Free Press?

Something happened in Washington this weekend that deserves our attention.

And I don’t care whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or somebody who thinks the whole damn system is broken.

This one is bigger than Donald Trump.

President Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

Why?

According to Trump, because he believes they report “fake news.”

Now, presidents complaining about the press is nothing new.

Thomas Jefferson complained about newspapers. Abraham Lincoln battled newspapers. Richard Nixon hated the press. Barack Obama’s administration fought with reporters. Joe Biden complained about coverage.

Presidents and journalists have been irritating the hell out of each other for more than two hundred years.

That tension is actually part of the system.

But this situation raises a different question:

Can the government punish a news organization because the president doesn’t like its reporting?

CNN, MS NOW and Politico say the answer is no.

Today they filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that removing their White House access because of their coverage violates the First Amendment—and that revoking their access without adequate process also violates the Fifth Amendment.

Trump argues something very different.

He says this isn’t an attack on the free press. He says he’s attacking what he calls “fake news,” which he says threatens the country.

Fine.

Now the courts get to sort that out.

And here’s where this story gets really interesting.

CNN is part of a five-network television pool that includes ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News.

The networks rotate responsibility for providing video of the president, then share that footage with news organizations around the country.

CNN was supposed to handle the pool coverage today.

The White House wouldn’t allow it.

So what did ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox do?

They didn’t simply take CNN’s place.

They suspended the television pool.

That means the dispute is no longer simply Trump versus CNN.

Some of America’s largest television news organizations—including Fox—are effectively saying that the rules governing access to the president matter.

And now we have a genuine constitutional fight.

There’s even history here.

Back in 2018, the Trump White House revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credential.

CNN sued.

A federal judge ordered the White House to restore Acosta’s access, finding that his due-process rights had been violated.

And here’s the fascinating part:

The judge handling this new case is Timothy Kelly.

He’s a Trump-appointed judge.

And he’s the same judge who issued that 2018 ruling.

So forget the personalities for a moment.

Forget CNN.

Forget Trump.

Forget whether you personally like any of these news organizations.

Ask yourself a much more important question:

What rule do we want to exist?

Because that’s what democracy ultimately depends upon.

Rules.

If a Democratic president someday decides Fox News is dishonest, should that president be able to throw Fox out?

If a Republican president believes CNN is dishonest, should that president be able to throw CNN out?

What about a small independent journalist?

A conservative blogger?

A progressive podcast?

Where does the government’s authority begin—and where does it end?

Those aren’t rhetorical questions.

They’re constitutional questions.

And there’s another reason this matters.

The press isn’t supposed to work for the president.

The press isn’t supposed to work for Congress.

The press isn’t supposed to work for Republicans.

And it isn’t supposed to work for Democrats.

It’s supposed to watch all of them.

Sometimes journalists get things wrong.

Sometimes journalism is sloppy.

Sometimes coverage is biased.

Sometimes reporters deserve criticism.

And Americans absolutely have the right to criticize them.

But there’s a big difference between citizens criticizing journalism and government using its power to punish journalism.

That’s the line Americans should be watching.

Because freedom of the press isn’t really about protecting CNN.

It isn’t about protecting Fox.

It isn’t about protecting The New York Times.

It’s about protecting us.

It’s about preserving our ability to hear information the government might prefer we didn’t hear.

That’s why this lawsuit matters.

And we don’t have to decide today who ultimately wins the legal argument.

A federal court will begin sorting that out.

But as citizens, we should pay attention to something bigger.

Democracy rarely depends on one dramatic moment.

It depends on thousands of smaller decisions about what government is allowed to do.

Who gets access.

Who gets questioned.

Who gets criticized.

Who gets heard.

And who gets shut out.

That’s why citizenship requires something more than voting every couple of years.

It requires paying attention.

It requires asking questions.

And sometimes it requires defending a principle even when the person benefiting from that principle isn’t somebody you particularly like.

Because constitutional rights aren’t very valuable if they only apply to people we agree with.

That’s the whole damn point.