April 23, 2026
Why are White House journalists partying with Trump? | Margaret Sullivan
In her latest piece, Margaret Sullivan critically examines the implications of the White House Correspondents' Dinner, especially with Donald Trump’s attendance looming large. She questions the appropriateness of journalists mingling with government officials who have openly attacked the press, arguing that such interactions undermine the media's credibility at a time when public trust is already low. Sullivan suggests that the event, rather than celebrating the First Amendment, risks appearing as a farce, particularly with the presence of figures who have disrespected journalistic integrity. Ultimately, she calls for a reevaluation of this tradition, advocating for a more meaningful way to honor press freedom without compromising journalistic values.

Stoic Response
Stoic Field Manual Entry: Evaluating the White House Correspondents' Dinner
What is Within Our Power
- Our Response to Events: We can choose how we react to the implications of the White House Correspondents' Dinner, particularly regarding the presence of figures like Donald Trump.
- Maintaining Integrity: It is within our power to uphold journalistic integrity by questioning the appropriateness of mingling with those who attack the press.
- Advocacy for Change: We can advocate for a reevaluation of traditions that compromise our values, seeking alternative ways to honor press freedom.
What is Opinion
- Perception of the Dinner: Margaret Sullivan expresses skepticism about the dinner's appropriateness, suggesting it undermines media credibility.
- Public Trust in Media: The belief that such events contribute to the erosion of trust in traditional media is an opinion grounded in current societal sentiments.
- Critique of Journalistic Practices: The view that journalists should maintain a critical distance from government officials reflects a subjective stance on the ethics of media interactions.
What Action Virtue Demands
- Seek Meaningful Engagement: Instead of participating in potentially frivolous celebrations, engage in actions that genuinely honor the First Amendment and journalistic values.
- Promote Accountability: Advocate for strong speeches and actions that address attacks on the press, ensuring that the event serves a purpose beyond mere celebration.
- Encourage Reflection: Foster discussions among journalists and media organizations about the implications of their choices, encouraging a collective reevaluation of practices that may undermine their credibility.
Conclusion
In the face of events like the White House Correspondents' Dinner, we must remain vigilant stewards of our values. By focusing on what we can control, recognizing subjective opinions, and acting with virtue, we can navigate the complexities of our role in society while upholding the principles of integrity and accountability.
Article Rewritten Through Stoic Lens
Reflections on the White House Correspondents' Dinner
Contemplating the Nature of Events
As I observe the annual gathering known as the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I find myself reflecting on the nature of such events. Here, journalists and government officials mingle—a practice that raises questions about the essence of their roles. Should not the journalist maintain a distance from those they are tasked to scrutinize? The mingling of these two spheres may indeed lead to perceptions of frivolity, undermining the very trust that the public places in the media.
Acceptance of the Present Moment
In the face of Donald Trump’s anticipated attendance, I remind myself that the universe unfolds according to its own design. His presence, laden with a history of disdain for the press, serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by those who uphold the truth. Rather than lamenting this circumstance, I accept it as an opportunity to reflect on the virtues of integrity and resilience.
The Call for Virtue in Adversity
The criticisms raised by Margaret Sullivan resonate deeply within me. She urges a reevaluation of this tradition, advocating for a celebration of the First Amendment that does not compromise journalistic integrity. In this, I see a call to virtue—a reminder that in the face of adversity, we must strive to uphold our principles.
The Paradox of Celebration
It is indeed paradoxical to celebrate the First Amendment while sharing space with those who have openly attacked its essence. The juxtaposition of inviting individuals who mock the very foundation of journalistic integrity is akin to inviting arsonists to a gathering of firefighters. This contradiction invites us to examine our own values and the integrity of our actions.
The Power of Thoughtful Resistance
The actions of certain organizations, such as the New York Times’ decision to abstain from attendance, are commendable. They demonstrate a thoughtful resistance to the dilution of journalistic values. In this, there lies a lesson: that sometimes, the most powerful statement is made not through attendance but through absence.
Embracing the Lessons of History
Looking back at previous dinners, I recall moments where humor was wielded as a weapon against injustice. The sharp words of Michelle Wolf and the mockery of Barack Obama serve as reminders that laughter can be a form of resistance. Yet, as we gather in the present, we must consider how to honor the principles of a free press without compromising our dignity.
A Call for Reflection and Action
As the evening approaches, I remain open to the possibility of unexpected civility. However, I am also aware that the past cannot be erased. The stains of frivolous lawsuits, accusations of “fake news,” and attacks on journalists linger in the air.
Let us seek a more meaningful way to honor the ideals of press freedom—one that does not involve mingling with those who disdain our mission. In this pursuit, we must cultivate virtue, uphold integrity, and remain steadfast in our commitment to truth.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
In the end, it is not the event itself that defines us, but our response to it. Let us embrace the challenges as opportunities for growth, and remain vigilant in our quest for truth. For in the practice of virtue, we find our true strength.
Source Body Text
Even in the pre-Trump era, I had reservations about the annual black-tie celebration in Washington that some have dubbed “the nerd prom” but is more formally known as the White House correspondents’ dinner. Was it really a wise idea, I wondered, for Washington DC journalists and their bosses to chum around with the very government officials that they were supposed to be covering? Shouldn’t reporters maintain some critical distance? What about the “optics” of this much-publicized event (and the week of gala festivities surrounding it) that made journalists appear frivolous about holding the government accountable to the public? Given the American public’s rock-bottom trust in traditional media, hasn’t this annual, televised display worsened that problem? During the first Trump administration, I even wrote a column for the Washington Post urging the dinner’s organizers to “stick a fork in it”. By that, I meant to end the tradition and find another way to accomplish their stated purpose of fundraising for journalism and celebrating the first amendment. But these days, the dinner has become even more inadvisable. On Saturday, Donald Trump – with all his vicious antipathy toward the profession he has called the “enemy of the people” – will attend. He’ll no doubt be applauded; surely many in the crowd will stand to recognize him. Some media companies or executives are going further, inviting blatantly anti-press officials, including the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, to be guests at their tables, or (in the case of David Ellison, CEO of CBS News’s parent company) even holding a separate dinner to “honor” Trump. Paramount, the parent of CBS News, is said to have invited Brendan Carr to their table; he is the FCC chair who has made a mockery of what should be his independent and non-partisan role; appointed by Trump, he has come down clearly on the side of the president’s allies in consequential decisions – including those involving Paramount’s mergers with other media corporations. The juxtaposition is bizarre. “It’s akin to a fire department inviting arsonists to a gathering aimed at celebrating firefighting,” wrote Oliver Darcy in his media newsletter, Status. One journalists’ organization has attempted to balance the scales, and make their position clear, by urging attenders to wear pocket squares touting the first amendment. Nice try, but I don’t think that it makes much of a dent. Meanwhile, an ad hoc group of prominent veteran journalists is urging the organizers to include a strong speech in defense of the first amendment that would cite Trump’s attacks on the press. It’s a good idea. The New York Times has a tradition for more than a decade of not attending the event, except to cover it. Huffington Post, which has long attended, pulled out this week, as its editor refused to “share laughs with a ruler who holds such a dreadful record”. The Guardian is hosting several press-freedom advocates at its table, in addition to a few reporters. Indeed, there’s often a newsworthy aspect to the dinner, which takes place at the Washington Hilton in its cavernous ballroom. At the 2011 dinner, for example, Barack Obama memorably mocked Trump, who had been sowing unjustified doubt about the then president’s American citizenship. Trump, who was considering a presidential run, reportedly sat stone-faced in the audience. In 2018, the comic Michelle Wolf ripped everyone, calling Ivanka Trump “about as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons”, and quipping that Trump’s then press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, “burns facts, and then uses the ash to create a perfect smokey eye”. She had some sharp words for journalists and their clickbait motivations, too. The association later apologized for Wolf’s message because it wasn’t in keeping with the intended “unifying message about our common commitment to a vigorous and free press while honoring civility, great reporting and scholarship winners”. This year, there will be no comedy routine to disrupt that message. But there will be Donald Trump and those aides and allies who have consistently disparaged and attacked the very principles that the dinner intends to celebrate. Maybe we’ll see an out-of-character version of Trump that acknowledges the role of the press in American society. Maybe the dinner will be perfectly civil and tons of fun. But that can’t take away the stain of what’s already happened: Trump’s frivolous lawsuits against news organizations, his constant charges of “fake news”, his insults to reporters (especially women and journalists of color), his administration’s efforts to keep Pentagon reporters from doing their jobs without government interference, his favorable treatment to media outlets that pull their punches for him. Celebrating the first amendment and raising money for journalism causes is, of course, a fine idea. There must be a better way than to rub elbows in a glitzy ballroom with those who despise journalists and their constitutionally protected mission. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture