In advanced liberal democracies such as the United States, democratic erosion does not come in one fell swoop. Often, norms, checks and balances, and foundational features of democracy are gradually chipped away at as to lessen resistance, comparable to a frog being boiled. Theoretically speaking, these checks and norms come from a variety of sources, categorized broadly as either horizontal or vertical accountability mechanisms.

Horizontal accountability refers to institutional boundaries, or those often of political actors with comparable power to that of the eroder. The clearest example of one of these actors in many systems is the judiciary.

On the other hand, vertical accountability refers to accountability brought on by the voters. In many instances, this simply means voting out incumbents that have overextended their power. One crucial piece of this mode of accountability is knowledge. Voters can only vote out an incumbent that is pushing the boundaries if they are aware that he is doing so. This becomes even more important given the fact that an extremely common strategy, especially used by this new breed of populist autocrat or autocrat adjacent figures, is one of distorting the truth and downplaying their grabs at power. They claim that the establishment doesn’t represent the will of the people or are somehow hurting democracy.

Such is the case in this story. Since the beginning of Trump’s (true) political ascension, he has had the media broadly in his sights. It almost feels redundant to mention, since it’s such a fundamental part of the story surrounding him as a figure. Even individuals that would otherwise be characterized as politically innocent are aware of his classic phrase, “fake news!”. More than just rhetoric, it’s been almost a full decade of this continued crusade. Early in Trump’s first term outlets including but not limited to The New York Times, CNN, and Politico were blocked from an informal but on the record White House briefing. Similarly, in his second term, the Associated Press was denied access to the Oval Office.

Recently came one of the most serious tests of this boundary. In mid-September, Trump announced that he was barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. He didn’t stop there, but also went on to threaten other organizations with the same punishment. Evidence points to the idea that this ban moved fast, as journalists were not allowed in while some White House staff said that they were not informed of this plan beforehand.

Somewhat surprisingly, the reaction to this crossed partisan lines, as several networks announced that they would boycott the White House audio-visual and photo pools.

In addition to that, some horizontal accountability showed up as well. The three outlets decided to file a First Amendment lawsuit after the ban. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to immediately restore the revoked press credentials in late September, and then issued a preliminary injunction on October 13th. He found the outlets likely to succeed on their free speech and due process claims, specifically noting that the ban cut off their access to the White House press area, which is a space open to many of their competitors.
Bringing this back to vertical accountability, voters can only hold a leader accountable for what they know, and much of what they know comes from the press. A president that is strongly regulating which journalists or organizations are allowed in the room controls, in part, what the public knows.

Although this was a victory, it’s far from over. Not only would it be ridiculous to look at the last several years of Trump’s actions and think that this will be the end of his crusade, but this specific ruling doesn’t even guarantee access to presidential press pools, it just blocks the ban for now.

Perhaps a more accurate view of this situation would be that a democratic eroder was able to test the boundaries, cause checks and balances to scramble, and all for a pretty cheap price. Continuing to push the boundaries not only allows figures like this to normalize anti-democratic behavior, but also allows them to test and develop strategies to be used in the future, perhaps on something more impactful. Ultimately, the only mode of accountability that can actually make this move expensive is the voters themselves.