Trump’s War On Free Speech

Is Donald Trump against a free press? The straightforward answer is yes, despite leading a nation that prides itself on press freedom. If not, how else can one explain—or better yet, rationalise—his decision to ban CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House?

How can one explain that, in a twist of irony, the president of the world’s most powerful democracy is angry simply because journalists are reporting things he dislikes?

In a clear assault on the free press, Trump officially turned the White House into a private fortress of censorship, weaponising his personal vendettas to strip CNN, MS NOW, and Politico of their press credentials. This isn’t a mere policy shift—it is a full-blown tyrannical tantrum.

No evidence

Without offering a single shred of evidence, Trump brands these media institutions as purveyors of “fiction and lies” and “fake news” simply because they dared to perform the basic duty of journalism: holding power accountable.

By locking out reporters and seizing their badges at the gates, Trump has sent a chilling, dictatorial message to the world. It screams that the “People’s House” belongs only to those who sycophantically echo the administration’s propaganda. This marks a catastrophic low point for American democracy and the First Amendment.

The fact that Trump has failed to provide sufficient evidence for his assertions that the three news outlets are peddling lies reveals his true intention. It is clear: he wants to muzzle the press. He would rather have a press that kowtows to his will—or nothing at all.

Since assuming office, President Trump has made some decisions that portray America in a less favourable light. His decision to ban the three news outlets, like most of his erratic decisions, has continued to cast him in an unflattering light.

Should a government exclude journalists simply because it dislikes their reporting? Certainly not! What happens when a president begins to decide which journalists deserve access based on whether he likes what they write? The day we wake up to this as the norm is the day we kiss freedom of the press goodbye.

The issue is not whether CNN, MS NOW, and Politico get everything right. No media organisation gets everything right all the time. News organisations make mistakes. We all do. They have editorial biases and sometimes publish inaccurate reports. However, there are well-defined procedures for seeking redress for such mistakes, especially when they are committed with malicious intent.

President Trump’s right to criticise, challenge and even sue when he believes that media organisations and journalists have broken the law is beyond doubt. It is the right guaranteed to him by the American Constitution.

But what the law does not envisage is a situation in which a president tries to use government access as a reward for favourable journalism, as Trump seeks to do through this infamous ban.

The American system is well structured. Media organisations covering the White House, as should be expected, have limited access to certain locations, but they are not banned because of their viewpoint or the content of their reporting. This much, President Trump is aware of.

An affront on the First Amendment

Who could have imagined that in America, where the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press, a president would wake up one day and unilaterally ban certain media organisations from reporting on the White House? Such an act would contravene the very freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

The fact that journalists are not entitled to unrestricted access to the White House is undisputed; to dispute it is irrational. Similarly, the fact that presidents have legitimate authority to determine access to restricted spaces in their official residences cannot be disputed. The core issue is a president banning news outlets simply because he dislikes their reporting.

A president may control legitimate security and logistical arrangements. He should not use access as a weapon against journalists because he dislikes their coverage. No.

Trump’s action should concern everyone, especially those who value a free and independent press. If Trump can ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico because he deems their reporting “fake news”, what happens when the next president decides that Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post or another outlet is “fake news”? Should a president wake up one day and decide which media outlets cover his government and its activities?

As journalists, we do not ask those we cover to like us. No. One of the lessons I have learnt over more than two decades of journalism is that once a journalist is liked by those he covers, independent journalism suffers. In fact, the more powerful the person being covered, the greater the need for independent scrutiny.

Who pays the price?

When the powerful succeed in gagging the press and turning it into their mouthpiece, the public suffers most. What is happening in Trump’s White House is not a mere disagreement between the president and the media. It is a deliberate assault on journalism, and if left unchallenged, citizens will pay the price. Once press access depends on presidential approval, the public’s right to know is effectively destroyed.

President Trump and like-minded leaders must be reminded of the public’s right to receive information from journalists who are free to ask tough questions. It is encouraging to hear that the three outlets have sued, arguing that the ban violates the First Amendment. I hope Trump can provide evidence that the ban was not based on the outlets’ editorial viewpoints.

It is also heartening to see that, in response to Trump’s infamous action, some media organisations, including Fox News and ABC, have suspended live coverage of the president. That suspension should remain in place until Trump reverses the ban. Other media organisations around the world should not only condemn Trump’s action but also impose a total blackout on him.

Lessons for Nigeria

What lessons should Nigeria, and indeed Africa, draw from Trump’s actions and the subsequent reactions? Nigeria does not need to look far to recognise the danger posed by governments growing uncomfortable with critical media organisations and journalists. We experienced this under military rule, when the press was gagged, and the public was denied access to information.

Every government prefers a friendly press that offers it favourable publicity, but the standard of a democracy is measured partly by how much criticism those in power are prepared to tolerate.

In fairness to the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, it has shown a high tolerance for media criticism, provided that such criticism remains within the bounds set by Nigerian law.

President Trump needs to be reminded that a free press does not exist to make presidents comfortable. It exists to hold power to account. No president should be allowed to turn access to government into a reward for favourable coverage.

N22bn VP Residence

When a country spends 22 billion of its currency, even if that currency is among the weakest in the world, such as the Iranian Rial (IRR), the Lebanese Pound (LBP), the Vietnamese Dong (VND), the Laotian Kip (LAK), or the Indonesian Rupiah (IDR), to renovate a residence that is then abandoned for two years, as Nigeria did when it spent N22bn on the Vice President’s residence, there is every reason to worry.

This is in a country that devotes a substantial share of its revenue to debt servicing, where over 60 per cent of the population is multidimensionally poor, and where hospitals lack equipment. If this is not recklessness, then nothing is.