"clear and present danger" is traditionally a judicial test of whether certain speech might not be protected by the First Amendment. I see no reason to interpret Q's post today in any way other than referring to the MSM's abuse of its 1A right to free speech.
The term 'clear and present danger' was first used by SC Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919. The question back in those days was whether a person protesting the WW1 draft is entitled to speak out against joining the war effort.
The implication today being that POTUS will move to curtail the MSM's disinformation campaigns, using the Holmes' 'clear and present danger' test as justification.