Washington's top journalists shouldn't further abase themselves for Trump

Trump has beaten the press and will take a victory lap at the White House correspondents’ dinner. Why would any self-respecting journalist attend?

White House Correspondents' Association dinner in 2025

Donald Trump and the nation’s top political journalists are in an abusive relationship.

He lies to them constantly, insults them, sues them, calls them traitors, tries to turn the public against them, gaslights them, bans them, and threatens their outlets with dissolution.

And they almost never fight back.

Indeed, they actually cover up for him.

Relentlessly driven by their corporate masters to “not take sides,” they sanewash and normalize him, no matter what he says or does. Even their most critical reporting pulls punches -- and is quickly forgotten.

Most significantly, they refuse to level with their readers and viewers about who Trump really is. You cannot adequately explain what Trump says or does on a day-to-day basis without acknowledging where it all comes from: His derangement, his ignorance, his authoritarianism, his lawbreaking, his corruption, and his racism.

By not sounding the alarm over the dangers he poses to the country and the world, our top news organizations are enabling him. They are doing what he wants them to do.

And now, the most conclusive proof that the mainstream media is Trump’s enabler is only hours away.

That’s when many of the biggest names in news will gather for what is ostensibly a celebration of the First Amendment -- and will listen respectfully as the most vitriolic and powerful enemy of the free press in all of U.S. history lies to them and calls them names.

They will be props as he takes his victory lap.

And consider this: In a Truth Social post accepting his invitation in March, Trump wrote that despite having boycotted the dinner during his first term, he would attend this year because “these ‘Correspondents’ now admit that I am truly one of the Greatest Presidents in the History of our Country, the G.O.A.T., according to many.”

So yeah, those are now the conditions under which you attend. You good with that?

Just Don’t Go

To be clear: No self-respecting journalist should attend Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Trump should play to a mostly empty room.

I know of two news organizations that aren’t attending.

The New York Times hasn’t been to a dinner since 2008. “It just feels like it sends the wrong signal to our readers and viewers, like we are all in it together and it is all a game. It feels uncomfortable,” former editor Dean Baquet explained.

Huffpost is boycotting this year on account of Trump. “The idea of raising a glass to the power of journalism with him is at once ridiculous and embarrassing. Count us out,” wrote editor-in-chief Whitney Snyder.

My message to people with a ticket to dinner: Be like them.

Interview him, sure. But applaud him? Never.

And it’s not even that much of a sacrifice! The dinner may be the centerpiece of the weekend, but it has spawned dozens of exorbitant parties that stretch from Thursday to Sunday – pre-parties, after-parties, during-parties, dinners, brunches, and intimate soirées. (See this list from, surprise, Axios.)

The dinner itself is actually the least enjoyable part of the weekend. The room is too crowded. The food is meh. And this time around, you’ll be asked to toast a would-be dictator who treats you like shit.

So Much Wrong, for So Long

The WHCA dinner has been an embarrassment for decades, loudly advertising the coziness between the journalism elites and the people they are supposed to be holding accountable.

I have in the past referred to it as “an orgy of self-congratulation.” It’s the sine qua non of what I have called “The Infernal Cocktail Party Corruption of Washington’s Elite Media.”

The tradition is for the president to gently poke fun at the media and himself, then end with a solemn appreciation of the press’s essential role in our democracy. After that, a comedian gently roasts the president and the media.

The most notable departure from all that gentility came in 2006, when Stephen Colbert – then in his alter ego as a bombastic right-wing talk-show host – delivered an indictment of pretty much all the people in the room. It’s still a must-watch.

It came in the wake of the mainstream media’s abject failure to challenge George W. Bush as he led the country to war in Iran based on lies. Here’s a sample:

But listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: The president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type -- just put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you’ve got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration, you know, fiction.

I was one of the few people in the room who loved it. Most everyone else hated it.

Since then, the association has put comedians on a short leash. But even that wasn’t enough this year. The entertainment on Saturday will be provided – fittingly enough -- by a con man: Oz Pearlman, a “mentalist” whose act is about fooling people into thinking he reads minds.

And according to the Daily Beast, Trump doesn’t even intend to stick around for that, anyway.

What Else Could Journalists Do?

Bill Scher, the politics editor of the Washington Monthly, called for the dinner to be canceled outright, arguing that “to go forward with the WHCD without any public naming of Trump’s free speech violations is whitewashing, making these correspondents accessories to his constitutional crimes.”

There was never any chance that the leadership of the correspondents’ association would do that, however. That high priesthood of access journalism still doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with it.

“We cover the White House,” association president and CBS reporter Weijia Jiang told CNN’s Brian Stelter. “And when you cover any subject, you want to be around your subject.”

Trump is rarely a captive audience, and Jiang could theoretically take advantage of that and lecture him about freedom of the press, call him out for his war against it, and maybe give some examples.

Several major news groups and over 300 veteran journalist demanded in an open letter last week that the association “forcefully demonstrate opposition to President Trump’s efforts to trample freedom of the press.”

They called for “a forceful defense of freedom of the press and condemnation of those who threaten that freedom, followed by a standing toast to the First Amendment and a pledge to continue upholding such a critical cornerstone of our democracy.”

(The letter, as well as a post by Matt Gertz at Media Matters for America, list many of the innumerable ways Trump has assaulted freedom of the press.)

Zach Goldberg, a comms guy, even wrote a speech for Jiang to deliver: “Since George Washington, our leaders have understood that while the press may be a thorn in their side, its independence is a hallmark of our democracy,” she would say. “In contrast to past presidents, however, you have responded to journalists doing their job by questioning, dismissing, and going so far as to undermine a free and independent press.”

Last night, Jimmy Kimmel told “some of the jokes a comedian might do if our president wasn’t a trembling drama queen afraid of comedy.” For example: “Stephen Miller is so racist, the reason he went bald is because his hair was black... He’s like if baby Hitler traveled in time to kill us.” Here’s the video.

But the correspondents association is made up of people who believe their prestige comes from Trump and his staff talking to them. They prize access above all else, and consider themselves morally superior to activists and partisans because they rise above politics. I can’t imagine them doing anything that would make Trump angry.

The only organized opposition appears to be the donning of pocket squares and pins supporting the First Amendment. That’s beyond pathetic.

So what happens when Trump starts talking? The Daily Beast reports that he is looking for revenge, and “is expected to target publications that he has accused of writing negatively about his administration and his war with Iran, in particular.”

Should journalists walk out?

A “high-profile Washington journalist” told Status News’s Oliver Darcy that “If he starts attacking us, I think it is a fair question as to what the appropriate response is. Obviously some people will want to walk out, but the question about such a thing is: does that not give him exactly what he wants, making us the opposition, not the Fourth Estate? Making us the story instead of the journalists covering the story? And, suggesting that we can dish it out but we can’t take it? And so I don’t think there is any easy answer.”

My view is that walking out wouldn’t change a thing. Trump already has exactly what he wants.

The only thing at this point that would send the right message is a nearly empty room.