White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Tuesday, Feb. 25 that the Trump administration, specifically its White House press team, will control the media coverage of presidential affairs, revoking authority from the White House Correspondents’ Association. The WHCA is an independent non-profit organization consisting of numerous news outlets which have historically determined the rotation of publications within the briefing room and other executive settings. The press pool comprises representatives from television, print, radio and photography organizations.
In late January, the Associated Press made an editorial decision to disregard Executive Order 14172, the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, “to ensure clarity for their global audience.” As a result, the Trump administration indefinitely barred numerous AP reporters on Feb. 14 from White House press briefings, Oval Office events and other presidential functions. In response, the AP filed a lawsuit against three Trump-affiliated officials on Feb. 21, alleging a violation of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The lawsuit seeks to challenge the administration’s restrictions on press access, claiming such actions undermine constitutional freedoms. A federal judge then denied the AP’s request for immediate reinstatement to full coverage of presidential events but urged the government to reconsider. AP Spokesperson Lauren Easton said in a statement, “We look forward to our next hearing on Mar. 20, where we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a fundamental American freedom.”
President Donald Trump went on to label the AP as an organization of “radical left lunatics” and expressed his desire to continue to exclude them from White House coverage until they implement the Gulf of America executive order. Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand from the Student Press Law Center explains that pursuing the lawsuit against the Trump administration is the strongest legal action available for the AP. Hiestand considers press freedom essential to media awareness and says it should remain protected by the U.S. Constitution regardless of executive decisions.
“The president is using his authority to punish the AP for a lawful editorial decision,” Hiestand said. “Most respect the idea that the press has a vital role in a free society in providing accurate, truthful information to readers, so they can make decisions based on what they’re hearing. This President has decided that the press is not something he values, and those who report the truth seem to get in the way of whatever he wants to do.”
Sophomore Ronit Kuila has intently followed the AP case and is fearful of its implications. Kuila stresses the importance of a universal press pool as he believes the censorship in the White House restricts access to a diverse range of sources — not allowing people to make informed choices. News Associate at the Wall Street Journal and MVHS ‘19 alum Roshan Fernandez agrees with Kuila, calling the move harmful to U.S. society.
“The information coming out of the White House is going to be limited,” Fernandez said. “There will be a restricted flow of information from a fewer number of sources coming from those who are more closely aligned with the administration’s agenda and beliefs, which could be detrimental to the American people.”
Fernandez argues that the government’s lack of accountability contradicts what he calls the spirit of the First Amendment, which promotes less bias and control. Kuila agrees with these sentiments and is skeptical of the transparency in future government action in regard to the administration’s integrity.
“The White House should be proactively protecting and preserving our rights but by restricting the freedom of the press, it’s very easy to misinform the public,” Kuila said. “By choosing exactly who can cover the White House, it allows individuals to dodge scrutiny. It cuts their credibility into pieces because they’re suppressing and censoring which publication gets to cover them.”
Fernandez thinks many will be unable to recognize the concrete difference in White House coverage due to inadequate media literacy. However, he says the responsibility to hold the government accountable and convey information in an unbiased manner still falls upon journalists. MVHS history teacher Hilary Barron agrees with Fernandez and points to the radicalization of different political beliefs to be another cause of decreasing literacy.
“With this polarization of the national news media, people find avenues to just hear conservative or liberal slanted news,” Barron said. “If only one side of that gets access to the president, then they’re not going to be asking the right questions or presenting the facts in a biased way. If the press is skewed then we’re missing an essential piece of information to make informed decisions.”
According to Fernandez, the free press laws and First Amendment in the United States are vital for journalistic ideals to grow and journalists’ ability to criticize or investigate. He says these protections are imperative for press freedom, allowing journalists to tell stories without fear of punishment. To Kuila, the limitation of the White House press pool is not only a threat to the First Amendment but to democracy as a whole.
Both Kuila and Barron recognize similar patterns emerging between the current Trump administration and the totalitarian rulers she and other history teachers cover in class. She explains that under dictator Benito Mussolini’s jurisdiction, news outlets printed only positive reports in attempts to suppress national criticism.
“I feel like Trump is taking a page out of Mussolini’s book,” Kuila said. “He’s trying to censor the press so people can only read positive journal articles about himself.”
Barron’s AP Government class has a unit dedicated to the press and its impact on executive power. Her students study concepts such as adversarial press — when a journalist takes on a combative role against the government with the goal of uncovering political corruption. Barron finds this type of journalism to be necessary for fighting ideas like confirmation bias, deeming the press as a “watchdog” to fight censorship.
“Whenever governments try to seize more control, one of the first things they do is attack the press, through censorship or control of the media,” Barron said. “The erosion of press freedoms in the United States is moving closer to authoritarianism and more government control versus more power in the people. If the public doesn’t know about something, they’re not going to fight back against it.”
The AP continues to fight the Trump administration’s decision with the threat of an indefinite refusal of media access. An excerpt from the first paragraph of AP’s court filing reads: “The Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American’s freedom.”
Hiestand and Fernandez applaud the AP’s decision to take action and not back down in the face of authority, emphasizing their belief in the necessity for journalists to take matters into their own hands. Nevertheless, Kuila still remains nervous about the lawsuit’s outcome. Escalating both the inept education and the rapidly increasing polarization, Kuila says local communities will be severely impacted.
“Journalism plays a huge role in shaping accountability and credibility,” Kuila said. “Now the average person might not get to see exactly what each and every single policy entails, and there are going to be policies that will seem appealing, but when actually established, will only oppress us.”
However, the AP is not alone — other news outlets continue to voice their support in their legal battle. Carolyn Ryan, one of the two managing editors of the New York Times expresses the necessity for unity between the press corporations. She says the NYT believes the WHCA should continue its determination of the White House press pool.
“We are very supportive of the Associated Press and have helped them in various ways,” Ryan said. “The principle that’s at stake is the fight for the most access possible. With the administration cracking down in this way, it’s important for us to have our voices.”
