Stop us if you’ve heard this before — President Trump wants to ban media outlets that have displeased him from the White House.
He abruptly announced on Truth Social last week that he was cutting off access for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”
Over the weekend, correspondents from the news organizations were denied entry to the White House and had their credentials revoked. On Monday, CNN was supposed to provide pool coverage of the White House (which would typically get shared with the other networks) but was unable to. On Tuesday, in solidarity, Fox News Channel declined to provide pool coverage.
While we have to wait to see how the courts respond to a suit filed by the media organizations, Trump’s actions raise unresolved constitutional questions. Though there is no right to access the White House, and there are plenty of existing restrictions to operating within the secure environment, once the government agrees to grant access, to strip it away for a select few organizations explicitly because the president doesn’t like the way those organizations cover him is muddier territory.
(During Trump’s first term, the White House backed off, under legal pressure, a revocation of then-CNN journalist Jim Acosta’s credentials, and it’s still fighting in the courts to enforce a ban on the AP from last year.)
Regardless of how this is resolved in the courts, Trump’s actions are at least a violation of the spirit of a free press — specifically, the idea that news organizations should be allowed to cover people in power critically and ask adversarial questions.
Defenders of Trump point to previous Democratic presidents. During Joe Biden’s presidency, more than 440 journalists lost White House credentials. Early in Barack Obama’s presidency, the White House blocked Fox News from access to interviews, and the press secretary justified this by arguing that the entire network was “not a news organization. . . . We render an opinion based on some of their coverage and . . . the fairness of that coverage.” Both of these things were bad, and should not be cited as precedents. Moreover, the details are not the same. In the Biden case, the White House changed the rules for obtaining hard passes, which allow journalists regular access to the White House grounds and press briefings. Those rules (which, among other things, required hard-pass-holders to regularly cover the White House) resulted in many credentials not being renewed. However, Biden did not come out and say that a few specific news organizations that cover him critically would be barred. Also, those who lost hard passes were still allowed to apply for daily passes, which require a new request for access before each visit to the White House. That creates a barrier to access but is not equivalent to an outright ban. As for Obama, he didn’t bar Fox entirely from the press room and rightly backed down after a brief furor.
It’s an open secret in Washington that administrations have favored or disfavored certain outlets. There are outlets that get scoops and others that never get called on in press briefings. But a targeted ban on hostile journalists is something different.
Aside from the questions of principle, it’s also hard for us to see what Trump gains from this. Throughout his terms in office, Trump has been the most accessible president of the modern era. He regularly lets reporters into the Oval Office for questions and gaggles with them outside the White House in a way that, as he might put it, hasn’t been seen before. He is known for taking cellphone calls from reporters, even leading to some criticism that his extreme accessibility is a national security risk.
Trump has thrived on the political combat that comes with his exchanges with hostile media. It would be better for the president to tell reporters to their faces why he thinks they are “fake news” than to turn them into sympathetic martyrs. He should rescind the ban.