There is a saying in Anatolia: “Whatever he praises lasts only three days!” It seems like my case is somewhat similar. As a journalist coming from the “one-man rule” regime that AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has step by step built, I have often found myself envying my American colleagues. I even wrote an article titled “The President’s Plane and Journalists”, in which I described the working procedures between the White House and journalists, calling it a “tradition to be taken as an example.”
Back then, I referred to the famous Black Sea trip of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, during which he was accompanied by journalists like Ertuğrul Özkök, İsmail Saymaz, and Nagehan Alçı. I concluded that article by saying: “Unless we adopt a system similar to the U.S., Erdoğan will leave, İmamoğlu will come, then someone else will replace him, but each new leader will create their own loyal media, building a ‘parallel press’.”
I take back my words because the pool journalist system, which was designed to prevent the U.S. president from manipulating the media and forming his own loyal press corps, is coming to an end. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Tuesday that, from now on, they will personally select the journalists who can attend and ask questions at the president’s events. This marks the end of the White House Press Pool system, which had been managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association for 111 years.
A CHOICE THAT RAISES CONCERNS
As we all know, President Trump has started his second term with a rapid pace. His executive orders, decisions, and controversial statements are making headlines worldwide.
Since this article is about media, let’s focus on this area. President Trump has always had a hostile relationship with the press, especially with media outlets that do not support him. For example, after renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the American Gulf, he revoked the Associated Press’ accreditation simply because the agency did not adopt this terminology.
Similar actions have taken place at the Pentagon. Trump’s controversial Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, shut down the offices of major mainstream media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and CBS at the Pentagon. Their spaces were then given to pro-Trump media organizations. The Pentagon defended this move as part of a “rotation policy.”
But the issue is not just about closing offices. The Trump administration is systematically building a parallel media. For instance, Defense Secretary Hegseth visited Guantanamo Bay, where detained migrants are held, and he only allowed Fox News, his long-time workplace, to accompany him.
NOT A BAN, BUT “DIVERSITY”
Trump’s media policies have raised concerns about press freedom and free speech. However, Press Secretary Leavitt argues the opposite.
Her exact words: “We will no longer allow a select group of Washington-based elite journalists to monopolize access to the White House press. All journalists, media outlets, and diverse voices deserve a seat at this valuable table. By selecting the limited press pool members each day, the White House is giving power back to the American people.”
Leavitt claims they are not censoring but rather increasing diversity. However, the U.S. media is worried.
For example, White House Correspondents’ Association President and Politico reporter Eugene Daniels said: “This move weakens the presence of an independent press in the United States. It means the government will choose which journalists cover it. In a free country, leaders should not select their own journalists.”
A similar reaction came from The New York Times, which stated: “By giving only its favored journalists the privilege to cover the president — and excluding those it disapproves of — the White House is attempting to undermine the public’s access to independent and reliable information about the most powerful person in America.”
The White House’s decision has sparked intense debate. Many argue that this is a significant step toward authoritarianism. Several media figures have criticized Trump’s move, emphasizing that “The White House press pool serves the public, not the presidency.”
A HOPEFUL REACTION FROM FOX NEWS
Amidst this controversy, there are also some promising signs. For example, Jacqui Heinrich, a senior White House correspondent for Fox News — a staunchly pro-Trump outlet — criticized the decision on social media:
“This step doesn’t give power back to the people — it gives power to the White House.”
Heinrich’s reaction is significant because she works for a strongly pro-Trump media organization but is not afraid to speak out about what she believes is right. To put it in perspective: imagine a reporter from Turkey’s A Haber criticizing the fact that Fahrettin Altun decides which journalists board the presidential plane! Is such a thing possible in Turkey? Could a journalist with such integrity emerge from Turkey?
Returning to the U.S., Trump’s decision has further worried those who already suspected his administration’s authoritarian tendencies. He is banning media outlets that do not report the news in the way he wants, taking control of the list of journalists allowed to travel on Air Force One, a list that had been managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association for 111 years.
I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu. However, American society — especially its media — is not used to this. Now, the big question is: what’s next? Many seasoned analysts openly state, “Trump is following the path of his friend Putin, building a ‘parallel media’ that is dependent on and loyal to him.”
Frankly, this is a very familiar process to me.
After all, Erdoğan also followed in the footsteps of his friend Putin and completely took over the Turkish media. He bought some outlets, forced others into submission using state power, and coerced many into siding with him through threats or violence. Those who could not be bought or controlled were simply shut down through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms.
Some might say, “This could never happen in America.” But as I mentioned in my previous article, this issue was even discussed at the annual CPAC conference. Trump supporters are actively planning to establish a loyalist media.
This is exactly how it starts, and over time, people become desensitized. At first, a few media outlets are banned under the guise of rotation policies; then, the bans expand. Some media owners face pressure, ownership structures are altered, censorship laws are tightened, and dissenting journalists and outlets are intimidated. Eventually, the entire media landscape falls under the control of the ruling power. A few so-called opposition outlets may remain, but they are given strict boundaries on what they can cover. And before you know it, the entire media serves the government.
Can Trump achieve this? I don’t know. If you had asked me a month ago, I would have said, “No way, absolutely impossible!” But the events of the past month have made me more cautious.
Even if Trump cannot establish a fully government-controlled media like in Turkey or Russia, he is already dealing a severe blow to press freedom. In fact, he already has.
If, in the U.S. capital, certain newspapers and TV channels are being banned, if the White House is beginning to dictate the language of news reporting, and if censorship on platforms like X is becoming normalized — then what can you say about authoritarian regimes like Turkey?
Imagine going to the White House, the State Department, or members of Congress and saying, “The Erdoğan regime enforces strict censorship policies, and press freedom in Turkey is under threat.” They would likely give you a puzzled look and say, “So what? The same thing is happening here!”
Since Trump’s return, we’ve been saying: Forget the America you once knew. A whole new era has begun.
And the media is certainly feeling the impact of this change.
