Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has raised significant concerns about the composition of the press corps attending briefings under the current Trump administration, drawing comparisons to state-controlled media operations in authoritative regimes.
During an appearance on Wednesday, Psaki, who served as press secretary during the Biden administration, offered pointed criticism of what she characterized as a fundamental reshaping of the White House press pool. Her remarks focused on the inclusion of reporters whom she described as insufficiently adversarial in their questioning of administration officials.
“More and more of the questions in there are by sycophants, by people who are not asking about news that the American people care about,” Psaki stated, suggesting that some reporters have used their positions to advance conspiracy theories rather than pursue substantive policy questions.
The former press secretary drew a stark comparison between the current briefing room atmosphere and her experiences observing state-controlled media while serving at the State Department. She specifically referenced press operations she witnessed while traveling with then-Secretary of State John Kerry, noting that some foreign press corps members reported directly to their governments.
Psaki argued that the changing composition of the press pool has practical consequences for coverage of significant events. She contended that traditional reporters seeking to ask substantive questions about foreign policy matters and visiting dignitaries now face increased competition for speaking time from newer media outlets.
The criticism arrives as the Trump administration has expanded access to what it terms “new media” voices, granting briefing room seats to independent journalists and digital media representatives who were largely excluded during previous administrations. Supporters of this approach argue it democratizes access to information and breaks the monopoly long held by establishment media organizations.
However, Psaki maintained that this shift represents something more troubling than simple diversification of media voices. She suggested the administration’s approach to press access reflects a deliberate strategy to cultivate favorable coverage rather than face rigorous scrutiny.
The debate touches on fundamental questions about the role of the press in holding government accountable. Traditional White House correspondents have long operated under established protocols governing press access, question rotation, and professional standards. The introduction of alternative media voices has disrupted these conventions, creating tension between establishment journalists and newer entrants.
Critics of Psaki’s position argue that legacy media organizations have demonstrated their own biases and that expanding access to different perspectives serves the public interest. They contend that the previous system allowed a small number of organizations to control the narrative surrounding presidential activities.
The discussion reflects broader national conversations about media credibility, the definition of journalism, and the appropriate relationship between government and the press. As administrations continue to adapt their communication strategies to an evolving media landscape, questions about access, accountability, and the proper role of White House correspondents remain subjects of legitimate debate.
Related: Bipartisan Anger Grows as Senators Discover Lawsuit Provision in Spending Bill
