In February, the Trump administration’s announcement to curate press access at the White House sparked significant backlash.
Journalists and media associations condemned the move, arguing that it undermined the independence of the press and set a dangerous precedent for government control over media access.
Just days later, the Capitol Correspondents Association in Washington state made a pivotal decision that mirrored those concerns.
Facing legal threats from two right-wing former television reporters, Brandi Kruse and Jonathan Choe, who had their media credentials denied, the association opted to relinquish its gatekeeping authority over which journalists could access the state Legislature.
This decision came after Kruse and Choe threatened litigation, asserting their right to press access under the First Amendment, prompting the association to take a different path: abandoning their longstanding credentialing role altogether.
Jerry Cornfield, the association president and a reporter for the Washington State Standard, stated, “We don’t have lawyers. We chose not to litigate on behalf of the Legislature. It’s their building. They ultimately control access to the chambers. We were not going to fight their fight for them.”
In the aftermath, both the Washington state Senate and House began to consider new rules governing reporter access, signaling a broader impact on legislative reporting in the state.
This situation showcases increasing pressure on journalist associations across the country as the media landscape becomes more fractured.
In recent years, resource-strapped newsrooms have faced challenges from both politicians aiming to limit press access and independent media figures seeking entry into legislative spaces typically reserved for traditional reporters.
Seth Stern, the director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, remarked on the implications of this shift, stating that politicians are now determining who qualifies as a journalist based on personal preferences.
Choe and Kruse have utilized traditional journalistic tools, such as public records, to break stories.
However, their approaches have raised eyebrows among conventional journalists, particularly their methods of framing sensitive topics.
For instance, while most reporters refer to “gender-affirming care” in discussions of transgender health, Kruse and Choe opt for the term “mutilation.”
This escalating conflict humorously allows Kruse and Choe to position themselves as defenders of press freedom, claiming the Olympia press corps is failing to uphold that standard.
“I never thought I’d see, from the White House down to the statehouse here, politicians dictating the terms about who gets in and who doesn’t,” Choe told InvestigateWest.
Cornfield, however, maintains that the correspondent association was never a true gatekeeper, arguing that legislative power over press access has always existed.
For decades, the Legislature had allowed the correspondent association to manage credentialing.
As media landscapes changed, Washington state’s Capitol Correspondents Association had to reevaluate its guidelines.
For much of the 20th century, the association credentialed only reporters from established newspapers and licensed broadcasters.
Yet with the emergence of new media outlets, legislative newsletters, and nonprofit reporting organizations, the criteria evolved.
The association stated the necessity of distinguishing between professional journalism and advocacy-driven work to ensure the integrity of the press corps.
Their recent guidelines specified that journalists seeking press credentials must be affiliated with organizations dedicated solely to news, explicitly excluding those working for “think tank blogs.”
Choe’s involvement with the conservative Discovery Institute seemed to disqualify him from obtaining credentials, as his coverage style has often sparked controversy.
Once employed by KOMO TV, Choe’s decision to independently broadcast a positive portrayal of a Proud Boys rally led to his ouster from the station.
As he pivoted away from traditional news to pursue content creation on platforms like TikTok, he faced further repercussions, including bans from community standards on that site.
Despite these challenges, Choe asserts his status as a journalist, citing contributions to right-wing media outlets like Daily Wire and Newsmax.
In stark contrast, Kruse stepped away from traditional journalism to launch her podcast, insisting that transparency about her biases bolsters her ethical standing compared to mainstream outlets.
Since resigning from her reporter role at Seattle’s Fox 13 in late 2021, Kruse has engaged actively in Republican campaigns and has developed affiliations with right-leaning organizations.
Her involvement with Future 42, a right-wing nonprofit, further complicates her claims to journalistic objectivity, given that the correspondent association specifically excludes anyone actively involved with political campaigns.
Seeking to challenge the exclusionary practices of the correspondent association, Kruse and Choe united not only with each other but also against traditional establishment media norms.
The movement gained momentum following Choe’s experiences in which he was barred from press gatherings, sparking the strategic decision to threaten legal action.
Confronted with potential litigation, the Capitol Correspondents Association allowed the Legislature to assume responsibility for establishing access protocols.
Senate rules soon changed, requiring only a simple form to gain press credentials, significantly broadening access to the Senate floor.
However, to attain access to the wings where crucial follow-up interpersonal reporting occurs, reporters must now seek explicit permission from either Republican or Democratic leadership.
Aaron Wasser, the communications director for the Washington Senate Democrats, remarked on the overwhelming demands of the new press responsibilities, suggesting that it generated unnecessary challenges amid legislative session pressures.
Even as changes unfolded, reporters experienced some continuity in access, with existing press corps members receiving blanket passes for coverage.
Yet tensions flared when Choe attempted to assert his new credentials, resulting in a confrontation with legislative staff over his legitimacy as a reporter.
This provocative encounter, captured on video, drew significant attention from conservative media outlets and further intensified the ongoing dialogue regarding press access criteria.
In response, legislative officials have expressed their intention to navigate the evolving situation carefully while working to develop formal credentialing processes that can accommodate diverse reporting styles without compromising journalistic integrity.
Bernard Dean, the chief clerk of the Washington state House of Representatives, noted the delicate balancing act required in determining which entities qualify as legitimate press.
Without established processes, multiple states are grappling with similar issues regarding press access, raising the specter of potential abuse when legislative bodies craft rules designed to exclude specific journalists while admitting others.
Julia Shumway, president of the Oregon Legislative Correspondents Association, highlighted her previous encounters in Arizona, where lawmakers implemented new media access criteria targeting journalists who brought unfavorable reporting to light.
Simultaneously, lesser-known figures affiliated with conspiracy-laden outlets have been permitted entry to cover the legislative sessions, complicating the landscape for credible journalism.
Kruse, maintaining her advocacy for access rules, declared that credentialing standards should rest on decorum rather than politicization.
This debate prompts important questions about the future of press freedom and access in government spheres and how it reflects broader cultural and political shifts.
Seth Stern stressed the importance of maintaining safeguards against unconstitutional discrimination based on viewpoint, emphasizing that freedom of the press is paramount to preserving democracy.
In recent years, journalists and news organizations have navigated challenges stemming from heightened political scrutiny and attempts to curtail press freedoms.
One notable instance involved the Alaska Governor’s Office, which settled a media access lawsuit with a nontraditional journalist following exclusion from a press pool.
Conversely, another ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that Wisconsin’s governor could exclude individuals involved with special interest groups from press briefings.
As the landscape continues to shift, the lines defining who constitutes a journalist and which voices are granted access blur increasingly.
Historically, many of the founding era’s newspapers were explicitly political, and the First Amendment sought to protect their rights to engage in political discourse rather than push for an ideal of objectivity.
Contemporary legal challenges and media access disputes prolong this historical tension surrounding press freedom in the United States.
As the Capitol Correspondents Association proceeds with caution, there are underlying concerns about whether the evolving access dynamics benefit or hinder democracy and public discourse.
The future of press access in the Washington state Legislature remains uncertain, with ongoing tensions that reveal significant implications for media and the governance process moving forward.
image source from：https://www.opb.org/article/2025/04/20/washington-legislature-press-credentialing-rules/
