White House changes who can cover President Trump: What it means for press freedom

The White House has announced that it will now determine which media outlets have access to cover President Donald Trump, a significant shift from the long-standing practice where the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) managed the independent press pool selection.

This decision has prompted criticism from press freedom advocates, including WHCA President Eugene Daniels, who warns that this move undermines the independence of the press and erodes public trust in media reports. Additionally, The Associated Press (AP) has been barred from certain presidential events after refusing to adopt the administration’s directive to rename the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "Gulf of America," leading to legal challenges and further concerns about press freedoms.

What we know:

On February 25, 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the administration would take direct control over determining which journalists are granted access to President Trump’s events, including those in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One. This role was traditionally managed by the WHCA, an independent body of journalists responsible for organizing a rotating press pool to ensure fair and unbiased coverage. Leavitt stated that while traditional media outlets would continue to have some access, the administration plans to revise pool membership to include streaming services and other non-traditional media platforms. 

This policy change emerged shortly after a federal judge denied the AP’s request for a temporary restraining order to restore its access to presidential events. The AP had been excluded from these events due to its refusal to comply with President Trump’s executive order renaming the "Gulf of Mexico" to the "Gulf of America." The AP maintains that its adherence to the traditional nomenclature aligns with its commitment to factual reporting and global recognition of geographic names.

Press Freedom Under Threat

The backstory:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, serving as a cornerstone of American democracy. Historically, the WHCA has managed press pool assignments to ensure that no single media outlet receives preferential treatment, thereby maintaining an independent and diverse press corps. The Trump administration’s decision to centralize control over press access marks a significant departure from this tradition, raising concerns about potential government overreach and the suppression of journalistic independence.

The Associated Press Lawsuit

The AP, a globally recognized non-profit news organization, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on February 21, 2025, after its journalists were barred from covering multiple presidential events. The exclusion resulted from the AP’s refusal to adopt the administration’s directive to rename the "Gulf of Mexico" as the "Gulf of America." The AP argues that this mandate infringes upon its editorial independence and violates First Amendment protections. In response, the White House contends that access to the president is a privilege, not a right, and that compliance with its directives is necessary for maintaining such privileges.

'A dangerous move for democracy'

What they're saying:

Media experts say the decision to limit press access is a troubling departure from democratic norms, because the president is choosing who covers him.

"This is a dangerous move for democracy," Jon Marshall, a media history professor at Northwestern University, told the Associated Press. "It means the president can pick and choose who covers the executive branch, ignoring the fact that it is the American people who, through their taxes, pay for the running of the White House, the president’s travels, and the press secretary’s salary."

The WHCA has strongly criticized the administration’s move to control press access, asserting that it undermines the independence of the press and allows the government to selectively choose which journalists cover the president. Eugene Daniels, president of the WHCA, stated, "This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States. It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president." 

Daniels further expressed concerns about the integrity of pool reports, noting that public trust in these reports could diminish now that the administration controls which reporters are included. He emphasized that for years, the WHCA established standards for accuracy and reliability in pool reports, but with the new changes, "that can no longer be trusted frankly… because at the end of the day, these standards are going to be created by the folks that are being covered."

Major news organizations, including the AP, Bloomberg News, and Reuters, have expressed concerns that limiting their participation in presidential news coverage could harm the dissemination of reliable information to the public. In a joint statement, they emphasized, "It is essential in a democracy for the public to have access to news about their government from an independent, free press."

Legal experts have also weighed in on the issue. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who presided over the AP’s lawsuit, acknowledged the potential First Amendment implications of the administration’s actions. While denying the AP’s request for immediate reinstatement, Judge McFadden urged the administration to reconsider its stance, highlighting concerns about viewpoint discrimination.

The other side:

The White House argues that this change will create a press pool that better represents modern media consumption trends. Leavitt stated that the administration’s goal is to break the "monopoly" that legacy media outlets have had on access to the president.

"It’s beyond time that the White House press operation reflects the media habits of the American people in 2025, not 1925," Leavitt said.

Leavitt also pushed back against criticisms that this move threatens press freedom, arguing that expanding the rotation to include streaming services and newer platforms would make access more democratic rather than restrictive.

What we don't know:

The White House has not provided details on which traditional outlets will be excluded or how the new rotation system will function.

The Threat Government Control of Media Narratives has on Democracy

Big picture view:

The Trump administration’s control over press access fits into a broader pattern of efforts to shape public perception by limiting independent journalism and elevating preferred narratives. When the government dictates who can cover the presidency, it effectively decides which voices and perspectives the public hears, which contradicts the core function of a free press.

Trump’s Pattern of Promoting His Own ‘Truth’ Over Facts

Dig deeper:

President Trump has a documented history of making demonstrably false claims and insisting that his version of events represents the only valid truth. His repeated falsehoods about topics ranging from election fraud to international relations have been widely debunked by independent fact-checkers.

False Claims About Elections and Voter Fraud

Persistent Falsehoods of Election Fraud: Despite more than 60 court cases rejecting claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Trump has continued to falsely assert that the election was "rigged" against him. Trump has continued to assert, without evidence, that the election was "rigged" against him. (Source)

Misleading Statements on Mail-In Voting: Trump repeatedly claimed that mail-in voting leads to massive fraud, even though studies from the Brennan Center for Justice and bipartisan election officials found no evidence of significant fraud in mail-in voting. (Source)

Misinformation About International Affairs

Blaming Ukraine for Initiating the War: In February 2025, Trump suggested that Ukraine was responsible for the ongoing conflict with Russia, a claim that contradicts the widely documented fact that Russia initiated the invasion in 2022. (Source)

Exaggerating U.S. Financial Aid to Ukraine: Trump claimed that the U.S. had provided $350 billion in aid to Ukraine. In reality, the U.S. allocated approximately $113 billion, while European nations collectively contributed significant support as well. (Source)

False Economic and Domestic Policy Claims

Inflation Misrepresentation: In his 2025 inaugural speech, Trump incorrectly stated that inflation had reached "record levels" under the previous administration. Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 but had decreased to 3.4% by December 2024. (Source)

Crime Statistics: Trump has claimed that crime is "the worst it’s ever been," yet FBI crime data shows violent crime has been decreasing since the early 1990s, with a decline in major cities in 2024. (Source)

Misleading Immigration Narratives

Baseless ‘Prisoner Dumping’ Allegations: Trump has claimed that foreign governments are sending their criminals to the U.S., yet no law enforcement agency has found credible evidence of this happening on a large scale. 

In 2024, President Donald Trump suggested that Venezuela was intentionally releasing prisoners to migrate to the U.S. He stated, "Venezuela is emptying their prisons into the United States." Investigations into these claims have not substantiated the assertion that foreign governments are systematically sending criminals to the U.S. While some individuals with criminal backgrounds have been encountered, there is no evidence of a coordinated effort by foreign governments to release prisoners into the U.S.

The Venezuelan Violence Observatory (OVV) reported a decline in crime rates within Venezuela, attributing it to various factors, including emigration. While acknowledging that some criminals may have left the country, the OVV emphasized that the vast majority of emigrants are "honest workers fleeing the country’s poverty, looking for a job and a better future." (Source)

Dehumanizing Immigrants: Trump falsely alleged that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were "eating pets," a claim that has been widely debunked by fact-checkers and labeled as fearmongering. (Source) 

Trump’s Unsubstantiated Blame on DEI Initiatives

In the aftermath of a tragic mid-air collision resulting in over 60 fatalities, President Trump attributed the incident to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. He suggested that the hiring of "incompetent" individuals through these initiatives compromised aviation safety. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that DEI programs or the hiring of disabled individuals contributed to the crash.

During a press briefing, multiple reporters questioned the president’s assertions, highlighting the lack of factual basis for linking DEI to the accident. One journalist asked, "You have 64 people that lost their lives, Mr. President. If you aren’t confident that DEI had any role, why bring it up?" This line of questioning underscores the concern that the president’s remarks unjustly target marginalized groups without substantiation.

Aviation safety experts have pointed out that attributing such incidents to DEI initiatives without concrete evidence diverts attention from the actual causes of accidents, which are typically multifaceted and complex. Blaming DEI programs not only stigmatizes efforts to promote inclusivity but also undermines the contributions of disabled professionals in the industry. 

DOGE ‘Achievement’ Claims Lack Independent Verification

Claims of Significant Cost Savings: Trump and Musk have touted substantial savings attributed to DOGE’s initiatives. For instance, Musk claimed that contract cancelations would save more than $7 billion. However, experts argue that this figure is inflated, with analysis revealing that approximately 40% of the canceled contracts do not result in any actual savings. (Source)

Unverified Allegations of Fraud: The administration has alleged widespread fraud within federal agencies, suggesting that DOGE has uncovered significant instances of corruption. Despite these claims, there has been a notable absence of concrete evidence to substantiate such allegations. In some cases, judges have rebuked the administration for making unfounded assertions without providing proof. (Source)

Controversial Management Practices: Musk’s management approach within DOGE has included directives such as requiring federal employees to justify their roles by submitting weekly accomplishments. This has led to confusion and concern among the workforce, with over a million federal employees responding to such directives under the threat of resignation. These practices have been criticized for creating uncertainty and undermining morale within federal agencies. (Source)

Elon Musk's Conflicts of Interest and Lack of Transparency 

Elon Musk’s concurrent roles as a government official and CEO of multiple companies present significant conflicts of interest. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk oversees federal agencies that have direct regulatory authority over his businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX. This dual capacity raises concerns about impartiality and the potential for Musk to influence policies for personal gain.

A notable example involves the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considering the adoption of SpaceX’s Starlink technology to modernize U.S. air traffic communications. Critics argue that Musk’s governmental position could grant his company an undue advantage in securing federal contracts, especially when his department has the power to influence agency decisions.

Former FAA officials have expressed concerns about the integration of Starlink without sufficient testing and review. 
Legal experts have highlighted the unprecedented nature of this situation. Richard Briffault, a government ethics specialist at Columbia Law School, described Musk as "a walking conflict of interest," emphasizing the challenges in ensuring that Musk’s governmental decisions remain unbiased and do not favor his corporate interests. (Source)

Further complicating matters, Musk’s companies have received substantial government funding. Over the past two decades, Musk and his businesses have secured at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits, a Washington Post analysis has found, helping seed the growth that has made him the world’s richest person. In 2024 alone, federal and local governments committed at least $6.3 billion to Musk’s companies, the highest annual amount to date. This extensive financial relationship intensifies concerns regarding impartiality and ethical governance, as Musk’s governmental role could influence decisions benefiting his enterprises. (Source)

In response to these concerns, the White House has stated that Musk will self-regulate potential conflicts of interest. However, critics argue that this approach lacks sufficient oversight, given the vast scope of Musk’s business ventures and their interactions with federal agencies. (Source)

The Erosion of Democratic Norms

Historically, attempts by governments to control media narratives have been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. The current situation raises concerns about the potential erosion of democratic institutions and the vital role of the press in holding power accountable.

Controlling press access, spreading misinformation, and undermining trust in independent news organizations contribute to a gradual shift away from democratic governance. In countries where leaders have successfully delegitimized independent journalism, authoritarian control has quickly followed:

Russia: Systematic Elimination of Independent Media

President Vladimir Putin has systematically eliminated independent media, jailing journalists and shutting down opposition news outlets. In March 2022, Russia enacted laws imposing prison sentences of up to 15 years for those publishing "knowingly false information" about the military, leading to the closure of independent media outlets and the arrest of journalists. By December 2022, over 4,000 individuals had been prosecuted under these "fake news" laws. More than 1,000 Russian journalists have fled the country since February 2022. (Source)

Turkey: Control Over Media Narratives

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has used legal pressure and imprisonment to control media narratives. Following the 2016 coup attempt, a state of emergency was declared, during which more than 50,000 people were arrested, and over 160,000 were dismissed from their jobs by March 2018. Journalists critical of the government have been imprisoned, and numerous media outlets have been shut down, leading to a significant decline in press freedom. (Source)

Hungary: Government Influence Over Media

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has taken control of nearly all major news outlets, using government influence to silence criticism. Since coming into power in 2010, Orbán’s government has amended media laws to control appointments to media regulatory bodies and introduced content restrictions, leading to a chilling effect on press freedom. By 2017, 90% of all Hungarian media was owned by the state or pro-government allies, effectively silencing independent journalism. (Source) (Source)

The Trump administration’s efforts to dictate which journalists can cover the presidency and to push state-approved language — such as renaming the "Gulf of Mexico" — align with tactics seen in these regimes.

Undermining Public Trust in the Press

Since his inauguration in January 2017, President Donald Trump has consistently attacked the media, labeling critical reporting as "fake news" and referring to journalists as "the enemy of the people." This rhetoric has been a hallmark of his administration, aiming to discredit unfavorable coverage and erode public trust in the press. Notably, in a 2018 interview, journalist Lesley Stahl recounted that Trump admitted his strategy was to "discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you." (Source)

What Happens When the Public Trusts the Government’s ‘Truth’ Over Facts?

When governments control the press, citizens have fewer opportunities to question power, hold officials accountable, and make informed decisions. The erosion of press independence is often an early indicator of a shift toward authoritarianism.

According to Reporters Without Borders’ 2024 Press Freedom Index, the United States has dropped in ranking due to increasing government hostility toward journalists, including threats of legal action against independent outlets. (Source)

Without an independent press, the public must rely on government-approved narratives — leading to misinformation-fueled policies, a misinformed electorate, and weakened democratic institutions.

The administration’s actions reflect a broader trend of challenging established democratic norms and press freedoms. By exerting control over which media outlets have access to presidential events and attempting to dictate the language used in reporting, the government risks undermining the foundational principles of a free and independent press. Such measures can lead to a homogenized media landscape where dissenting voices are marginalized, and public discourse is shaped by a limited range of perspectives.

What's next:

The legal battle between the AP and the Trump administration is ongoing, with the next court hearing scheduled for March 20, 2025. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent regarding the extent of governmental authority over press access and the protection of journalistic independence under the First Amendment.

In the interim, press freedom organizations and media outlets continue to advocate for the preservation of an independent press corps. The situation underscores the need for vigilance in protecting the rights of journalists to report freely and without undue interference from governmental entities.

Donald J. TrumpPoliticsInstastories