Essential Politics: ‘Truth and transparency’? White House sources routinely ask for anonymity

When I reached out to the White House press staff for comment on a policy story last week, I received a response full of intricate conditions.

I could speak with an administration official, but I would not be allowed to name the official and I could only paraphrase their words. If I wanted to quote the official verbatim, I could do so, but only after the quotations were reviewed and approved by the White House.

Dear reader, I said no.

Good morning and welcome to Essential Politics. I’m Noah Bierman, a White House reporter for The Times, and this morning I want to take you behind the curtain of Washington reporting and sourcing.

Routine requests despite transparency promise

I wish I could tell you that I always say no to requests for anonymity. The example above was an easy call because the White House was asking me to surrender far too much control to the administration for the privilege of hearing spin.

Sometimes, we have little choice but to grant anonymity if we want to get certain information or perspectives or to match our competitors.

Times ethics guidelines acknowledge that sources in Washington and Hollywood demand anonymity more than most, but state that “we stand against that practice and seek to minimize it.”

“Relying on unnamed sources should be a last resort,” the guidelines continue, adding that there must be “a compelling reason” that satisfies a number of other conditions.

Unfortunately, White House officials routinely ask for anonymity, despite the Biden administration’s promise to bring “truth and transparency back” to the White House. These requests often come from spokespeople paid for by you, the taxpayer, to inform you, the citizen, about your government.

A day after I turned down the anonymous policy official, I was invited, along with the rest of the White House press corps, to a briefing call with two “senior White House officials” to discuss “messaging.”

Hilarious, right? They wanted us to keep officials anonymous so they could discuss the very talking points they were trying to communicate. I listened to the call but did not report on it.

Needless to say, these officials were not using their anonymity to reveal White House secrets or discuss the political liabilities of their boss. They basically spent 45 minutes saying what a great job President Biden is doing and telling us how they planned to repeat that a lot ahead of the November midterm elections.

“In terms of messaging, we’re going to be relentlessly focused on the impact that the president and congressional Democrats have had on people’s lives …”

“The White House is going to drive one clear message to the American people, and that is that the president and congressional Democrats beat the special interests and delivered what was best for the American people …”

Even when they were asked about the political impact on the search of former President Trump’s property last week, they repeated the same stuff about remaining “relentlessly focused.”

There are a few ironies with this call and others like it. One is that the anonymous remarks echoed an on-the-record memo that was sent to reporters only a few minutes before the call began, with the names of the authors attached. Another is that these same officials demanding anonymity often appear on cable news and Sunday network shows to deliver the same talking points.

Why demand anonymity? Press advisors have told me they like to keep staff in the background and allow the president, the vice president and other high-ranking officials to get the limelight.

The Ivanka Trump briefing

That’s their rationale. But protecting the vanity of politicians is not high on the list of reporters’ responsibilities.

Aides’ efforts to shield their bosses can turn silly in a hurry.

I’ll give you another example, this one from the Trump administration. Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter and advisor, appeared on a press call with reporters a few years ago to discuss the president’s “Pledge to America’s Workers.”

Here were the ground rules: Reporters could quote directly from Ivanka Trump’s introductory remarks. But anything said in the question-and-answer portion of the briefing call had to be attributed to “senior administration officials.” This is a somewhat common request, an attempt to shield a prominent public figure from scrutiny by leaving only their scripted comments fully on the record.

But it was comical when one of the “senior administration officials” during the anonymous portion of the call talked about her recent trips to Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Connecticut. Funny coincidence. Ivanka Trump had taken the very same trips and met with the same people as the “senior administration official” who could not be named!

Though the Trump White House held anonymous briefing calls and meetings several times a week, the president himself loved to rail against anonymous sources, often claiming reporters simply made them up.

President Trump used the tactic to discredit the news media and create a less stable information environment that has helped him convince his supporters to believe a variety of lies, including that he won the 2020 election.

One of the most egregious examples came in 2018, when Trump claimed an administration official cited by the New York Times in a report about North Korea “doesn’t exist.”

The official, whose identity was revealed by several news organizations following the accusation, was Matt Pottinger, who had briefed several dozen reporters at the White House on the condition he not be named. Pottinger, who served almost all of Trump’s term and later became his national security advisor, resigned after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and testified last month in front of the House committee investigating Trump’s role in inciting it.

Using anonymous sources can be essential in certain situations. When reporters need to obtain information that might otherwise be ungettable or to protect people whose livelihoods or lives could be compromised, anonymity is especially justified. But government officials’ routine demands for anonymity for even the most mundane of comments damage their credibility — and ours.

Astute readers may notice that most congressional coverage relies far less on anonymous sources. That’s because the Capitol is one of the few places in the world where reporters can walk right up to the most powerful people in the country and ask them whatever they want.

Just a senator or representative, a reporter and a notebook.

The view from Washington

— Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), the vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, lost to a Trump-endorsed primary challenger Tuesday, Arit John reports. Cheney argued that she could have easily won reelection, but that would have required that she “go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election,” she said. “It would have required that I enable his ongoing efforts to unravel our democratic system and attack the foundations of our republic,” she added. “That was a path I could not and would not take.”

— On Tuesday, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, ushering in a nearly $400-billion investment in clean energy subsidies, a cap on prescription drug costs and an extension on pandemic subsidies that will lower healthcare costs for 13 million Americans. Eli Stokols writes that the law represents a third landmark bill for Democrats in two years of significant legislative progress.

— Already weighed down by global conflict, the Biden administration is now wading into one of the most complicated conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa: escalating violence along the border between Congo and Rwanda. Tracy Wilkinson reports from Kigali.

— From the Associated Press: Rudolph W. Giuliani is said to be a target of a criminal investigation into possible illegal attempts by Trump and others to interfere in the 2020 election in Georgia.

The view from California

— James Queally reports that a second effort to force Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón into a recall election fizzled out Monday after officials determined the campaign failed to gain enough valid signatures. Gascón has faced relentless criticism from law enforcement and business leaders, though an initial attempt to recall him last year failed due to a lack of fundraising and organization.

— In Stockton, Motecuzoma Patrick Sanchez runs 209 Times, a news site that has gained a sizable following as it punishes Sanchez’s enemies, rewards his friends and often celebrates the work of its owner and founder. But James Rainey reports that in the last year, Sanchez took a well-paying administrative job at the Stockton Unified School District, where the leaders who hired him now enjoy positive coverage.

— Two months ago, federal officials gave the seven states that depend on Colorado River water a mandate to plan for emergency drought reductions. But the deadline came and went without a resolution to acrimonious negotiations, Tony Briscoe writes. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said it would continue to work with affected states and tribes to reach an agreement.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.