On Feb. 25, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that President Donald Trump’s administration will now have authoritative control in determining the press teams responsible for news coverage on the White House. These divisions of public relations are comprised of journalists, writers, reporters, and other public relations assets tasked with capturing narratives to be consumed by news outlets across the nation. Colloquially, these groups are referred to as “the press pool.”
This group travels with the president on Air Force One and attends exclusive events in executive locations such as the Oval Office or Roosevelt Room to spectate on governmental affairs on both the domestic and international levels. This media team is even able to collect presidential insight on current events by asking Trump direct questions and gathering personal intel. In doing so, journalists relay information to their colleagues in other media outlets through pool reports in these settings.
During the Members of the Media briefing under the U.S. Embassy, Leavitt told attendees, “The White House press team in this administration will determine who gets to enjoy the very privileged and limited access in spaces such as Air Force One and the Oval Office.” During the 30-minute conference, she continued to inform viewers on the matter.
“By deciding which outlets make up the limited press pool on a day-to-day basis, the White House will be restoring power back to the American people.”
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on the Trump Administrations press pool.
This raised concerns for many as, historically, aspects of presidential news publishing and consumption were overseen by The White House Correspondents’ Association, which has controlled outlets part of this group for decades. Founded in 1914, the WHCA has rotated press pool members, ensuring representation from major news organizations while maintaining access to presidential events. However, with the recent announcement from the Trump administration, this control is seeing a sudden shift, leaving the plausibility of propaganda bias up for discussion.
What comes as even more of a surprise was that WHCA President Eugene Daniels released a statement on Feb. 25, explaining that the board was unaware of this new decision until after Leavitt’s public announcement.
In his statement, Daniels argued, “To be clear, the White House did not give the WHCA board a heads-up or have any discussions about today’s announcements.”
He continued to share his frustrations on the matter, not only for the board’s status but also for the public eye. Even more so, Daniels assured viewers that this only marks the beginning of the WHCA fighting back for regained control.
“The WHCA will never stop advocating for comprehensive access, full transparency and the right of the American public to read, listen to and watch reports from the White House, delivered without fear or favor,” he added.
Following Leavitt’s briefing, more WHCA board members have voiced their concerns, like Fox News correspondent Jacqui Heinrich.
Similarly, some news outlets have already begun showing their opposition in response to the new mandate. The Associated Press recently sued Leavitt and other administration officials for an “unconstitutional effort by the White House to control speech.” It’s also worth mentioning that AP has a history of being expelled from affairs involving Trump’s administration, as this new decision came after AP was barred from the Oval Office for using “Gulf of Mexico” instead of Trump’s newly chosen name for the body of water, “Gulf of America.”
Regarding the lawsuit, Judge Trevor N. McFadden was assigned to the case. McFadden refused to allow the AP immediate access back to the Oval Office.
AP’s lawsuit states, “The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government.” However, McFadden believes the AP platform has not proven harm requiring an immediate restraining order. Furthermore, McFadden recommended that the White House reconsider its decision, stating that the law was not on its side.
“It seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” McFadden told government attorney Brian Hudak.
The case is expected to last until March 20, as no ruling has been made.