Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

Opinion

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

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network