On September 19th, journalists from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico, members of the White House TV pool, had their badges confiscated and were barred from entering the grounds.  President Trump announced a ban on these networks in a Truth Social (A Trump-owned social media platform) post, accusing the outlets of publishing “FICTION and LIES.” In the same post, he mentioned that there were more “fake news” outlets to come. “Fake news” is a term popularized during the 2016 campaign by Trump himself as a way to delegitimize press coverage critical of him. Other platforms he has labeled under this term include the New York Times, ABC, and CBS. They deliver extensive reporting on him from what he considers to be a biased perspective, but are also generally known to be left- or center-left outlets. The public reaction to this ban is telling of where the United States rests on the spectrum of authoritarianism and democracy. 

Given the principles that we, as Americans, have received throughout our history, silencing the freedom of the press poses difficult questions about where the country’s democracy is headed. Explicitly and vociferously contradicting the United States Constitution, the President managed to dismantle a norm that we have come to rely on to keep our democracy intact. In the past, he has simply called out these news networks for spreading Fake News, but by crossing this line, Trump has supported a common argument that he holds no regard for the standards, amendments, and laws that have held American democracy intact. This sudden ban on CNN, MSNOW, and Politico– or simply a ban on any news coverage at all– came as a shock not only to the outlets and citizens, but also to some administration officials within the White House. 

As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt outline in their book, “How Democracies Die,” the key democratic norms of forbearance and mutual toleration are obstacles that Authoritarians must ignore or knock down in order to disrupt a democracy enough to create risk of eventual collapse. President Trump defaces both. In the case of forbearance, he not only fails to restrain himself from using his power to obstruct democratic institutions, but he does so using brute force instead of the law- a doubly hostile assault on this norm as well as the law itself. As for mutual toleration, the idea that a competitor or rival is legitimate, attempting to paint historically trusted and reliable news sources as heralds of contrived journalism and libel would certainly eliminate the president from a role amongst the tolerant, provided the fact that he has made it a point that these outlets are “the enemy of the American people”. Thus, if he is believed to be a person for and of those people, the networks may be considered rivals of him and his party. Having watched both of these norms obstructed and operating under the definitions Levitsky and Ziblatt present, the ban on these networks is undoubtedly undemocratic and un-American.

However, the ban did not last long. The rest of the networks, including the conservative FOX News, suspended their TV pool coverage in an effort to force the administration to backtrack on the ban. The banned networks, which sued in federal court, had their access reinstated until October 8 due to a lack of proper notice and justification for the ban. While it is only a temporary reinstatement, the fact remains that measures were taken to oppose blatant disregard for democratic practices by the institutions that are key to its survival. The media, including unaffected networks, were precise in their messaging of disapproval and resistance after suspending the TV pool. The federal judge, while appointed by Trump, was in disagreement with the ban’s justification and handling. The collective aversion to this decision by the administration from media outlets and federal judges alike indicates that our institutions are not quite ready for the processes of democracy to be suspended just yet, even if the norms that have held it in one piece no longer operate as they once had.