This has been a busy week for the American press. Last Friday, President Trump announced on Truth Social that three major outlets—CNN, MS Now, and Politico—were banned from White House grounds “effective immediately,” because of their negative coverage and “fake news.” In a subsequent post, Trump argued that the press restrictions were necessary for “national security” and to combat false reporting.
On Saturday, Secret Service agents confiscated press credentials and physically barred reporters and crew members from those three outlets at the White House gates.
The administration seized control of the presidential press pool rotation, a role traditionally held by the White House Correspondents’ Association. The press room access list has been revised to favor right-wing commentators, influencers, and independent online broadcasters.
On Monday, CNN, MS Now, and Politico jointly sued the Trump administration in federal court, requesting a temporary restraining order to immediately restore their credentials, arguing that revoking access based on editorial viewpoint violates First Amendment rights and due process guarantees.
The five major TV networks that traditionally run the White House television pool (ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News, and CNN) collectively suspended all TV pool coverage of the President.
Publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press announced they would withhold or delay publishing photos taken from presidential photo pools.
In response, the administration is launching its own news outlet, “Trump TV: The Essentials Station.” Streamed live on YouTube, the channel functions as an anchorless 24/7 loop featuring presidential speeches, past press conferences, administration announcements, and archived clips. The White House says the channel is a tool to deliver official updates directly to citizens without third-party filters. But press freedom advocates and political opponents have called it “state-run media.”
Is this nothing more than the administration’s attempt to tell the American public what it’s doing, or is it the latest step in a strategy to control messaging?
Taken by itself, I would be inclined to think it’s the former. But in the context of the administration’s attempts not only to restrict access to the White House but to try to limit what independent media report if it doesn’t square with the administration’s version of events—through lawsuits, FCC threats and actions, and the denial of access—I’m not so sure.
There is plenty wrong with the American press. I welcome opposing points of view as long as they are based on reality, not prevarication. Right now the reality is that no one knows for sure what the reality is.
All of this controversy has severely damaged Americans’ trust in both media and our government. According to Gallup and other pollsters, about 28-30% of the public has a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in newspapers, TV, and radio to report news fairly and accurately. (Major mainstream news organizations like ABC, NBC, CNN and established newspapers fare much better then all news media.)
At the same time, only 18-20% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right “all or most of the time.”
We can debate how we got here, and we can debate where we are going. I for one am worried that further clamping down on our system of free press could lead to a complete lack of balance in reporting and the force-feeding of a single point of view.
The first amendment to the United States Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Is that what we have today?