Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A talkative president, sure, but much is missing without press briefings

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham and Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham and her deputy Hogan Gidley peer out from the Green Room before President Trump delivered remarks in January.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Bierbauer, a former dean at the University of South Carolina, was a longtime CNN Washington correspondent.

Journalists learn to adapt to current conditions, be they storms or tantrums, vagaries of nature or whims of officials. White House correspondents these days should be well past their withdrawal symptoms from the daily delirium of the once-regular White House press briefing.

Earlier this year, as 300 days passed without a formal briefing, a bipartisan group of past administration press secretaries called for restoration of the daily briefings.

"Bringing the American people in on the process, early and often, makes for better democracy," they said in an open letter on CNN.com.

"The process of preparing for regular briefings makes the government run better. The sharing of information, known as official guidance, among government officials and agencies helps ensure that an administration speaks with one voice," the former spokespersons said, adding that this is particularly important in foreign and military policy.


Beyond the daily digest of the president's activities, not all of which is public, reporters look to the briefings for depth and context for their reporting. They expect the White House press secretary and other officials to speak knowledgeably and authoritatively for the president and his administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

There is no requirement to hold White House press briefings, nor to have them televised. Now, what once was part of the routine of government in Washington is, in the Trump administration, barely seen at the State Department and Pentagon and a fading memory at the White House. The country is left with a singular voice – the president's – but no idea whether he represents government consensus.

The relationship between the president and the press is now more confrontational and more contemptuous than it has been in decades.

But while the press and the presidency have a long relationship, it has not necessarily been a cozy one. When Richard Nixon was president, for example, he had his "enemies list" that included journalists.

I covered the White House for CNN during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Reagan was well protected from the media by his staff and first lady Nancy Reagan. We shouted questions at him over the whir of helicopters. Bush was affable and considerably more accessible.

Donald Trump dominates when he engages with the White House press corps. He chooses when and how, of course, but that's always the case with presidents.

Regular press conferences had a protocol and, at least, a measure of decorum. The president still decides whose questions he'll answer. Trump's preference for impromptu exchanges, commonly on the White House driveway, makes the press look like a shouting mob, which sometimes they are.

Trump, by most assessments, functions as his own press secretary. Those who hold the actual title – three, so far – learned it's a foxhole from which one raises his or her head into the president's verbal line of fire.

The first, Sean Spicer, was out of sync on day one with disputable claims over the size of Trump's inauguration crowd. The second, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, regularly battled with the press corps – and the truth – from the podium in the briefing room. Sanders held her last briefing on March 15, 2019.

"I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway," Trump said.

Sanders' successor, Stephanie Grisham, has held none as of this writing and shows no inclination to.

"The press has unprecedented access to President Trump, yet they continue to complain because they can't grandstand on TV," Grisham told Axios.

When I arrived on the White House beat in 1984, the reporters' pattern was to gather in Press Secretary Larry Speakes' office around 8:15 a.m. for an informal background briefing. It was a useful way to figure out where the day was headed.

The formal briefing was around midday, on the record, but rarely on camera. TV was allowed to shoot only the start of the briefing just to get brief video for the day's newscasts. President Clinton's press secretary, Mike McCurry, acceded to media demands for regular live televised briefings. McCurry later thought better of it and joined former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer in 2017 in saying the briefings should be taped and shown later, not live.

"Better for the public, the WH & the press," Fleischer tweeted in what he called a "joint tweet" with McCurry.

Briefings could be chummy or churlish. Speakes had a habit of declaring reporters "out of business" if he disagreed with their premise or line of questioning. "Don't call; don't hang around my office," he'd say. It was a badge of honor for reporters. We'd call the chief of staff instead.

Marlin Fitzwater, who served both Reagan and Bush as press secretary, described us as just scratching at the surface of the iceberg. But he could be helpful by indicating what part of the iceberg to scratch at.

Press secretaries wear three hats, serving the public, the press and the president. It's the president, of course, who has first claim on their attention.

In Trump's case, it's the press secretary who has been put out of business, or at least business as usual. Grisham unapologetically serves him. She's not known for being particularly helpful off camera. Sanders had a better relationship with the press outside the combative briefing room.

This is not an issue rising from the First Amendment, which proscribes Congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of the press."

The White House has, instead, retreated from the practice of preceding administrations. It's a presidential prerogative to decide when and how to communicate to public constituencies. Other administrations have sought ways to circumvent the media filter.

Franklin Roosevelt broadcast his fireside chats. Ronald Reagan began the tradition of delivering a weekly radio address. Donald Trump tweets.

When the president himself talks to the media extemporaneously, it's more difficult to complain that the press secretary won't. What falls by the wayside, though, is the policy and detail that can be conveyed by officials responsible for either creating or communicating government's business.

Context and accountability are lost. It's a temptation for future presidents.

Fitzwater titled his post-White House memoir " Call the Briefing." No one on the president's staff is calling regular briefings these days. There are other briefings that take place at the White House, but not the daily regimen of the press secretary's briefing.

But there hasn't been a lack of stories from and about the Trump White House.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Read More

While Pledging To Clean Up Toxic Chemicals, EPA Guts Hundreds of Environmental Grants

EPA Administrator Zeldin speaks with reporters on Long Island, NY.

Courtesy EPA via Flickr.

While Pledging To Clean Up Toxic Chemicals, EPA Guts Hundreds of Environmental Grants

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration promised to combat toxic “forever chemicals,” while conversely canceling nearly 800 grants aimed at addressing environmental injustices, including in communities plagued with PFAS contamination.

In a court filing, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed for the first time that it intends to cancel 781 environmental justice grants, nearly double what had previously been disclosed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policy Changes Could Derail Michigan’s Clean Energy Goals

New clean energy manufacturing plants, including for EV batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, are being built across states like Michigan, Georgia, and Ohio.

Steve/Adobe Stock

Policy Changes Could Derail Michigan’s Clean Energy Goals

In recent years, Michigan has been aggressive in its approach to clean energy: It’s invested millions of dollars in renewable energy infrastructure, created training programs for jobs in the electric vehicle industry, and set a goal of moving the state to 100% carbon neutrality by 2050.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials aim to make the Great Lakes State a leader in clean energy manufacturing by bringing jobs and investments to local communities while also tackling pollution, which continues to wreak havoc on the environment.

Now Michigan’s clean energy efforts have seemingly hit a wall of uncertainty as President Donald Trump’s administration takes ongoing actions to roll back federal climate regulations.

“We’ve seen nothing less than an unprecedented, all-out assault on our environment and our democracy,” said Bentley Johnson, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters’ federal government affairs director.

The clean energy sector has grown rapidly in the United States since President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Congress appropriated $370 billion under the IRA, and White House officials at the time touted it as the country’s largest investment in clean energy.

According to Climate Power, a national public relations and advocacy organization dedicated to climate justice, Michigan was the No. 1 state in the nation in 2024 in its number of clean energy projects; from 2022-2024, the state announced 74 projects totalling over 26,000 jobs and roughly $27 billion in federal funding.

Trump has long been critical of the country’s climate initiatives and development of clean energy technology. He’s previously made false claims that climate change is a hoax and wind turbines cause cancer. Since taking office again in January, Trump has tried to pause IRA funding and signed an executive order to boost coal production.

Additionally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in March that the agency had canceled more than 400 environmental justice grants to be used to improve air and water quality in disadvantaged communities. Senate Democrats, who released a full list of the canceled grants, accused the EPA of illegally terminating the contracts, through which funds were appropriated by Congress under the IRA. Of those 400 grants, 15 were allocated for projects in Michigan, including one to restore housing units in Kalamazoo and another to transform Detroit area food pantries and soup kitchens into emergency shelters for those in need.

Johnson said the federal government reversing course on the allotted funding has left community groups who were set to receive it in the lurch.

“That just seems wrong, to take away these public benefits that there was already an agreement — Congress has already appropriated or committed to spending this, to handing this money out, and the rug is being pulled out from under them,” Johnson said.

Climate Power has tracked clean energy projects across the country totaling $56.3 billion in projected funding and over 50,000 potential jobs that have been stalled or canceled since Trump was elected in November. Michigan accounts for seven of those projects, including Nel Hydrogen’s plans to build an electrolyzer manufacturing facility in Plymouth.

Nel Hydrogen announced an indefinite delay in the construction of its Plymouth factory in February 2025. Wilhelm Flinder, the company’s head of investor relations, communications, and marketing, cited uncertainty regarding the IRA’s tax credits for clean hydrogen production as a factor in the company’s decision, according to reporting by Hometownlife.com. The facility was expected to invest $400 million in the local community and to create over 500 people when it started production.

“America is losing nearly a thousand jobs a day because of Trump’s war against cheaper, faster, and cleaner energy. Congressional Republicans have a choice: get in line with Trump’s job-killing energy agenda or take a stand to protect jobs and lower costs for American families,” Climate Power executive director Lori Lodes said in a March statement.

Opposition groups make misleading claims about the benefits of renewable energy, such as the reliability of wind or solar energy and the land used for clean energy projects, in order to stir up public distrust, Johnson said.

In support of its clean energy goals, the state fronted some of its own taxpayer dollars for several projects to complement the federal IRA money. Johnson said the strategy was initially successful, but with sudden shifts in federal policies, it’s potentially become a risk, because the state would be unable to foot the bill entirely on its own.

The state still has its self-imposed clean energy goals to reach in 25 years, but whether it will meet that deadline is hard to predict, Johnson said. Michigan’s clean energy laws are still in place and, despite Trump’s efforts, the IRA remains intact for now.

“Thanks to the combination — I like to call it a one-two punch of the state-passed Clean Energy and Jobs Act … and the Inflation Reduction Act, with the two of those intact — as long as we don’t weaken it — and then the combination of the private sector and technological advancement, we can absolutely still make it,” Johnson said. “It is still going to be tough, even if there wasn’t a single rollback.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
A Missed Opportunity

Broken speech bubbles.

Getty Images, MirageC

A Missed Opportunity

en español

In a disappointing turn of events, Connecticut has chosen to follow the precedent set by President Donald Trump’s English-Only Executive Order, effectively disregarding the federal mandates of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
The DOGE and Executive Power

White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The DOGE and Executive Power

The DOGE is not the first effort to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government. It is the first to receive such vociferous disdain along what appears to be purely political lines. Most presidents have made efforts in these areas, some more substantial than others, with limited success. Here are some modern examples.

In 1982, President Reagan used an executive order to establish a private sector task force to identify inefficiencies in government spending (commonly called the Grace Commission). The final report included 2,478 recommendations to reduce wasteful government practices, estimated savings of $429 billion over the first three years and $6.8 trillion between 1985 and 2000. Most of the savings required legislative changes, and Congress ignored most of those proposals.

Keep ReadingShow less