President Donald Trump began his second term with a compelling answer to a media establishment he believed was biased against him: more access, more voices, and more competition. By banning CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the White House because he objects to their coverage, Trump is abandoning that approach. The answer to a hostile press is not to use government power to discriminatorily revoke access, but rather to confront unfavorable coverage, expand the marketplace of ideas, and let the public decide whom to trust.
When Trump reentered the White House in 2025, he embraced unusually broad access for the press. He talked to reporters seemingly nonstop. He even expanded the White House press corps to include nontraditional media, adding voices instead of subtracting them. This was all in stark contrast to former President Joe Biden’s relatively limited engagement with the press. Trump sold himself, despite being 80 years old and having critics portraying him as an authoritarian, as a vital and transparent alternative. At least at first.
Now, Trump is fully reversing his strategy of open press access. Instead of challenging disfavored media with direct answers and more competition, he is simply trying to exclude outlets whose coverage he disapproves of.
The first year of Trump’s second term had a leitmotif of increased press access. He held 95 press events in the Oval Office, more than three times the number Biden held, and more than any president since at least the early 1980s. Trump averaged more than two media sessions per workday, double the rates of Biden, as well as former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in her first White House briefing in January 2025 that the administration would “speak to all media outlets and personalities.” She announced the restoration of press passes for 440 journalists while opening credentials for independent journalists, podcasters, and content creators. By April 2025, she was defending Trump’s changes to press access by claiming the White House was “opening access to more outlets, more voices.” The goal expressly was to adapt the presidency to the modern media landscape and, crucially, to reach more Americans.
The increased media access was Trump’s response to a media industry he perceived to be biased against him. Regardless of whether the perception of media bias is true, expanding media access gave Trump an answer that did not require the government to decide which journalists deserved access. Leavitt also said at her first briefing that the administration would directly confront legacy media bias and would “call you out.” The strategy was to vigorously engage with the media and directly challenge reporting the administration considered biased.
Now, Trump has banned CNN, MS Now, and Politico on the basis that their reporting is false. Litigation has already begun, and early Thursday, a federal judge entered a temporary restraining order, pausing the ban for 14 days.
The administration is arguing that the First Amendment does not guarantee access to the White House. But this is not exclusively a free speech issue. The broader issue at stake is the vitality of American politics, and unlike free speech, political vitality cannot simply be litigated in court. Courts can determine constitutional limits, but they cannot create a political culture in which politicians willingly answer questions from adversarial journalists.
THE MEDIA TRIED TO DESTROY TRUMP FOR A DECADE. WHY WOULD HE HAND THEM THE MIC?
And that is precisely what made Trump’s earlier approach preferable on its own terms. He did not have to trust CNN to take CNN’s questions. He did not have to accept unfavorable reporting to challenge it. And expanding access to podcasters, independent journalists, and alternative outlets did not require excluding traditional media. Trump could confront media he considered biased while giving Americans more sources from which to decide for themselves.
Trump, therefore, already had an answer to a press he distrusted: confront it, compete with it, and add more voices. Banning disagreeable voices abandons that strategy, as well as the opportunity to secure open engagement with adversarial media as part of his legacy.
Jeremy Etelson has written political commentary for the Washington Examiner and The Hill and has appeared on Fox Business and NewsNation discussing national politics. He previously worked in congressional and Maryland politics and served as a judicial law clerk in Maryland. He holds a J.D. from George Washington University Law School and a master’s of philosophy in political thought and intellectual history from the University of Cambridge.