:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/NOPYHDCMURDFTJDLASQD3K7GSA.jpeg)
The country is living through history with the first-ever federal indictment of a former president. A grand jury of Miami residents charged Donald Trump with 37 federal counts, ranging from the willful retention of national defense information to obstruction of justice. Given the unprecedented situation the nation is witnessing, it only reinforces why we must cover it in the right way.
At its core, what the federal indictment shows is that a former president thought he was above the law. Recorded conversations between Trump and his lawyers reveal that he knowingly kept classified information and failed to turn it over when asked. The indictment sends a message to the country that no one — even the former president — can escape justice and accountability.
What happens next is arguably more important, though. Now that Trump has been arraigned at a federal courthouse in Miami and pleaded not guilty, the federal judge overseeing the case, Aileen Cannon, will begin the trial process in which witnesses will be brought in front of a jury of ordinary citizens. Lawyers for Trump and the special counsel’s team will present their evidence. Witnesses will be cross-examined. And jurors will ultimately determine whether Trump is guilty.
Under current rules, however, Americans will not be able to see this process unfold. Federal officials remain very resistant to allowing cameras inside courtrooms. And, even when cameras have been permitted, it has been for narrowly specific purposes, such as investitures, naturalization or other ceremonial proceedings.
Those opposed to cameras in the courtroom believe allowing them could make lawyers more nervous or sway jurors. While such an argument is legitimate, this case is different. If we care about showing the world that we are a nation where no one is above the law, then there must be an exception for the trial of the United States v. Donald J. Trump. Televising and livestreaming Trump’s trial will send a strong message that our justice system still works, that not even former presidents can skirt our laws.
And even more important? Putting cameras in the courtroom could spur an entire generation of young people to pay attention and become more active participants in our democracy.
Lest we forget, last year, the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial was televised and livestreamed, and the number of people who watched it was jaw-dropping. On YouTube alone, the trial amassed nearly 84 million hours watched, with 3.5 million peak viewers at one point. More people tuned into that trial than any other livestream happening on YouTube at the time. In short, people tuned in — and more young people talked about that trial than I could’ve ever imagined.
Certainly, the Depp-Heard trial is different from Trump’s trial — they are big-name actors and celebrities. But because the court proceedings were televised and livestreamed, young people, who otherwise would have not watched a trial, tuned in and paid attention. Not only will the same happen for Trump’s case, but also, doing so is far more important for our democracy and shaping a civically engaged generation.
For one, young people are on social media more than any other generation, with more than 95% of us using at least one social media platform. Permitting cameras in the courtroom will reach millions of young people. And when young people see Trump — a former president and the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — they will see a legal system that is doing exactly what it was meant to do. Just like the jurors inside the courtroom, young people will hear the evidence, they will see Trump take the stand and they will discuss it with their peers.
In addition, allowing cameras in the courtroom for U.S. v. Trump — and, hopefully, one day in other federal court cases too — could mark an important step to restoring trust in our courts. To date, nearly half of young people say they have “little confidence” in our justice system, according to a national poll released by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. That number increased especially after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but the lack of trust also is a result of there being little transparency in courtrooms. Although livestreaming the Trump trial won’t completely repair the damage to people’s perception of our legal system, it will demonstrate to young people that even people with tremendous wealth, privilege and power can’t run away from justice and accountability.
In the coming days, weeks and months, there will be a lot of talk about Trump’s indictment. Those on the right are shouting that it’s a witch hunt, that Democrats are out to get the former president. But at a time when facts mean less and less to an increasing number of Americans, allowing the entire country to see the truth come out in the courtroom is not only necessary but also needed.
Allowing Americans to directly view the proceedings of this case would not only send a strong message about the rule of law, but it also could spark the type of change and civic awareness that our country so desperately needs.
For the good of our country and future generations, allow cameras to be in the courtroom for the United States v. Donald J. Trump.
Victor Shi, a student at the University of California at Los Angeles, co-hosts the “iGen Politics” podcast. He is also a strategy director for Voters of Tomorrow. Originally published in The Chicago Tribune.
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.