Do we have a right to watch Trump on trial?

When Donald Trump appeared at the federal courthouse in Miami this summer to be arraigned for allegedly mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, producers at CNN were forced to get creative to circumvent a standing judicial order against outside electronics in the building. Their solution? Child labor, in the form of teenagers from nearby Palmetto Senior High School, who the network deputized as one-day production assistants so they could help enact a Rube Goldberg-esque process of manually running updates from the courtroom itself to an RV parked nearby, which CNN was using as a mobile headquarters for their coverage. "In all my years of field producing, never have I been involved in an operation as complex as this literal game of professional telephone," CNN producer Noah Gray admitted, highlighting what has become a unique challenge in the ongoing coverage of Trump's multiple criminal charges: opacity in the federal court system in which cameras, audio feeds, and other methods of transparency are largely eschewed in the name of privacy and civility.

"There is this pearl clutching going on for decades among judges," CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig told the network's Jake Tapper, claiming that the federal bench worries their trials will "become a spectacle." But given both the historic nature of Trump's growing list of criminal indictments and the degree to which his courthouse appearances have already become spectacles regardless of whether or not there are cameras in the courtroom itself, more and more pressure is mounting to televise Trump's trials — including from some unlikely sources.

Cameras would "inevitably result in prejudice" against Trump

After multiple media outlets petitioned New York Judge Juan Merchan to allow cameras in the room for the former president's first criminal arraignment in Manhattan, Trump's legal team argued that allowing the proceedings to be filmed would "create a circus-like atmosphere at the arraignment" as well as "raise unique security concerns." Cameras would also be "inconsistent with President Trump's presumption of innocence," they claimed. Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo seemed to agree in part, writing that the court has justifiable "discretion to exclude or restrict videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment in the interest of avoiding potential prejudice to the defendant, maintaining an orderly proceeding, assuring the safety of the participants in the proceeding."

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Merchan ultimately agreed, claiming that cameras could disrupt the "dignity and decorum of the court," as well as put the safety of those involved at risk. Joining Merchan was U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of Florida, who similarly denied efforts to film Trump's federal arraignment in Miami (prompting CNN's high school work-around) claiming in part that "allowing photographs would undermine the massive security arrangements put in place." In general, photography and videography are banned from Federal trial proceedings as a rule, although there are limited exceptions.

"This is a unique case"

Blanket bans on filming federal trials notwithstanding, there is a growing argument that the singular and historic nature of Trump's two federal trials makes it incumbent upon the court to be as transparent as possible for the greater public good.

"Presented with arguably the most extraordinary trial in our history and immense consequences for our democracy, the normal rule should not dictate the result," the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin argued, claiming the case isn't simply a question for a jury "but also to the American people" who should "have the opportunity to put the story together for themselves." NBC Legal Analyst Glenn Kirschner agreed, noting that since Trump's trial will be fought in the "court of public opinion" leading up to the 2024 presidential election, "cameras in the courtroom are a must" to prevent "a one-sided account coming from Trump's lawyers" that could influence voters.

Calling it a "unique case," former Robert Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann said that the blanket ban on filming federal trials should be suspended here, and that "It's going to be incumbent on the chief justice of the United States to make this trial public." MSNBC legal commentator Joyce White Vance concurred, tweeting that "[j]ustice demands" Chief Justice John Roberts "authorize televising Trump's trial."

"This shouldn't be a partisan issue," former Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Vanity Fair. "Everyone benefits from increased transparency." To that end, perhaps the most surprising — and compelling — argument for a televised Trump trial comes from none other than Trump's own legal team. "The first thing we would ask for is: let's have cameras in the courtroom," exclaimed Trump attorney John Lauro during a Fox News interview shortly before Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted the former president for alleged election subversion. "I would hope that the Department of Justice would join in that effort so that we take the curtain away and all Americans get to see what's happening."