White House press briefings used to be daily rituals. Then during President Trump’s first term in office, the briefings stopped altogether. Reporters literally noticed a coating of dust on the press briefing room podium.

The Joe Biden administration resumed frequent briefings, but Trump reversed that again in 2025. For all the talk of Karoline Leavitt and her MAGA star power, Leavitt only held formal briefings once a week on average, according to my analysis of the White House’s video archive.

Leavitt, whose departure from the post was announced yesterday, was responsive to the press corps in other ways, and some journalists have credited her with opening up access to a greater number of news outlets. But the briefings are a televised symbol of transparency — or lack thereof. And under Leavitt, the number of briefings shrank drastically.

Leavitt only held 14 briefings in the four months before her maternity leave in late April. I counted another 49 in 2025, including several nontraditional briefings. As Trump has consolidated control and tried to remake the government, there’s arguably more news than ever emanating from the White House, yet there are fewer occasions to ask about it.

“So what,” you might say, “the president personally talks to the press all the time.” But submitting to questions isn’t the same as actually answering — and the press secretary has historically been the go-to spokesperson for the entire executive branch.

But the irregularity of Leavitt’s briefings does reflect the fact that Trump “is his own press secretary and communications director,” Martha Joynt Kumar, the Towson University professor emerita who studies White House communications, told me.

“His almost daily exchanges with one or more journalists means a press secretary is likely to brief less often than was the case in earlier administrations,” Kumar said. “That was true in President Trump’s first term and in this one as well.”

One might ask: Has that approach served him well? Yes, Trump communicates a lot, but judging by his dismal approval ratings, Americans don’t believe what he says.

>> Will Trump cast a new press secretary? The New York Post’s speculative story mentions many names, including Alina Habba, Matthew Boyle, Scott Jennings, Katie Miller, Anna Kelly, Monica Crowley, Kari Lake, Rachel Campos-Duffy.

>> On “NewsNight” last night, Jennings sidestepped the question when asked if he’s throwing his hat in the ring. He said of Leavitt, “I think it’s great that she’s going to go spend time with her family, but I don’t know a single Republican in the country who isn’t in awe of and in appreciation of Karoline.”

>> Democratic Rep. James Walkinshaw said on “The Arena” that “to be Donald Trump’s spokesman, you have to willfully deny reality on a daily basis.”

>> Leavitt’s briefings were “less attempts to explain policy or to deliver coded messages to foreign leaders than demonstrations of Trumpian defiance,” CNN’s Stephen Collinson wrote. He observed that she will have a “lucrative future” in right-wing TV if she wants.

There is “zero truth” to the notion that Paramount CEO David Ellison is prepared to sell CNN in connection with the WBD transaction, a Paramount source told me this morning, amid a flurry of misleading headlines about the matter.

“CNN is key to Ellison,” the Paramount source added, citing the comments in his recent NYT op-ed.

But right now The Drudge Report’s top banner says “NEWS NET FOR SALE AFTER MEGAMERGER SUIT.” So where’s this chatter coming from? It appears to be an extrapolation from Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim’s Monday comment that “everything is on the table” to resolve the state AG lawsuit that’s blocking Paramount from buying WBD.

Theoretically, “everything is on the table” could mean Paramount is open to a divestiture of CNN to settle the lawsuit. But it seems that phrase was Delrahim’s generic way of pushing for settlement talks with the states, not a “for-sale” sign.

Reuters caused confusion, in my view, by publishing a story yesterday headlined “Paramount says CNN sale ‘on the table’ to resolve California suit.”

That headline led to a number of copycat stories. Drudge highlighted the fact that Barry Diller has been eager to acquire CNN. That’s true, and he’s not the only would-be bidder. But Puck’s Dylan Byers is hearing the same thing I am: “Paramount sources are adamant that CNN is not on the table in negotiations with Democratic AGs, despite headline from Reuters,” Byers wrote last night.

Plus, there’s the financial reality that THR’s Alex Weprin tweeted: “Paramount needs CNN a lot more than the other WBD cable channels. It is financially healthier, as disclosures show, and the opportunities for synergy with CBS News are high. They need, say, HGTV or TruTV or even MTV far less.”

Anything could happen. CNN has changed hands many times before. But at the moment, a Paramount source says the flurry of headlines are false. I’m left wondering: Is any of this making the states more willing to negotiate? Officially, Rob Bonta says the coalition is focused on preparing for trial.

You might recall that Ellison ally Ari Emanuel went on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week and floated the idea of an editorial board to safeguard a Paramount-owned CNN. I then reported that CNN’s top executives previously talked about a similar possibility. Yesterday, the WSJ’s Jessica Toonkel added more reporting: Paramount “in recent months has discussed creating an editorial board for CNN and other safeguards to ease concerns over its news operation’s independence, according to people familiar with the situation.” Here’s a gift link to that story.

In the Status newsletter last night, Oliver Darcy quoted CNNers who are highly skeptical. Kara Swisher told him that such oversight boards are often “toothless and useless.” Dow Jones veteran Dick Tofel weighed in this morning with his own knowledge about the Dow Jones Special Committee that was set up to protect the Wall Street Journal nearly 20 years ago. That committee still exists, but Tofel says it was “neutered by design” from the get-go…

Just ahead of Disney’s annual fan event D23, ex-Disney CEO Bob Chapek announced he has written a tell-all memoir, and it’s coming out on September 29.

“Behind the Castle Walls: My Thirty Years at the Happiest Place on Earth” explores whether Chapek was a “corporate scapegoat,” according to Gallery Books’ PR listing.

Andrew Kirell writes: Twenty-four hours after the news of Mark Walter’s sale of the Los Angeles Lakers to Josh Kushner and Bob Iger, a few things are clearer: Kushner is putting up more money than Iger; Kushner’s Thrive Eternal is involved in the financing; and Iger “is expected to be deeply involved in a leadership capacity.”

What remains unclear is precisely why Walter, who also owns the Los Angeles Dodgers, sold off one of the most coveted sports franchises less than a year after buying it. “Too many questions, not enough answers. Lakers sale doesn’t pass smell test,” Bill Plaschke wrote in his LA Times column. Could the sale “be the result of outside forces?” he wondered. Walter’s empire is facing a few federal probes, he noted, “and perhaps he sold the Lakers as a peace offering to the feds. The fact that he sold to somebody so close to President Trump could also help his federal case.”

Versions of that theory flooded social media yesterday. It’s all speculation, but there is evidence that Walter was looking for cash. Bloomberg’s Sridhar Natarajan and Katherine Burton reported yesterday that Walter has been trying to raise funds to pay off the loans held by his insurance companies that drew federal scrutiny, and the Lakers sale will “accelerate” that effort…

This scoop by the NYT’s Ben Mullin stunned the news industry yesterday. Mullin uncovered the reason why Forbes fired Randall Lane last month: A “secret $6 million payment” to the editor from RJ Shook, “whose company, Shook Research, has teamed up with Forbes since 2016 to publish rankings of wealth advisers.”

Lane told Mullin, “I should have disclosed the gift, and failing to was a serious error in judgment. I deeply regret that and I lost the job and team I love because of it. None of this changes how I feel about Forbes and the amazing people there.” Here’s a gift link, courtesy of Mullin…

Two websites claiming to be Forbes — “Forbes LA” and “Forbes Liechtenstein” — are actually bogus, mostly AI-generated domains, and are connected to PR agency Baden Bower and the Global Recognition Awards, Rob Waugh reports for Press Gazette.

There is a lot to Waugh’s investigation, which also turned up “apparently fake and largely AI-generated website editions of other prestigious online newsbrands.”

Great catch by Bloomberg’s Kelcee Griffis: “The only in-house judge at the FCC has retired with no public notice, leaving the a