In a controversial move, the White House removed HuffPost, Reuters, and foreign press representatives from attending President Trump’s first Cabinet meeting. This came after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s statement about choosing which outlets would be allowed to cover the president in confined spaces. It was a move that shocked many and stirred debate about press access. Traditionally, the press pool, which consists of reporters from various outlets, attends important events and has direct access to the president. The decision to exclude certain journalists marks a dramatic departure from this practice. It raised concerns about limiting the free flow of information.
The pool drama
The exclusion of HuffPost, Reuters, and the foreign press happened just before the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. HuffPost’s longtime White House reporter, S.V. Date, was told he couldn’t join the pool. Date had been scheduled to represent print outlets for the day’s event. Instead, a reporter from Axios replaced him. This unexpected change left Date frustrated. He pointed out that throughout his decade-long career covering the White House, no administration had ever tried to correct his reporting. He noted that it wasn’t about accuracy or competence. His exclusion seemed to be about something else. He didn’t mince words, making it clear that he had been singled out without reason.
The White House pushes back
A White House official responded, claiming that HuffPost’s pool no longer existed. However, Press Secretary Leavitt later contradicted that statement and assured that HuffPost would still be included in the pool. Meanwhile, Axios found itself caught in the middle of the situation. It had no idea about the circumstances surrounding the replacement. Leavitt’s decision to remove major outlets sparked fierce backlash. The editors of the Associated Press, Reuters, and Bloomberg issued a joint statement condemning the move. They argued that limiting access to the president harmed democracy and raised concerns about transparency. Journalists have long seen press access to government activities as crucial for keeping the public informed. Now, that access is under attack.
Access under attack
For years, a reporter from each major wire service has been included in the White House press pool. But that tradition was shaken when the Associated Press was excluded. This led to a lawsuit, but a judge had not ruled in the AP’s favor. The White House took this as a win and even taunted the AP. They displayed the phrase “Victory – Gulf of America” on the TVs in the briefing room. This move sent a message: the White House would control the narrative. In addition to excluding major outlets, the White House added Chris Bedford from The Blaze to the pool. Bedford is from a conservative news site founded by Glenn Beck. Leavitt explained this was part of the administration’s effort to give more outlets a chance to cover its achievements. This change reflected the administration’s desire to reshape the traditional press pool.
Freedom of the press in danger?
The White House’s decision to control which reporters could cover the president sparked outrage. Press freedom advocates were especially vocal. Eugene Daniels, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, criticized the White House for not consulting the association before making its announcement. He said the decision compromised press independence. By handpicking reporters, the White House could control the narrative and limit critical coverage. For years, the WHCA has managed the rotation of the press pool to ensure fairness and representation. Now, the White House was bypassing this system and taking control. Daniels argued this move was a threat to the free press and democracy itself.
Press club joins the outcry
Mike Balsamo, President of the National Press Club, also weighed in. He called the White House’s actions a direct challenge to press freedom. He warned that replacing the press pool with a handpicked group of journalists was dangerous. It undermined the work done by reporters who have covered the White House for years. Journalists who work tirelessly, often on weekends and holidays, should not be sidelined. Balsamo urged the White House to reverse this decision, reminding them that press freedom is essential to democracy. The National Press Club stands for the rights of journalists and the public’s right to access information.
Comparisons to the Kremlin
The controversy intensified when New York Times reporter Peter Baker compared the White House’s actions to those of the Kremlin. He noted that the Russian government controlled its own press pool, limiting access to only compliant journalists. Leavitt responded angrily to this comparison. She dismissed Baker’s statement with a clown emoji, mocking the comparison to Russia. She argued that the White House had invited journalists into the Oval Office shortly after, allowing them to ask questions for nearly an hour. Her response was a direct rebuttal to Baker’s claim, but it only fueled the debate further. Leavitt accused the media of overreacting to necessary changes that had been a long time coming. She even targeted Baker personally, calling him a “left-wing stenographer” and claiming that the days of such journalists deciding who had access were over.
What’s next for the press?
This decision marks a significant shift in the relationship between the White House and the press. The traditional system that ensured fair and consistent access to journalists is now in jeopardy. Leavitt’s defense of the changes may resonate with those who believe the media has too much control. However, many critics argue that the move undermines transparency and press freedom. The White House may be gaining more control over the narrative, but it is also facing significant backlash. As this story develops, it remains to be seen how it will impact press relations moving forward. One thing is clear: the debate over press freedom is far from over.
