In an unexpected twist on Thursday, Politico’s Playbook newsletter seemed to pivot in its coverage of President Donald Trump, offering praise that contrasted sharply with its previous critical tone. The shift in tone came just one day after the White House confirmed it would cut ongoing federal subscriptions to the outlet, ending millions of taxpayer dollars spent on subsidizing Politico’s service.
The Playbook newsletter, a staple in political reporting, highlighted Trump’s high energy, taking note of the difference in his approach to that of former President Joe Biden. The newsletter described Trump as a “man of remarkable energy,” emphasizing his preparation for office and swift action upon taking power.
“He was ready: Has any incoming administration been better prepared for power? Never mind the first 100 days — Trump’s team had a battleplan for the first 100 hours, and they executed it with stunning efficacy. From the barrage of executive orders to DOGE’s all-out war on government, it has all been way bigger than anyone foresaw. Rudderless and bewildered, Democrats had no idea how to respond,” read the Playbook commentary.
The newsletter continued by praising Trump’s work ethic and media presence, noting that despite his age, Trump has shown no signs of slowing down. “This guy has energy: Trump might be the oldest president ever to swear the oath, but he’s not slowing down,” the newsletter asserted. “The pace of executive action has been off the charts. And Trump has made public appearances and taken media questions almost every single day.”
This language, a stark departure from the typical criticisms of Trump, raised eyebrows in the media, particularly considering the timing. It came just a day after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that millions in federal funds, previously allocated to subsidize Politico subscriptions, would no longer be directed to the outlet.
The decision was part of a broader push to curtail government spending on media outlets that Trump and his allies often characterize as “fake news.”
On social media, conservative outlets, including the Daily Caller, quickly picked up on the timing of Politico’s sudden shift in tone. “Politico’s Playbook had some VERY nice things to say about President Trump this morning…” the Daily Caller posted on X, noting the unusual praise. Some reporters also commented on the “interesting timing” of the positive remarks, suggesting a connection between the praise and the funding cuts.
While Politico‘s newfound praise for Trump may have surprised some, the president did not seem impacted by the compliments. In a Thursday morning post, Trump took to his social media platform, specifically singling out Politico and criticized federal funding going to the media outlet.
“LOOKS LIKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLLEN AT USAID, AND OTHER AGENCIES, MUCH OF IT GOING TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA AS A ‘PAYOFF’ FOR CREATING GOOD STORIES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS,” Trump wrote. “THE LEFT WING ‘RAG,’ KNOWN AS ‘POLITICO,’ SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED $8,000,000. Did the New York Times receive money??? Who else did??? THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY! THE DEMOCRATS CAN’T HIDE FROM THIS ONE. TOO BIG, TOO DIRTY!”
Trump’s rhetoric echoed his past claims that media outlets critical of his administration were being financially incentivized to publish favorable content about his political opponents. He seemed to suggest that the recent shift in Politico’s coverage could be part of a larger pattern of media outlets aligning with certain political interests in exchange for federal funds.
The White House’s decision to cut Politico‘s federal subscriptions could have far-reaching implications, not just for the outlet itself but for the broader media landscape. If the Trump administration follows through on its plan to cut funding, it could set a precedent for future administrations to use federal resources as leverage in their dealings with the media.
The move has already sparked debate, with some accusing the Trump administration of attempting to silence critical voices by withholding taxpayer funding from outlets that report unfavorably on the president. Others, however, view it as a necessary step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used to support biased media organizations.
READ NEXT: Former Politico Staffers Reveal Leadership’s Pro-Biden Bias
Interesting and thought provoking column. I believe it is not appropriate for federal organizations or agencies to fund any news media because it can and should be viewed as supporting propaganda. Those media outlets should be able to fund themselves through donations or subscriptions (not to government agencies) or sale of advertising. Then they have a right to say or publish whatever they think. As far as setting a precedent, it appears that was already done by prior federal administrations – albeit in a way to keep the payments out of the public eye. The NEW precedent being established should be hailed as an example of federal government NOT influencing media through back channel money payments of taxpayer funds.
That sort of “funding” is NOT appropriate for the government, regardless of the political bias. That is why it should NOT exist.