In a notable shift from a long-standing tradition, the White House recently declared that it will determine which media outlets are permitted close coverage of President Donald Trump. This move deviates from nearly a century-long practice where a select group of independently chosen news organizations accompany the U.S. President to report on their activities and address questions on behalf of the public.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that traditional media outlets in the press pool would be rotated, with streaming services included in the mix. Leavitt portrayed this decision as a modernization effort, aiming to be more inclusive and to restore the “access back to the American people” who elected Trump.
However, media experts have raised concerns about potential First Amendment issues, as the new policy allows the President to choose who covers him. “The press team in this administration will determine who will enjoy the very privileged and limited access to spaces like Air Force One and the Oval Office,” Leavitt stated in a daily press briefing. She went on to suggest that journalists in Washington D.C. should not hold a monopoly on White House press access.
Jon Marshall, a media history professor at Northwestern University, criticized the move as risky for democracy, pointing out that it enables the President to select his own press coverage, despite Americans funding the White House’s operations through taxes. Meanwhile, Eugene Daniels, the head of the White House Correspondents’ Association, emphasized that this action threatens the independence of a free press in the United States.
The situation escalated when Leavitt revealed that the White House would continue to exclude the Associated Press from certain presidential events. This practice veers sharply from the century-old tradition where a coalition of journalists from various platforms reports on presidential activities, sharing information with media outlets and congressional offices that cannot attend due to space constraints.
The Associated Press filed a lawsuit against Leavitt and two other White House officials for excluding it from events after refusing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” a term mandated by Trump. The federal district court Judge Trevor N. McFadden acknowledged the lack of irreparable harm to the AP but urged the Trump administration to reassess its two-week exclusion policy of the AP, noting unfavorable jurisprudence for the White House. Further hearings are scheduled for late March.
The broader implications of this decision have raised alarms among press freedom advocates. “The White House press pool serves the public, not the presidency,” emphasized Bruce D. Brown, Chairman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. He warned that altering how the public receives information about its government represents a drastic shift.
Despite the federal court’s temporary stance, the broader legal and ethical implications concerning the alteration of the White House press pool’s composition remain under scrutiny. The developments have sparked debates on the balance between modernizing media access and maintaining the foundational principles of press freedom.
This decision to alter media access at the White House challenges established norms, with experts warning of potential repercussions for press freedom and democracy. The ongoing legal proceedings will likely provide further clarity on the future dynamics of media coverage for the presidency.
