This study investigates how U.S. media outlets grant or deny legitimacy to ethical resistance, focusing on two objectives: identifying the factors shaping legitimacy judgments and examining the influence of self-legitimating signals in media legitimizing behavior. Using a mixed-methods approach, we combine quantitative correspondence analysis with qualitative thematic analysis of 27 cases of ethical resistance during Donald Trump’s first presidency, which were discussed across 7,607 media articles. Our findings challenge the assumption that ethically informed acts inherently achieve legitimacy. Procedural conformity often outweighs moral considerations, as media outlets prioritize adherence to institutional norms and strategic priorities. We uncover a spectrum of media responses, reflecting how outlets balance their roles as gatekeepers, evaluators, and self-legitimizing entities. These legitimacy judgments involve self-interested calculations that emphasize institutional credibility over ethical advocacy. This research advances legitimacy theory by illustrating how ethical followership contends with procedural logics in media legitimacy activities. It highlights the strategic nature of media legitimacy construction. It offers practical guidance for leaders to overcome social issues in management, underscoring the importance of aligning institutional frameworks with ethical followership to enhance legitimacy and reduce misrepresentation in a media-driven landscape.
