photo: PBS NewsHour

BREAKING: News organizations responded forcefully on Monday after President Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. They went to federal court—and, in an extraordinary show of solidarity, ABC, CBS, Fox News and NBC agreed to suspend video coverage of the president until further notice.

“I want it clearly understood that from now on, ever, no reporter from the Washington Post is ever to be in the White House. Is that clear? Now that is a total order, and if necessary, I’ll fire you. Do you understand?”—President Richard Nixon to a White House aide

Richard Nixon learned—the hard way—the consequences of trying to shut out a free press. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein continued digging into Watergate, publishing stories that helped expose the Nixon administration’s efforts to conceal its involvement in the scandal and ultimately contributed to the political crisis that led to Nixon’s resignation.

Flash Forward–

MS NOW reporter Kelly O’Donnell asked President Trump:

“Sir? Mr. President, earlier today you posted that you intend to ban CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House. Every president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment.”

When O’Donnell began to ask how he justified the action, Trump interrupted:

“Because they’re fake news.”

Trump went on to say that the country needs “a free press,” as well as a fair and honest one. (He really said, Free Press. I’ve never seen irony and arrogance so neatly mixed.)

Yet later in the same Oval Office exchange, when asked exactly how far the ban would extend, he replied: “Oh, the ban on the free press, right?” (A second time!) and said he did not want the three organizations in his office or at the White House and that the ban would go “as far as you can.”

Nixon, Trump–different eras, but the historical question remains the same: What happens when a president decides that the answer to reporting he considers hostile or unfair is to ban the reporters themselves?

The First Amendment does not guarantee a president favorable coverage. Its protection of a free press exists precisely because people in power do not get to decide which journalism is sufficiently favorable to deserve protection.

History has seen this before. Leaders who resent scrutiny often begin by attacking the credibility of the press, then move to limiting its access.

Trump can control what people who work for him say. But he doesn’t get to control what is reported to the American people.

And yet, by deciding which news organizations are permitted inside the White House, he is attempting to do just that.

On September 19, the White House followed through on his order and denied access to reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. All three described the action as unconstitutional and indicated they will challenge it.

If that challenge eventually reaches the Supreme Court, the question will be larger than whether Donald Trump likes CNN, MS NOW or Politico. It will be whether a president can use access to the White House as a reward for favorable coverage—and withhold it from those whose reporting he does not like.

This is not simply a dispute between a president and the press. It is a test of the first and foundational principle of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

In a 1977 television interview conducted by David Frost, Nixon made clear: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

We don’t have to look far to feel the cold hand of presidential power creeping back into our lives.

In 2019, Trump made that abundantly clear: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”