This year’s Pulitzer Prize awards in journalism must, without any exaggeration or empty courtesy, be regarded as something far more than just another event on the American media calendar—because otherwise, we would miss a crucial part of their meaning and message. This edition of the Pulitzers, more than ever before, became a stage for reflecting the deep tension between mainstream media and the political power structure in America, particularly concerning the policies and approaches of Donald Trump. What appears on the surface to be a series of journalism awards is, at a deeper level, a sign of the media’s strong return to its classic role as a watchdog over power—a role whose erosion or politicization has been much debated in recent years. There is no doubt that the power structure in America wields significant influence over the country’s media landscape and uses this effective arm to advance its expansionist policies around the world. Nevertheless, the results of this year’s Pulitzer Prizes in Journalism show that the American media has not abandoned its criticism of corruption and mismanagement by current politicians.

An important point in this edition is that the jury and prize administrators, alongside selecting the winning works, reacted with an unprecedented tone to the dire state of press freedom in America. The explicit statements by Marjorie Miller, the prize’s administrator, opposing censorship and warning about restricted media access to institutions of power, effectively show that the issue is no longer just about professional competition among media outlets, but rather about the “arena for independent journalism” in the face of political pressure. References to restricted access for reporters to the White House and the Pentagon, the Trump administration’s lawsuits against media outlets, and the increasing legal and political pressure on journalists, all of these are understandable within this framework. At the ceremony, she said: “We stand for civil discourse and against censorship. Unfortunately, this needs repeating now because access to the White House and the Pentagon has been restricted, free speech on the streets is being challenged, and the President of the United States has filed billions of dollars in defamation and bad-faith lawsuits against several print and broadcast media outlets.” These words should be interpreted as a sign that the American media is struggling to defend its own existence.

In such an atmosphere, this year’s Pulitzer choices take on a meaning beyond mere recognition of outstanding work. A substantial portion of the awards went to reports that, directly or indirectly, criticized the power structure, governance methods, and consequences of Trump’s policies across various fields. From exposing the tense restructuring processes within the federal bureaucracy to investigating the use of political power for the financial benefit of circles close to authority, or narratives about immigration crackdowns and their human consequences, or the shameful Epstein Island affair—all of this shows that the media’s main focus has not been scattered incidents, but rather the “behavioral patterns of power,” especially during the Trump presidencies.

This media convergence in criticizing political power is a noteworthy point. In the American media system, which is typically highly fragmented and ideological, the emergence of such a level of focus on similar topics indicates a shared sensitivity toward processes perceived as threats to transparency, accountability, and public rights. In fact, major mainstream media outlets, despite their political and editorial differences, meet at one common point: the necessity of restraining power and exposing its deviations.

In this context, the role of media such as Reuters and the Associated Press is also significant. By focusing on investigative reports about the abuse of executive power, the consequences of foreign policy, and even issues related to technology and surveillance, they showed that professional journalism can still have an international impact. On the other hand, field reports on immigration, violence, urban crises, and natural disasters once again highlighted the importance of on-the-ground and narrative journalism, journalism that is not merely analytical but is present at the heart of social reality.

This year’s Pulitzer can be seen as a sign of a fundamental reality: that although the media is under political, economic, and technological pressure, it can still return to its primary role at critical historical moments. That role is not defined by alignment with power, but by distancing itself from it and making truth the central subject of reporting. In such a state, journalism is not just a profession, but part of the architecture of social oversight over power, an architecture without which no political system can claim full integrity.