
Presidents have been treating journalists badly since Lincoln
I don't know whether The Associated Press will ultimately prevail in its legal challenge to the Trump administration's reckless and petty decision to kick the venerable organization out of the press pool, which has more White House access than other credentialed journalists.
The lawsuit took a hit on last week when a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit tossed a lower court's preliminary injunction, allowing the White House to reinstate parts of the ban. But as the litigation continues, it's worth noting that punishing the press out of presidential pique is nothing new.
The current controversy arose in February, after the AP refused to revise its style guide to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by President Donald Trump's preferred "Gulf of America.' The administration, with its typical small-mindedness, stripped the AP of its usual insider's seat. But punishing journalists for refusing to follow government orders is pretty much the opposite of freedom of the press.
Still, nobody should have been surprised. The administration's action, although wrong, was not without Trumpian precedent. And not without non-Trumpian precedent either.
Although I have some sympathy with Judge Cornelia Pillard's dissenting opinion in the AP case, I fear she's imprecise when she asserts that "participation in the Press Pool or the broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on the viewpoint expressed outside the Pool by any participating news organization — until now.'
The unfortunate truth is that presidents have acted badly toward reporters who criticize them for as long as we've had presidents and reporters. History abounds with examples.
Indeed, long before there existed a White House press corps, presidential peevishness led to the punishment of newspapers. We could go back to Abraham Lincoln and John Adams, who might reasonably rank first and second on the list of the nation's best presidents, but both of whose administrations jailed journalists whose reporting they didn't like.
A better point of departure might be 1904, when Jesse Carmichael of the Boston Herald filed a story about the Thanksgiving Day antics of Theodore Roosevelt's children, who the paper claimed had chased a turkey across the lawn. "Why should the Roosevelt children be allowed to torment and frighten an innocent bird?' the article concluded. The president's secretary — the office of press secretary did not yet exist — denied that the incident had taken place. But the denial did not satisfy Roosevelt, who ordered both Carmichael and his paper barred from receiving any news releases, not only from the White House, but from all executive departments. The Herald was not even permitted access to official weather forecasts. (The newspaper stood its ground, insisting that Roosevelt had been "misinformed' about the contents of the story.)
Roosevelt's hostility toward the press was legendary. When, just before the 1908 election, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World reported that the Roosevelt family had profited from the Panama Canal deal, the president informed Congress ominously that the attorney general "has under consideration' charges against the newspaper — a message condemned even by editors friendly to the administration. Roosevelt was undeterred by the criticism. Shortly before leaving office, he filed a lawsuit for criminal libel against theWorld and a second newspaper. The U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately throw out the case, not because it offended freedom of the press, but on the ground that the federal judiciary lacked jurisdiction.
Speaking of Roosevelts, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House, reporters were forbidden to photograph the chief executive in his wheelchair. The historian Harold Holzer, in his engrossing 2020 book on the history of the relationship between the press and presidents, tells us that what FDR's White House styled as a "request' was firmly enforced: "Persistent offenders risked losing their press credentials.' How effective was the ban? According to Holzer, a later study found that of 35,000 surviving photographs of FDR, only two showed him in his wheelchair.
On the other hand, it apparently isn't true, as often reported, that President Richard Nixon barred The Washington Post from covering his daughter Tricia's 1971 wedding. What did happen, according to biographer John A. Farrell, is that Nixon was so incensed by what he considered the Post's "snide' coverage of the event that he ordered Ron Ziegler, his press secretary, to keep the newspaper from attending future White House social events. Then, says Farrell, the president went further: "They're never to be in the White House again. Never! Is that clear?' It does not appear that the ban was ever enforced. Perhaps Ziegler knew enough to let his boss calm down.
And for those who can stretch their memories back to that ancient year 2023, it was Joe Biden's administration that rewrote the credentialing rules to rid itself of Cameroonian journalist Simon Ateba, whose offense was evidently shouting over others to get his questions heard. The White House called him disruptive; Ateba claimed that he had to interrupt because he was never called on — and that he was never called on because the administration disliked his views. Either way, the new rules, which limited credentials to those employed by news organizations, excluded hundreds of others as well.
None of this history is meant to excuse the Trump administration's decision to kick the AP out of the Oval Office over a line in the organization's style guide. The decision was petty, disquieting and wrong. Perhaps the courts will yet strike it down. My point, rather, is that it's been a tragedy of our history that presidents good and bad have frequently taken out their anger on the press. That the news media have survived White House pettishness might be described as a glory of our democracy.
Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of law at Yale University and author of "Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Nippon Steel officials: Trump has approved company's plan to buy US Steel
Officials at Nippon Steel say that they believe that the company's plan to purchase US Steel has been approved. The comments come after the two steelmakers announced that US President Donald Trump had approved their partnership. The officials say that the company's bid to acquire 100 percent of common shares in US Steel and turn it into a wholly owned subsidiary has been given the go-ahead. Nippon Steel and US Steel said in a joint statement released on Saturday, Japan time, that the companies have entered into a National Security Agreement with the US government. The statement says the NSA "provides that approximately 11 billion dollars in new investments will be made by 2028." The NSA also includes commitments related to governance, including a "golden share" to be issued to the US government, domestic production and trade matters. The golden share allows the US government to veto important decisions related to the management of US Steel. The companies said, "We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for out historic partnership." They added, "We look forward to putting out commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again." Nippon Steel announced a plan to buy out US Steel about 18 months ago. But then-President Joe Biden issued an order blocking the purchase on national security grounds. Nippon Steel's decision to implement additional investments in the US apparently led to the revision of Biden's order by Trump, paving the way for the Japanese firm to purchase its US rival.

Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Debt to decarbonization: challenges for Nippon Steel
Nippon Steel on Saturday touted a "historic partnership" with U.S. Steel after President Donald Trump approved a multibillion-dollar merger. But the Japanese giant faces numerous headwinds going forward. Here are some of the challenges facing the company, from trade tariffs to lackluster global demand: U.S. conditions Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel said they had "entered into a National Security Agreement" with the U.S. government, which "provides that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028." Former President Joe Biden had blocked the deal on national security grounds shortly before leaving the White House. Other conditions include a so-called golden share for the U.S. government, giving it more control over the company, as well as nonspecified "commitments" related to domestic production and trade. "All necessary regulatory approvals for the partnership have now been received, and the partnership is expected to be finalized promptly," the companies said in a statement. Financial burden Ratings agency S&P last month said that the "huge financial burden" of the deal could cause it to downgrade Nippon Steel more severely than planned. Bloomberg Intelligence's Michelle Leung also warned in May that the $14.9 billion merger would "significantly increase the Japanese firm's debt burden from the current $16.7 billion." "A deal might help Nippon Steel diversify beyond its sluggish domestic market, though it would need to invest heavily to help repair the aging assets of U.S. Steel," she said. Some shareholders have expressed alarm, with activist investor 3D Investment Partners calling for opposition to the reappointment of Nippon Steel executives at an upcoming annual general meeting. "This level of capital outlay" risks an "irreversible impairment of corporate value," it warned. Tariff threat "Weak domestic and overseas demand for steel products and the indirect effects of U.S. tariffs imposed on steel" will likely hit Nippon Steel's earnings, S&P said. The company has warned that global steel demand is "in an unprecedented state of crisis" — a trend fueled by sluggish economic activity, oversupply in the market and fewer public infrastructure projects. It will also need to grapple with Trump's tariff offensive — with levies on steel and aluminum imports recently doubled to 50%. In Japan, the aging population is weighing on demand for steel, but exporting is also becoming more challenging as other countries boost local production. To address this, Nippon Steel has strengthened its international presence by acquiring Indian and Thai steelmakers. The U.S. Steel merger is part of this strategy: It will allow Nippon Steel to achieve global crude steel production capacity of 86 million tons a year, up from 66 million currently, it says. Chinese overproduction Global steel demand is growing at a pace of less than 1% per year, which is mismatched with the anticipated 6.7% jump in production capacities by 2027, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). That will likely cause a price drop, threatening many steelmakers. Much of this surplus is subsidized by China, the world's largest steel producer, in what the OECD characterizes as a "policy distortion." Steel exports from China have more than doubled since 2020, prompting regions including the European Union to launch anti-dumping investigations. Chinese demand for steel is slowing and the country's "exporting spree ... is aimed at driving up its GDP," Ryunosuke Shibata of SBI Securities said. "A vast amount of steel is flowing into Asia at prices that are barely profitable," sparking a "wave of price competition," Shibata said. Costly decarbonization Japan has pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, as governments worldwide work to curb their emissions. As part of its own efforts to produce less planet-warming carbon dioxide, Nippon Steel has announced a $6 billion plan to build, modify or restart three less polluting "electric arc" furnaces at different sites. Around a third of the funding will come from the government. But the investment "could lead to mounting financial costs" as production from the facilities will not start before the 2029 financial year, Leung said.


NHK
3 hours ago
- NHK
Trump's executive orders revise Biden's order to block Nippon Steel buyout bid
US President Donald Trump has issued executive orders that revise his predecessor's order to block Japanese firm Nippon Steel's bid to purchase US Steel. Trump's orders on Friday are based on the review results of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. In January, then-US President Joe Biden blocked Nippon Steel's buyout plan, citing national security concerns. But in April, Trump instructed CFIUS to conduct a fresh review. The executive orders say a national security risk "can be adequately mitigated" if certain conditions are met. The orders also say the proposed acquisition is prohibited unless the two companies sign and remain in compliance with a national security agreement with the US Treasury Department. The document states that the president is authorized to issue further orders if necessary to protect national security. Nippon Steel and US Steel announced on Saturday that Trump approved a partnership after they signed a national security agreement with the government. On Thursday, Trump indicated that his government would acquire a "golden share" as part of a partnership deal. The holder of the special share can veto important matters related to management.