by Kayla Rogers
Press Picking: Free Press in the United States
“Moving forward, the White House press pool will be determined by the White House Press Team. Legacy outlets who have participated in the press pool for decades will still be allowed to join–fear not–but we will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility. Just like we added a new media seat in this briefing room, legacy media outlets who have been here for years will still participate in the pool, but new voices are going to be welcomed in as well.”
-Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary
On February 25, the White House announced that the administration would now choose the pool of journalists that are allowed into important meetings. This marks a sharp departure from the traditional method of selecting a press pool, which is typically organized by a group of independent journalists. This system–at least in theory–helps prevent overcrowding and ensures a balanced representation of news outlets across the ideological spectrum in key coverage meetings. This change occurred soon after the White House barred AP News from pooled events in retaliation for refusing to use the new term, “Gulf of America.”
Charles Tobin, a lawyer for AP News, says that AP has been kept out of meetings for 44 days and has significantly decreased access to press coverage material. The White House removed reporters and photographers from the press pool, and since then, they have struggled to consistently and quickly report on important media stories. This presents a major barrier for one of the only free news sources that reports on thoroughly fact-checked stories and falls in the middle of the Media Bias Spectrum from Ad Fontes Media Inc. When citizens’ access to education is so dependent on class, location, and race, what are the implications of our current administration cherry-picking the media? After hitting paywall upon paywall for all the most reputable sources, it is natural to go to the sources that are more ideologically biased and have fewer fact checks. This compromises our citizens’ access to news and exacerbates the existing barriers to education and media literacy.
In reaction to the restriction of their ability to report, AP sued Karoline Leavitt (the White House Press Secretary) alongside two other administrative officials on the grounds of breaching their First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and freedom of the press).
Eugene Daniels, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association (the group used to choose the press pool), said, “this move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States.” Some conservative news outlets that tend to favor Trump have also spoken out in dissent to the administration’s decision to bar and choose what outlets get access to the White House functions. Newsmax asserted that the barring of select sources may not be a concentrated event and could prove to compromise the whole of journalist integrity, with sources now altering their perception of facts to ensure they are not removed from the process. Who gets to question the president? As we all know, the mainstream media has long been a target for current President Donald Trump (and the media has often targeted back). Still, it is completely unprecedented for the federal government to choose its press.
Now, I want to make a comparison between the current administration’s approach to the press and another figure outside of the US that has restricted press in the process of democratic erosion: Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary. The point here is to show the possibility for mass corruption that often parallels censorship and restriction of the press; this is not an attack on the President, it is a critique of the policies and an analysis of the danger it presents. Additionally, I am not an expert in Hungarian politics or versed in the history, therefore, any discrepancies in my analysis is a reflection of my own ignorance on the topic.
According to AP, “The right-wing Fidesz party cast the June 9 election as an existential struggle, one that could preserve peace in Europe if Orbán won — or fuel widespread instability if he didn’t. To sell that bold claim, Orbán used a sprawling pro-government media empire that’s dominated the country’s political discourse for more than a decade… Since 2010, Orbán’s government has promoted hostility to migrants and LGBTQ+ rights, distrust of the European Union, and a belief that Hungarian-American financier George Soros–who is Jewish and one of Orbán’s enduring foes–is engaged in secret plots to destabilize Hungary, a classic antisemitic trope.” As an American who has experienced two Trump terms, there is a degree of familiarity to Orbán that feels dystopic. This is because the President’s attacks on mainstream media are inextricably linked to a far-right ideology that requires a pro-government press (as long as it is pro his government). When AP was excluded from the press pool, it was because of the refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America; in other words, inclusion of the media was on the basis of the alignment with Trump’s ideological framework. Furthermore, conspiracy muddles the water surrounding the White House just as it does Orbán in Hungary. Back in early February, the administration aligned itself with a far-right conspiracy theory that asserted that Politico and AP News had received millions of dollars from the US Agency for International Development for years. Leavitt, the Press Secretary, claimed that these payments were made “on the American taxpayer’s dime.” This is false. The payments they were referencing are pro-subscriptions to news sources over long periods of time (and not just AP or Politico). There have been no payments in the form of beneficiaries of government programs or subsidies.
The White House’s decision to handpick press pool members is not just a break from tradition–it is a dangerous precedent that chips away at the foundational role of a free and independent press in a functioning democracy. While the administration frames the shift as an effort to diversify voices, its pattern of retaliating against outlets like AP News reveals a more concerning motive: the consolidation of media power into the hands of those who align ideologically with the current president. When access to the administration is contingent upon compliance, truth becomes subordinate to loyalty, and journalism loses its role as a check on power. The parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and actions and authoritarian figures across the world are frightening and telling. Both Trump and Orbán rely on fostering distrust of dissenting media, spreading conspiracy theories, and building an echo chamber that elevates government-approved narratives. If we are to avoid sliding further into democratic erosion, we must see press freedom not as a partisan issue, but as a safeguard of the people’s right to know. Because once the press serves the president instead of the public, we all lose.