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.

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

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less