Will Trump’s Trials Be Televised? The Fight for Transparency in a Historic Case

The upcoming criminal trials of former President Donald Trump pose a critical question: will they be televised? The answer, as of now, is complex and varies depending on the jurisdiction. While Georgia’s RICO case related to January 6th will be televised, federal courts currently prohibit broadcasting criminal trials, leaving the trials in Washington D.C. and Florida shrouded in potential secrecy. This raises significant concerns about transparency and public access to these historic proceedings.

The Argument for Televising Trump’s Trials

A coalition of media organizations, including Advance, The New Yorker’s parent company, is advocating for televised coverage of Trump’s federal trials, arguing that the public has a First Amendment right to witness these pivotal events. They contend that the sheer magnitude of the allegations, impacting millions of Americans who voted in the 2020 election, necessitates open access. The trials’ outcomes will undoubtedly influence the 2024 presidential race, making transparency paramount.

Furthermore, the brief argues that modern technology eliminates the logistical concerns of the past. Unlike the disruptive cameras and cables of the 1965 Billie Sol Estes case, often cited to justify the ban, today’s equipment is unobtrusive and commonplace. Many state courts now permit broadcasting, and even federal courts allow it in certain proceedings. The question is no longer about the feasibility of cameras but about who gets to watch.

Objections and Concerns

Special Counsel Jack Smith opposes televising the federal trials, citing concerns about increased pressure on witnesses and the potential for disruption. He argues that the standard rules should apply to Trump. However, the media coalition counters that coverage can be tailored to protect vulnerable witnesses, such as by obscuring their faces. They suggest that even audio access, similar to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, would significantly enhance transparency.

Trump himself, unsurprisingly, supports televised proceedings, albeit for self-serving reasons. He views it as a platform to promote his narrative of political persecution. While his motives differ from the media’s, his demand for cameras inadvertently aligns with the argument for transparency.

The Stakes of Transparency

The debate over televising Trump’s trials highlights a fundamental tension between protecting the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring public access. The unprecedented nature of these cases, involving a former president and leading presidential candidate, demands a careful balancing of these competing interests.

The inconsistent approach, with Georgia’s trial televised while federal proceedings remain closed, risks fueling public distrust and conspiracy theories, particularly if the verdicts differ. As the media coalition argues, Rule 53, which prohibits broadcasting federal trials, could become a breeding ground for misinformation.

The experience of televising the Derek Chauvin trial in 2020, despite initial concerns about unrest, ultimately demonstrated the value of transparency in fostering public confidence in the judicial system. In a deeply polarized political climate, allowing the American public to witness these historic trials firsthand may be crucial for ensuring faith in the rule of law. The evidence should speak for itself, and allowing the public to see and hear it directly is the best way to counter misinformation and uphold the principles of justice.