Yelena Tregubova’s eviction from the Kremlin press pool in the early 2000s reflected Vladimir Putin’s intolerance for dissent, galvanizing a compliant media landscape. Similarly, Donald Trump’s administration has restricted White House press access to favor supportive outlets, highlighting a concerning precedent. The dismissal of traditional media like the Associated Press signals a strategy to suppress critical journalism. Yevgenia Albats, a Russian journalist, notes alarming parallels between Washington’s atmosphere and early Putin’s tactics. Despite America maintaining institutional checks, the chilling effect on free speech under Trump is evident, drawing uneasy comparisons to Russia’s oppressive media regime, despite fundamental differences.
She posed too many questions that the president found displeasing. She reported excessively on the criticisms surrounding his administration. Consequently, Yelena Tregubova soon found herself excluded from the Kremlin press corps that covered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
In the grand scheme, this was a minor incident, almost forgotten some 25 years later. However, it spoke volumes. Mr. Putin was not fond of dissent. The remaining members of the press corps understood this message and gradually transformed into what the Kremlin desired: a group of subservient journalists who recognized the need to conform or face consequences.
President Trump’s decision to selectively choose which news organizations can be part of the White House press pool questioning him in the Oval Office or accompanying him on Air Force One marks a departure from the practices of any modern American president from either party. The White House characterized this access as a privilege rather than a right, aiming to create room for “new media” outlets, particularly those whose perspectives align with Mr. Trump.
However, following the White House’s move to exclude the esteemed Associated Press as a response to its reporting, the message is unmistakable: Any journalist can be removed from the press pool at any moment for any justification. While Ms. Tregubova would later face graver consequences, her removal in Moscow was an early indication of a concerning trend.
The United States is certainly not Russia, and drawing parallels can be misleading. At that time, Russia had little experience with democracy, while American institutions have thrived for close to 250 years. Nevertheless, for those of us who reported from Russia a quarter-century ago, the landscape of Mr. Trump’s Washington evokes memories of Mr. Putin’s early Moscow.
The media is under pressure. Legislators have been subdued. Career officials labeled as disloyal are being dismissed. Prosecutors appointed by a president who promised “retribution” are targeting perceived opponents while dropping cases against allies or those who fulfill his wishes. Wealthy tycoons who once identified themselves as the dominant power are now subordinating themselves to him.
Judges who block administration decisions that they perceive as illegal are facing threats of impeachment. The military, which stood against being utilized for political purposes during Mr. Trump’s first term, has now seen its top-ranking officials and lawyers removed. Moreover, a president who calls himself “the king,” ostensibly jokingly, is suggesting he may attempt to extend his tenure beyond the Constitution’s limits.
Some elements of this situation are not entirely novel. Other presidents have undertaken actions that seemed authoritarian or have pressured adversaries. Throughout my experience at the White House dating back to 1996, no president was particularly fond of critical press coverage, and there have been instances where journalists were penalized for their reporting.
For example, after a report speculated whether Vice President Dick Cheney might be omitted from the re-election ticket in 2004, The New York Times found itself without a seat on Air Force Two. President Barack Obama’s team attempted to exclude Fox News from a briefing intended for other networks, only to reverse course when the rest of the press corps defended Fox.
Yet, these relatively contained disagreements pale in comparison to the current situation. The White House’s takeover of the press pool — a rotating group of around 13 journalists, photographers, and technicians granted close access to the president for reporting back to their colleagues — fundamentally alters how the president has been covered over the years.
The alarm has resonated through media outlets across the board. Just as other networks supported Fox during the Obama administration, Fox has now backed The Associated Press against the Trump White House, where its senior correspondent criticized the shift in press pool control. The precedent being established now could potentially be wielded by a future Democratic administration against unfavored media.
On Wednesday, the day after Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, announced the changeover, neither the A.P. nor Reuters, both foundational members of the White House press corps for decades, were included in the new pool. Instead, conservative outlets Newsmax and The Blaze were invited to take their places.
The other broadcast networks remained, along with traditional organizations like Bloomberg and NPR. The pool had the opportunity to ask Mr. Trump and his billionaire supporter Elon Musk questions during a cabinet meeting for about an hour, which White House aides claimed was evidence of their commitment to scrutinizing him.
“A select group of D.C.-based journalists should no longer monopolize the privilege of press access at the White House,” Ms. Leavitt stated when revealing the change, framing it in populist language. “All journalists, outlets, and voices should have a seat at this highly sought-after table. By determining which outlets comprise the limited press pool daily, the White House will be returning power to the American public.”
However, this move “does not return power to the people — it consolidates power within the White House,” as Jacqui Heinrich, Fox’s senior White House correspondent, articulated on social media. Ms. Heinrich, a member of the board of the White House Correspondents’ Association, which has traditionally governed pool membership, emphasized that the association has always welcomed new perspectives.
All these developments are occurring against a significant shift in foreign policy as Mr. Trump redirects focus from Ukraine to Mr. Putin’s Russia. Recently, he has blamed Ukraine for Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, labeling its democratically elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, a “dictator without elections,” while refraining from criticizing Russia or Mr. Putin. “He’s a very smart guy,” Mr. Trump remarked about Mr. Putin on Wednesday. “He’s a very cunning person.”
Yevgenia Albats, a prominent Russian journalist who fled her homeland under threat of arrest after the 2022 invasion, noted that recent events in Washington mirror the early days of Mr. Putin’s rule.
“The oligarchs bowing to authority, the lawsuits against the media, the restrictions on which outlets qualify for the White House pool — all of this sounds alarmingly familiar,” Ms. Albats expressed.
Nonetheless, she emphasized that, unlike Russia, the United States still possesses critical checks and balances, however strained they may be. “There is one significant difference,” she articulated. “You have a working and independent judiciary, which we did not have. And that is a substantial difference.”
The comparison to Mr. Putin’s Moscow strikes Mr. Trump’s supporters as “hysterical,” as Ms. Leavitt expressed online, a hyperbolic analogy by an aggrieved left-wing elite whose privileges are being challenged by a president enacting “necessary changes to an antiquated organization.”
When my wife and I first set foot in Moscow in March 2000 to cover Mr. Putin’s initial election and later returned for a four-year assignment, Russia was navigating a transitional phase. The fledgling democracy established by President Boris N. Yeltsin, which was handed over to Mr. Putin, was fundamentally flawed, corrupt, and increasingly losing credibility with the public.
Economic turmoil had robbed millions of Russians of their savings and security, causing many to equate the word “democracy” with disorder and theft. However, during those early days of Mr. Putin’s rise, the political environment was relatively open and vibrant, with a wide range of opinions expressed freely and abundantly.
Mr. Putin, arguing for the necessity of a firm hand to restore order, set about consolidating power methodically, instituting what his advisers dubbed “managed democracy.” He not only took control of the Kremlin press pool but also employed lawsuits to gain dominion over Russia’s only major independent television channel. He ousted Western-aligned parties from Parliament and abolished the election of governors to appoint them directly.
Most crucially, Mr. Putin established guidelines with the once-mighty oligarchs who had become so powerful during the 1990s, assuring them they could maintain their often ill-gotten wealth and businesses, provided they did not oppose him. Those who defied his directives faced arrest or expulsion from the country, with their businesses subsequently appropriated. “I control everybody myself,” Mr. Putin remarked early on when questioned about his new role.
By the time we departed in late 2004, Moscow had undergone a profound transformation. People who had once warmly engaged with us were now hesitant to return our calls. “Now I feel this constant fear,” one individual confided to us at that time.
A similar sense of apprehension now permeates Washington. Daily, individuals who once felt free to criticize Mr. Trump are now hesitant to allow journalists to attribute quotes to them due to fears of repercussions, encompassing both Democrats and Republicans.
They express concerns about an F.B.I. led by a self-proclaimed partisan who appears to hold an enemies list. They worry that their outspoken views could adversely affect family members in government positions. They hope that by remaining low-profile, they might be overlooked.
This is an administration that has revoked security details and clearances from former officials who have incensed the president and dismissed individuals involved in investigations concerning Mr. Trump or his associates.
The leading federal prosecutor in Washington has sent letters to several Democratic congress members questioning their public statements that he perceives as incitement to violence. Simultaneously, his office is purging lawyers who prosecuted Trump supporters involved in the violent events of January 6, 2021.
In Russia, the situation eventually took a far grimmer trajectory. Ms. Tregubova authored a revealing book that angered the Kremlin, resulting in a bomb exploding outside her apartment, prompting her to flee the country. Since then, independent journalists have faced job loss, arrest, poisoning, or even death. Many others deemed adversaries of the state have also suffered similar fates, including the notable opposition leaders Boris Y. Nemtsov, shot near the Kremlin, and Aleksei A. Navalny, who perished in prison.
Once again, America is not Russia. There, the history is intricate and filled with turmoil. Undoubtedly, many Russian journalists would still prefer to reside in Washington than in Moscow, reassured by America’s long-standing tradition of free press and democratic tenets, which are considerably stronger than those existing in their homeland.
Nevertheless, in my years of reporting in Washington, spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations, it has never felt quite like this.