shell. Those companies have since filed motions to dismiss, accusing Musk of trying to use litigation to recover business lost due to his own erratic decisions and platform mismanagement.
A watchdog in the crosshairs
Media Matters has characterized the FTC’s investigation as politically motivated. In a statement released Thursday, the organization’s president, Angelo Carusone, condemned the probe as a misuse of government power. “The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics,” he said. “It’s clear that’s exactly what’s happening here, given Media Matters’ history of holding those same figures to account.”
Carusone’s statement referenced the appointment of FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, who in December 2023 called for action against what he described as “unlawful collusion” and advertiser boycotts that disrupt online competition. Ferguson’s remarks came just days before being nominated by Donald Trump to lead the agency, suggesting a potential alignment between political priorities and regulatory action.
The watchdog has not been silent in the face of government pressure. Earlier this year, Media Matters sued Musk in return, accusing him of weaponizing the legal system to retaliate against journalism he didn’t like. It also previously sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a First Amendment case, alleging that his investigation into their Musk coverage was unconstitutional. A federal judge sided with Media Matters in 2024, granting an injunction against Paxton’s office.
Advertising exodus and platform decline
The heart of the issue lies in the advertising crisis that has gripped X since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022. Following massive layoffs, the dismantling of content moderation teams, and the amplification of conspiracy theories by Musk himself, brands became increasingly wary of associating with the platform. By mid-2023, Musk acknowledged that X’s ad revenue had plummeted by more than 50%.
Media Matters’ reporting shone a spotlight on these problems, publishing detailed investigations into the appearance of hate speech alongside brand messaging. These findings were widely cited by marketing executives and industry groups as justification for pulling ad campaigns from X. While Musk has since tried to rebuild trust with a “charm offensive,” many advertisers remain unconvinced.
The FTC’s probe now seeks to determine whether Media Matters crossed a line from watchdog journalism into anti-competitive behavior. Critics argue that merely publishing truthful reports, even if damaging to X, should not constitute a regulatory violation. To them, the investigation signals an attempt to police political speech under the guise of consumer protection.
Free speech or market manipulation?
The investigation raises important questions about the role of watchdog organizations in shaping corporate decisions. If Media Matters is found to have coordinated with advertisers in an illegal manner, it could set a precedent for how advocacy groups engage with commercial partners. But if the investigation is perceived as political retaliation, it may trigger a broader debate about the limits of government power and the weaponization of regulatory agencies.
Legal experts note that the line between advocacy and anticompetitive conduct can be blurry. “There’s a real danger here that the FTC is being used to chill criticism of powerful individuals or platforms,” says Alyssa Romero, a professor of media law at Georgetown University. “Investigations like this, even if ultimately dismissed, can have a silencing effect.” The FTC has declined to comment on the matter. The WFA and GARM have not issued statements in response to inquiries about the investigation.
What’s next?
As the FTC’s investigation unfolds, both sides are digging in. Media Matters has vowed to resist what it sees as an authoritarian overreach, and Musk shows no signs of letting go of his vendetta. Meanwhile, the future of advertising on X remains uncertain, as brands weigh the reputational risks of returning to a platform mired in controversy.
At its core, the case is about more than just advertising dollars or social media drama. It is a test of how far the government can go in scrutinizing political advocacy—especially when it involves billionaires, watchdogs, and a platform that once called itself the world’s digital town square.
