Will Trump's federal trials be televised?
“I would love to see that,” the former president’s lawyer said. He’s not alone.
Forget O.J.
The United States of America v. Donald J. Trump would almost certainly be the most-watched criminal trials in American history — if they were actually televised.
Trump has been charged by the Justice Department in two federal cases: one stemming from his handling of classified documents after he left the White House, the other over his efforts to hold on to power following his loss in the 2020 election, including his actions leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges, and both cases are likely headed to trial.
Cameras are prohibited in federal court. But many, including House Democrats, constitutional law experts and even one of the former president’s own lawyers, want that to change.
“I would love to see that,” John Lauro — an attorney representing Trump in the Jan. 6 case — said on “Fox News Sunday” when asked if he would support a televised trial. “I’m shocked, actually, that all the networks haven’t lined up and filed pleadings already objecting to this.”
Who else wants Trump’s trials to be televised?
Lauro is not alone. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., are calling on the Judicial Conference, which oversees the administration of federal courts, to allow cameras in the courtroom in both of Trump’s federal cases, should they go to trial.
“Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings,” Schiff wrote in a letter to the panel. “If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.”
Schiff added: “We urge the conference to take additional steps, including live broadcasting, to ensure the facts of this case are brought forward, unfiltered, to the public.”
Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, strongly agrees.
“The upcoming trial of United States v. Donald J. Trump will rank with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Dred Scott v. Sandford as a defining moment for our history and our values as a people,” Katyal wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post in reference to the Jan. 6 case. “And yet, federal law will prevent all but a handful of Americans from actually seeing what is happening.”
What does the rule say, specifically?
Adopted in 1946, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states: “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”
While many states allow cameras in courtrooms, federal courts generally do not — which is why Trump’s last two arraignments on federal charges were not televised. The only images from inside the courtroom were done by sketch artists.
The federal district court in Washington, D.C., where he is likely to be tried on election-related charges, has never allowed cameras.
Could that change? And if so, how?
It could. According to legal experts, there are two ways.
Chief Justice John Roberts, the chair of the Judicial Conference, could have the panel vote to change the policy, or at the very least make an exception in the unprecedented case of a former president on trial for alleged federal crimes.
“It’s going to be incumbent on the chief justice of the United States to make this trial public,” Andrew Weissmann, a former top prosecutor in special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, said on a recent Vanity Fair podcast. “He has the power to do that.”
But the Judicial Conference has been reluctant to amend such rules in the past.
The other way would be for Congress to pass a law. In April, a bipartisan group of senators led by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2023," legislation that would “allow the public further transparency into the judicial system by allowing television cameras in federal courtrooms.”
It's unclear how much support there is in Congress for this idea, and despite the backing of Trump's lawyer, the Republican-controlled House may not want the former president's efforts to subvert the election televised in what will be an election year.
Katyal strongly disagrees.
“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” he argued. “Everyone benefits from increased transparency.”
