If having presidents make life difficult for the news media could destroy First Amendment protections, the free press would have ceased operation countless times over the course of American history.

Pretty much every president has battled the press, including founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln saved the union, but was ruthless in stifling journalists and editors. Woodrow Wilson treated the press just as badly. Harry Truman’s “give ‘em hell” approach certainly applied to the press, calling reporters “prostitutes of the mind.”Barack Obama surveilled a number of journalists, including reporters from the AP, The New York Times, CBS and FNC.

Despite many challenges, the free press has survived. The press has continued to abide by its constitutional functions, just as the framers intended. The American free press will survive now and for decades to come.

Today’s press acts as a watchdog as intended, hassling the current occupant of the White House, who in turn is carrying on the presidential tradition of barking back at the watchdog. But to hear the persistent shrill cries and howls of journalists, you’d think Donald Trump had taken a wrecking ball to the First Amendment.

Trump does certainly loathe the establishment press, and seldom misses an opportunity to scold and berate journalists. He recently insulted a Reuters reporter about his physical condition after the reporter asked about the president’s travel schedule. And he has sought to restrict politically unfriendly media outlets such as CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House press facilities.

Trump also likes to sue the press for defamation, surely knowing his suits have virtually no chance of success. A federal judge just tossed Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing a story about a birthday card he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein more than two decades ago. Trump did win some measly settlements from ABC and CBS, but that’s just because those outlets wimped out.

No doubt, the news industry feels bruised and battered by such hostile treatment from the White House. The issue, however, is not whether Trump’s antagonism hurts journalists’ feelings with his admittedly unpolished behavior. It is whether Trump is doing genuine harm to the First Amendment.

If Trump has wrecked the First Amendment, one must wonder how so much anti-Trump reportage continues to appear.

At last check, all of the media outlets Trump loves to hate were still committing journalism, publishing and broadcasting as they like. The president’s antagonism and bullying has not intimidated the likes of CNN or The New York Times, as those outlets and others fearlessly bash the president with as much negative reporting as they can muster. The free press climate doesn’t appear to be chilled.

The press, of course, doesn’t like Trump’s caustic insults, but the president has his own free speech rights to rhetorically brawl with the media, even if it does seem unproductive. Reporters who want to sulk because Trump is mean to them should find alternative career paths.

The media industry has battled back in the legal arena as well, filing lawsuits to counter the White House barrage. The Knight First Amendment Institute and individual media outlets have suits pending that, if successful, would reverse Trump administration sanctions against various White House reporters.

What’s more, the White House has not crossed the line on the most important rights of a free press. The Freedom of Information Act is still intact. No reporters are in custody. Prior restraint, a key to First Amendment rights, has not been flexed to keep journalists from publishing whatever they want. Sure, the Trump White House is hostile to the news industry, but the American press is still free.

For a president who despises the press, Trump gives unprecedented opportunity for reporters to engage him. He has by far given more briefings and press gaggles than any president in history. If Trump were really trying to destroy press freedom, he certainly wouldn’t engage reporters so frequently.

Journalists just can’t expect the government to make life easy for them. Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart made that point clear in a seminal address to Yale Law School in 1974. Stewart said the press is free to battle the government, “But the press cannot expect from the Constitution any guarantee it will succeed.”He also said the press has no right to access the government bureaucracy. “The Constitution, in other words, establishes the contest, not its resolution.”When it comes to press freedom, the United States is still the envy of the world. The biggest threat to press freedom today, however, is not from without — the White House, the courts or government bureaucracy. It is from within. Public confidence in press performance has sunk over the years.

Thomas Jefferson warned early in the nation’s history that the press was its own worst enemy. “It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood.”The media industry will surely survive Trump. The bigger challenge is to survive its own failings.

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant.