In mid-February, the White House barred Associated Press journalists from presidential events for refusing to change the name of a body of water from “the Gulf of Mexico” to “the Gulf of America” in its reporting.

AP sued on various grounds, including due process (citing a court ruling that press access to the White House “undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment”) and First Amendment protections (citing the same ruling).

On February 24, a federal judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order restoring AP’s access while the suit awaits resolution. AP reporters and photographers still possess White House press passes and can attend White House briefings; it’s the Oval Office and Trump’s personal presence  they’re excluded from.

Court precedent aside, I don’t see anything in the Constitution requiring the president to speak to, or the White House to “brief,” reporters at all, or specifying which particular agencies, publications, and journalists are part of a special protected class entitled to that kind of access.

In fact, I suspect many Americans wish that the president (not just this one — I’m speaking of the office, not the man)  acted a lot less like Dr. Phil (loud, annoying, omnipresent) and more like Punxsutawney Phil (silent, cute, and only very occasionally demanding our attention).

That said, if the press wants to cover the presidency, I suggest that the agencies, publications, and journalists get together and turn the tables.

Just as there’s no constitutional requirement for the president or the White House to host, humor, and answer to journalists, there’s no constitutional requirement for the press to cover the president or the White House at all.

Why don’t the major newspapers, television networks, etc. get together and set up the White House “press pool” on their own terms instead of subjecting themselves to the president’s terms?

They could rent, buy, or build a small studio/auditorium facility, handle their own journalist credentialing, and let the White House and the president know when they’ll be hosting briefings.

The president and/or press secretary could show up or not. If they showed, maybe they’d get some coverage. If not, there’s always other news to report, right?

In anything resembling a free society, an independent press is far more important than any functionary in any fancy office. America’s journalists should take that truth to heart and act on it.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Chaos.” That seems to be America’s go-to descriptor for the federal government since January 20. Depending on who you ask, US president Donald Trump, “special government employee” Elon Musk, and their “Department of Government Efficiency” are either cutting a bunch of government waste and inefficiency, or gutting a bunch of useful and necessary government functionality. Some people are very sure of which, but nobody seems very clued in to how.

So I asked Grok, the generative AI chatbot associated with Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) platform, to “suggest the most efficient organizational chart for the federal government’s executive branch.”

Grok’s reply (summarized):

First, the ol’ “unitary executive” theory with the president “as the executive power’s focal point.”

Secondly, a “lean inner circle” consisting of the White House chief of staff, the vice-president as a “flexible deputy,” and three “directors” — one for Security,” one for “Prosperity,” and one for “Governance” — with the 15 cabinet secretaries getting demoted to “deputy directors” and agency heads either “slotting” into those “buckets” or reporting to the chief of staff.

This setup, Grok tells me, “trims the fat” and provides “clearer chains of command” and “less duplication.”

I don’t know that Grok necessarily speaks for Musk, but I’d be surprised to learn he hadn’t asked it this sort of question himself, and when I read that answer I keep coming back to another question:

What should we want government be “efficient” AT?

The assumption underlying Grok’s answer is that government should be efficient at centralizing power into 1) as few hands as possible, and 2) hands that are loyal to and answerable to one person (the president) rather than to any higher power (the US Constitution, for example) or to any moral principle other than  the German Third Reich’s “fuhrerprinzip” or “leader principle.”

A snippet from Grok’s summary of the fuhrerprinzip itself: “In essence, it was a cult of personality masquerading as a governance model, designed to consolidate power and eliminate dissent.”

If Musk’s AI model reflects his own thinking, we may have our answer as to whether his controversial gesture at Trump’s inauguration was or wasn’t a “Nazi salute.”

I’m personally enjoying the chaos, at least a little, but not because I want “efficiency” or centralization of state power into the hands of one man and his loyalists. I want a weaker state, not a just smaller and less expensive state. I don’t trust Trump or Musk to deliver.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On February 18, investor/entrepreneur James Fishback posted a suggestion to X: “President Trump and @ElonMusk should announce a ‘DOGE Dividend’ — a tax refund check sent to every taxpayer, funded exclusively with a portion of the total savings delivered by DOGE.”

Musk responded: “Will check with the President.”

The following day, speaking at the FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami, the president (Donald Trump) mused about “a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt.”

It’s an easy idea to like. I mean, who DOESN’T want to receive a previously unexpected check in the mail?

And the way it’s rolling out feels rather fresh and spontaneous, doesn’t it?  X user has idea! X owner suggests it to the president! The president likes it! Boom!

I suppose Fishback might have just had a “lightbulb over head” moment and decided to throw it out there, but the Trump White House was probably planning something like this long before that tweet.

Why do I suspect that? Because the same president has done the same thing before, under similar circumstances.

When Americans’ finances took a big hit from COVID-19, Trump leapt into action with two rounds of “stimulus checks” — one for $1,200 and a second for $600 — for most Americans.

Naturally, the checks bore the signature “Donald J. Trump,” so that everyone would know who to praise and thank, and hopefully never notice that the money was borrowed in their names with principal and interest to be taken out of their hides later.

This time around, the sucker punch will come in a more diffuse form for most Americans. Trump’s tariffs and other trade war moves will cost the average household somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000 per year (estimates vary, but few other than Trump himself pretend his plans will drive your cost of living DOWN).

You’ll pay more for food. You’ll pay more for clothes.  You’ll pay more for consumer electronics. Unless you’re buying a car or a home the hurt will come in little bits — no single one especially traumatic, but the overall impact very unpleasant.

That “DOGE Dividend” check, if it comes, will just be Trump trying to buy back your love with your own money, to partially and insufficiently make up for the damage he’s doing to you.

Like an abusive husband who shows up with flowers and an ice pack the day after he works his wife over with a baseball bat, Trump desperately wants you to believe he loves you very much, that he didn’t really mean it, honey.

Cash the check, but don’t fool yourself into believing you’re getting something for nothing. Like the wife in the analogy, you’ll be seeing that bat again.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY