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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less