The White House’s latest PR strategy? Creators.

"We are encouraging anybody in this country: whether you are a TikTok content creator, a blogger, or a podcaster — if you are producing legitimate news content, no matter the medium, you will be allowed to apply for press credentials to this White House," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Wednesday.

Well, that was not on my 2025 Trump bingo card.

Hold onto your press passes, folks.

In a move that has sparked both applause and concern, the White House has announced it is tossing open the gates of the Brady Press Briefing Room — not just to journalists, but to creators of all kinds.

Whether you're a TikTok influencer, a podcaster, or a blogger, if you're producing “legitimate news content,” you’re eligible to apply for press credentials.

Governments tapping media figures for communication isn’t new, but this? This feels different.

The decision is being framed as a win for free speech and the democratisation of news.

But it raises significant questions about the implications on journalism, legacy media, and the larger political landscape.

So, let’s take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly potential consequences of this new rule.

The Good: A more diverse range of voices

Let’s start with the potential positive outcomes here. Because, well, why the hell not?

By expanding access to the briefing room, the White House is acknowledging that traditional journalism isn’t the only platform where newsworthy content is being created. (uh, duh.)

TikTok videos, podcasts, and blogs have increasingly become sources of information that resonate with younger, more diverse audiences, who may feel disconnected, from the established, mainstream media.

This will (hopefully) lead to a more diverse, real representation of what’s going on in the world — including perspectives from people who are actually living in the moment.

Not every story has to be curated for a mainstream audience. And opening up the floor to these creators could help amplify stories that might otherwise slip through the cracks.

It’s a little less “here’s what we want you to know” and a little more “here’s what’s really happening.” Not a bad thing, right?

A huge win for anyone whose voice is currently buried under the weight of traditional media’s monopoly.

The Bad: Because wait, who gets to define "legitimate news"?

Now, let’s pump the brakes for a second.

Sure, access for everyone sounds great in theory, but in practice? Who exactly gets to decide what counts as “legitimate news content”?

Because, spoiler alert, not everyone in the Briefing Room has the same standards of fact-checking, editorial oversight, or journalistic integrity as your seasoned reporter at The New York Times.

Suddenly, we're competing with influencers who might not know the difference between real news and an Instagram caption written to go viral.

The risk? A flood of misinformation, sensationalism, and very questionable takes suddenly getting the same weight as actual news reporting.

Not exactly a great look when we’re already drowning in a sea of fake news and clickbait. Is it really a “win” when the line between legitimate journalism and social media rants gets even blurrier?

The ugly: Free speech or free-for-all?

Now, I’m all for freedom of expression — but let’s not pretend this isn’t a political chess move.

By offering access to a broader swath of creators, the White House is, whether intentionally or not, throwing its weight behind the creators that best align with their political narrative. Of course.

Sounds familiar, right? It’s the same tactic we’ve seen from the right, weaponising “free speech” as a way to push unfiltered content that often leans heavily in one direction.

So, this could turn into a free-for-all where certain voices dominate, and others — the ones questioning the agenda — get drowned out.

It’s not just about “free speech” anymore; it’s about controlling the conversation.

The more creators who take their seat at the table, the more power they have to skew the narrative in their favor. And that, my friends, is where things get real tricky.

Is this the beginning of the end for legacy media?

Okay, now let’s talk about what this means for the dinosaurs of journalism — legacy media.

The big players like The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have spent decades holding the keys to the kingdom.

Now? Not so much. As more creators step into the spotlight, we’re looking at the potential death of traditional media as the gatekeeper of all news.

But before you start doing the happy dance, there’s a problem.

Traditional media may be flawed, but at least it’s held to some kind of accountability. These new creators? Not so much.

While some of them might be doing great, fact-driven work, others are just throwing things out there with no editor in sight.

So, what happens when the loudest voice in the room isn’t necessarily the most trustworthy?

And what happens when the people who’ve been trained to ask tough questions get sidelined in favor of clickbait and viral clips?

Governments have always sought to control narratives. But instead of press conferences and newspaper exclusives, they’re now leaning on influencers.

The advantages for them are clear:

Massive reach – TikTok creators have built-in audiences that are actually paying attention.

Targeted engagement – Messaging can be tailored to specific demographics far more effectively than broad-strokes media campaigns.

Authenticity (or the illusion of it) – Influencers present information in a casual, relatable way, making government messaging feel like friendly advice.

Of course, this raises some serious questions.

Are influencers given full transparency about what they’re promoting?

How much autonomy do they have in shaping the message?

And at what point do they cross the line from creator to government mouthpiece?

At the end of the day, this is all about finding that sweet spot between encouraging new voices and maintaining some level of journalistic responsibility.

Giving creators access to the White House podium might be a step toward greater diversity in media. But it’s also a potential recipe for disaster if we don’t figure out how to uphold the standards of real news.

If the White House wants to empower creators to “speak truth to power,” then fine — but who’s keeping these creators in check?

So, while opening the doors to more creators sounds great in theory, the execution could be...messy, to say the least.

-Sophie, Writer