The First Amendment doesn't come with an approval rating

There’s a temptation in Washington to cheer when a target takes a hit. If a reporter gets roughed up by the government, the instinct for some is to ask, “Well, what did they write?” That instinct is poison. The First Amendment doesn’t come with an approval rating—it doesn’t ask you to like the coverage, it just demands the government stay out of the newsroom. If we start grading protections based on whether we agree with the person using them, we’re not defending a Constitution, we’re just running a popularity contest.

What’s galling about this story is the sheer bluntness of it. The alleged rule here doesn't cover all reporters, just the ones the administration finds annoying. That’s not a policy, that’s a grudge with a badge. The courts have been clear on this since the Pentagon Papers and long before: the government cannot use its power to punish or chill speech it dislikes. It’s settled law, and it’s settled common sense. You don’t get to pick and choose which constitutional rights are enforceable based on the mood in the Oval Office.

Supporting President Trump doesn’t mean swallowing every practice that comes down the pike. We’re conservative because we believe in the rule of law, not because we want a king. And a rule that only bites when the president squints is no rule at all. It is retaliation, plain and simple. The best way to show loyalty to the country—and frankly, to the president’s legacy—is to demand the government play by the same rules when it’s winning as when it’s losing. The press isn’t always right, but the answer to bad coverage isn’t to weaponize the state; it's to win the argument. Denying the other side their rights is the quickest way to lose your own credibility..