Since its creation in 1914, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has managed and coordinated a rotating press pool that is allotted coverage to White House briefings. Under this agreement, the major wire news sources of the United States, such as the Associated Press (AP), Reuters, and Bloomberg, maintained their permanent seats in this press pool. These wire services are nonpartisan and act as distributors for thousands of other news outlets. 

In 2025, the White House announced they would take control of the press pool themselves, ending this century-long norm. This led to the loss of permanent seating for these wire services, with the AP even temporarily barred from events after refusing to use the term “Gulf of America.” Although press briefings continue, they do so with a different makeup of media members, who are selected by the executive themselves.

The takeover of the White House press pool shows democratic erosion as it centralizes one of the key checks on power. This act does not directly impede on the First Amendment, and it does not create authoritarianism by itself. What it does instead is provide significant increase in executive control over the press that traditionally keeps power in check. This change makes certain roles of journalism, such as being a watchdog, much riskier, as there is a fear of future exclusion. Over time, this risks the weakening of democratic accountability through a more compliant press pool. 

Democracy relies on independent institutions, which then provide a plurality of information to the public. This is contingent on the press being fully free and not having questions about future availability hanging over their heads as they choose which questions to ask, and what tone to employ in their writing. This directive is an example of democratic erosion because the institutions needed in place to support democracy are being undermined gradually rather than abolished entirely.  

The Trump administration’s move to centralize control of the White House press pool risks overstepping democratic norms. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in How Democracies Die, argue that contemporary democratic erosion occurs not through overt takeovers, but through gradual weakening of informal norms. These norms are unwritten rules that are typically not in the Constitution of a state, but are necessary to avoid backsliding. One of the most important norms is forbearance, which the authors describe as “when political actors voluntarily limit themselves, even when the law technically allows more aggressive action.” In this case, the removal of press pool rotations from the WHCA to the administration itself represents a departure from that forbearance. Although Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt framed this transition as “reflect[ing] the media habits of the American people in 2025, not 1925,” the move is an overstep of power. These norms are informal but not symbolic; they are intended to limit actions that centralize power. Forbearance ensures that institutions will not be exploited, such as with the centralization of the press pool, which can lead to discouraging unbiased critiques in fear of exclusion. This ultimately weakens the power of accountability that an entirely independent press can have. 

In Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, Robert Dahl argues that democracy (polyarchy) relies not just on elections and changes in leadership, but also on the expressed freedoms of the people, such as independent news sources. Dahl stresses that citizens must have “unimpaired opportunities” to form opinions, and this comes from “alternative sources of information.” The removal of wire services jeopardizes this facet of democracy working in its fullest capacity. Many alternative sources of media exist in the United States, but their direct access to the White House comes from the major news networks such as the AP and Reuters, who have lost their permanent seats during the Trump administration. The WHCA previously ensured executive discretion would not be a prerequisite for press pool selection, but now this change allows spots and events to be filled by loyalists and media personalities who align with Donald Trump. The character of the questioning by those who have direct access to the White House changes to be more accommodating and less adversarial, and this trickles down to other outlets who now report on those less adversarial exchanges. This shifts the scale of public information and reporting being more in line with those in power, rather than being independent and desiring accountability. When the institutions meant to inform the public and challenge power become shaped by it, democracy begins to erode. 

In Ozan Varol’s text Stealth Authoritarianism, the author describes how contemporary shifts towards democratic erosion unfold through legally permissible actions that tip the scale in favor of those in power, and this is the case with the White House’s actions. Rather than shutting down briefings or revoking the First Amendment, Trump utilized procedural change to stray from a century old norm and increase the influence of the executive. As Varol states, modern authoritarian practices “cloak repressive measures under the mask of law.” The Trump administration’s actions were legally defensible, but they took a step in mirroring how authoritarian regimes strip independence from reporting and therefore create fewer areas for contestation. In the traditional thinking of authoritarian regimes, the leader is unquestioned, and dissent is not allowed through journalistic means. In the case of Trump, there is no direct law banning that dissent, but when the reporters present are hand picked by those in power, the effect is that the questions will come from those who ideologically agree with the president, and those who do not will be more careful in their language to avoid future punishments. The result is a reconstruction of incentives, from independent reporting to executive pressure. 

There were no tanks on the streets in 2025, but democratic integrity still took a hit. Executive authority over independent journalism signifies how contemporary democratic erosion is not outward but more implicit. The vision of a free press still exists, but these actions make it less likely to be critical of those in power, all through strategic control.