The Hanoi Summit and the Question That Changed Everything
In February 2019, the world watched as U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met for their second summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. The stakes were high: the U.S. hoped to reduce the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, while Trump himself had hinted that the meeting might even earn him a Nobel Peace Prize. But amid the diplomatic drama unfolding in that luxury hotel, I found myself asking a question that had nothing to do with Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. Instead, I turned the spotlight back to Washington.
“Mr. President, do you have any reaction to Michael Cohen and his testimony?” I asked, referring to Trump’s former lawyer, who had just hours earlier delivered explosive testimony before a Democratic-led congressional committee. Cohen had labeled Trump a “racist,” “con man,” and “cheat.” Trump scowled, shook his head, and did not respond. moments later, Kim Jong Un, seated across from Trump, remained eerily silent. My question was met with an abrupt ending to the press availability, and the dozen American reporters in the room, including me, were ushered out. Later that day, when the summit ended without a deal, Trump blamed the failure on the distraction caused by Cohen’s testimony.
That moment underscored the power of a free press. While Trump disliked my question, I had the right to ask it—a right protected by the First Amendment. And it was only possible because I was part of the White House press pool, a system that allows journalists to represent the broader press corps in situations where space or security constraints limit access. On that day in Hanoi, I was there to hold the president accountable, to ask questions that might otherwise go unasked.
The White House Press Pool: A Democratic Institution Under Siege
The White House press pool has been a cornerstone of American democracy since its establishment during the Eisenhower administration. It operates on a simple but vital principle: a small, rotating group of journalists represents the entire press corps in situations where it’s impossible for all reporters to be present, such as in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One. These journalists, selected by the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), share their reporting with the rest of the press corps, ensuring that the public is informed about the president’s actions in real time.
For decades, the system worked seamlessly, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Journalists from diverse ideological backgrounds participated, and the system was designed to avoid bias or favoritism. That changed in 2024 when the White House announced it would dismantle the pool system as it had existed for generations. Instead, the administration would handpick which journalists could cover the president. This decision sent shockwaves through the journalism community, as it represented a direct threat to the independence of the press and the public’s right to know.
The White House defended the move by claiming it wanted to allow "more diverse" outlets to cover the president. But the reality was starkly different. In the days that followed, right-wing outlets like Blaze Media, One America News, and The Federalist began to replace established news organizations like the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters in the pool. Meanwhile, a reporter from the Russian state-run news agency TASS was briefly allowed into an Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, while AP and Reuters were excluded. These changes marked a dangerous turning point in the White House’s relationship with the press.
Attacking the First Amendment: The Broader Implications
The change to the press pool system was not an isolated incident. It was part of a broader, concerted effort by the Trump administration to undermine the free press and consolidate control over the narrative. In recent months, the White House had taken several steps to restrict press access and punish outlets that ran afoul of the president. For instance, the Associated Press was banned from White House events after refusing to comply with Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” AP journalists retained their hard passes, but their exclusion from the pool was a clear retaliatory measure. The WHCA swiftly objected, calling the move a violation of the First Amendment, and the AP filed a lawsuit against the White House.
The stakes could not be higher. If the White House succeeds in handpicking the journalists who cover the president, it could effectively create a state media system in the United States. This would allow the president to face only favorable questions and avoid accountability from independent journalists. “Our job is to push the president beyond his comfort zone to respond to questions that otherwise they’re never asked,” said Peter Baker, a veteran New York Times correspondent. “Now he’s sending a signal that if you write something we don’t like, you’re out.” The dangerous precedent set by this move could have long-term consequences, even for future administrations.
