Post Says White House Press Limits Could ‘Deform’ Coverage

We do want to discuss an ongoing case with you that we're expecting news on by Tuesday, when it pertains to press access to the white House. But if we could begin with this issue surrounding Ice enforcement, frankly, immigration enforcement overall under this Trump administration, we have frequently seen these matters end up before courts. The Supreme Court itself is going to have to decide or hear a case this term on third country deportations. How are you thinking right now about the dynamics between the executive branch and the judicial branch when it comes to issues like this, knowing that the judicial branch is only capable of determining the law, not enforcing it, that enforcement power still lies with the administration. Yeah, it's a very difficult situation because of course, the courts hold neither the sword nor the purse. They have to rely for the enforcement of their orders on the good faith compliance of the executive branch. And when there is tension, is there's considerable tension between the Trump administration and and the courts. They have to play the cards very carefully. And one never knows how it's going to come out. Professor. Uh, there was an important moment, as a federal judge yesterday extended the block on President Trump's ban of CNN, MBS now, and Politico from reporting at the white House. I'm sure you've been following this, as the president has essentially been picking and choosing who has the right to cover him in certain settings. There's been access to the campus, but also access to the Oval Office and Air Force One. The big question and the argument underway in Washington is, is this a First Amendment right, or is it a privilege to cover the white House? Yes. Well, the administration wants to say it's a privilege. And we grant this privilege to those people who praise us, and we deny it to those people who criticize us, who publish what the white House is calling negative, negative news. Um, but actually, it's, uh, insofar as the granting it to some members of the press, they should granted and was granted under the First Amendment to all members of the press. The one thing they cannot do is to decide which members of the press get to come into the white House and actually cover, up what the president is doing, because that will deform the press coverage of the president. And one of the things that the First Amendment stands for, most fundamentally, since 1791, is that we want our government to be covered fairly and comprehensively by the press, that is to say, by press organs of all different points of view. And if the president gets to select which which press outlets cover him. He can slant the news. And that would mean that the rest of us are the citizens who depend upon the press for our information, wouldn't have complete coverage. We wouldn't understand what the white House is actually doing. Well, the distinction that the administration has made and that, frankly, judges have made, when we saw this in 2025, when they attempted to ban the Associated Press over the refusal to recognize that language change on the Gulf of America, that the white House did have the ability to keep members of the AP from more intimate spaces like the Oval Office than the plain. Which gets to Joe's question. It's one thing to bar access from the white House grounds entirely. It's another to say that you are not able to be in the Oval Office. How do you think about that, that specific decision. Not that they can't cover the white House, just that they can't do so from inside the room. Well, the technical way in which the First Amendment distinguish these cases is to ask whether the government has created what's called a limited public forum. That is to say, they've opened up this room in the white House to the press generally, even though they haven't opened up the Oval Office to the press generally. And that means a judge has to make the decision about whether when you were allowed into the, let's say, the inner sanctum of the Oval Office, it's a discreet privilege versus in the press briefing room, where all the press members are permitted. And that's the kind of distinction that a court will make when, uh, when determining whether it's a privilege or a right. Uh, fascinating answer and an interesting logic, professor, it appears there's going to be a hearing at the white House next month. You might have heard about Lisa Cook, the president today announcing the establishment of an investigative white House committee. We understand that Kevin Hassett will be on this committee, among others, to investigate allegations of fraud against the Federal Reserve governor. Uh, do you have any sense of whether the white House has the authority to do this? Would she be under subpoena? And if not, professor, should she not show up? Well, I mean, the white House doesn't have the authority to issue a subpoena. Um, the Justice Department might petition the court for a subpoena, in which case she would have to comply. Of course, but they'd have to go to a court to get it. The white House itself can do whatever it wants, but it can't issue these authoritative orders like subpoenas. And, um, it seems to be, um, this commission seems to be a way to get around that. The Supreme Court's decision in Trump versus cook, in which they said that there really hasn't been any allegations that are credible of a misfeasance in office. So she could not. Just to be clear, be held in contempt by the white House? No. Well, the white House can say we hold her in contempt, but it has no legal force.