Even Fox News — President Donald Trump’s favorite cable news channel — isn’t taking his side in his war on the media. One Trump White House source tells Raw America that it signals a growing rift between the term-limited president and the conservative network.
This week Donald Trump got the surprise he never expected; The members of the press united to stop his bullying tactics at the White House.
Fox was one of 50 media outlets that co-signed an amicus brief in support of CNN, MS NOW and Politico, who sued the Trump administration after the president banned its credentialed journalists from the White House. Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich, who leads the White House Correspondents’ Association, recently explained in an on-air segment why Trump’s singling out of those outlets runs afoul of the First Amendment.
“This is about more than the rights of journalists,” the WHCA wrote on its X account. “It is about the right of the American people receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office.”
On background, a White House source told Raw America that the united actions of the press were a bellwether for Trump and signaled his weakness.
“They wouldn’t be doing that,” the White House source explained, “if their owners — some of whom are friends of the president — didn’t agree with that stance. That should be the biggest tell.”
On Thursday morning, Donald Trump directly defied an order issued by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who he appointed to the court in 2017, to restore White House press credentials for journalists with those three outlets. Before Trump eventually relented and restored access for the reporters from those organizations Thursday afternoon, he was at risk of being found in civil contempt, which could have led to mounting fines and even jail time.
Trump’s Justice Department argued in court Wednesday that allowing CNN, MS NOW and Politico to maintain their access would jeopardize national security. But Kelly ruled early Thursday morning that the DOJ’s arguments don’t overturn the precedent set by the 2020 * Karem v. Trump* decision. From the beginning, Judge Kelly noted that the White House
The administration argued that “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right.”
“That might be true,” a Justice Department official told Raw America, “But it’s also true that once the government gives you something, they cannot take it away without due process — and that was not given in your case, [former CNN reporter Jim] Acosta’s case and certainly not in this case.”
In Karem v. Trump, The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that once a president has granted access to a reporter or a news outlet, it can’t pull those credentials without first granting them appropriate due process.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Kirschner explained that the administration “cannot get around” the 2020 precedent set by the D.C. Circuit, and that the only way to do so would be to have the Supreme Court overturn it.
“But these are hack lawyers from Justice doing a really poor job, and their National Security concerns are laughable,” Kirschner said.
Attorney Ted Boutrous, who represented the three outlets targeted by Trump’s ban, observed that the government’s supposed national security concerns were never once mentioned in the president’s initial social media post announcing the ban. He also pointed out that reports cited by the Justice Department’s Mike Velchik were several months old.
“If those were so important, why weren’t they mentioned earlier?” Acosta asked me during the Wednesday episode of his Substack show. Boutrous asked a similar question in court.
Velchik, apparently sensing he’d lost that argument, then proceeded to ask Judge Kelly to keep the three outlets out of the White House at least until the end of Trump’s visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Velchik lost on that point too.
“At the very least, the Government may control reporters’ access to restricted presidential areas, such as the Oval Office, even for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, appearing with me on the Tuesday episode of CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront, also said the Trump administration will have trouble justifying its supposed concerns about national security in court.
“It’s a shifting rationale. It’s not the rationale he gave Friday. It’s the rationale he gave Monday morning,” Goodman said.
In addition, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in the * Trump v. Cook* case that the federal government shouldn’t be naïve when it comes to the president’s motives.
“In other words, we all know he’s lying,” my White House source confided.
Kirschner agreed, pointing out that Trump “lies all the time.”
“Judges aren’t stupid. They may be very careful about how they say things, but they are not stupid,” he said. “I can’t say that for the hacks at the Department of Justice.”
Goodman also echoed Kirschner’s opinion, telling CNN that “there are people who will walk into court and defend something they know is not legally defensible.”
During his first administration, Trump tried to sanction individual reporters on two different occasions. He first set his sights on Acosta, who gained a reputation at CNN by repeatedly peppering Trump with difficult questions. After Republicans lost 40 House seats in the 2018 midterm election, Trump directed his anger at reporters during a news conference in the East Room, with Acosta bearing the brunt of Trump’s vitriol. That exchange led to the White House suspending his credentials. But after a trip to federal court, the president was quickly rebuffed and Acosta had his press credentials returned within a few days.
Then in July of 2019, Trump came after me after an event in the Rose Garden. His administration suspended my credentials and accused me of being rude to Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka. The White House argued in court that if the administration couldn’t silence me, reporters would be free to roam the White House grounds while mooning everyone.
Velchik referred to that incident while making his national security argument during Wednesday’s hearing, though Judge Kelly was skeptical of the association. Boutrous observed that one of the CNN stories the Justice Department used as evidence of national security concerns was more than five months old. The reporter in question had her press credentials renewed after the story was published.
“That’s how you know they’re making this up as they go along,” Kirschner said. “It’s not real. It’s a lie.”
Boutrous accused the Trump administration of waving the national security issue around “like a talisman” or a magic wand. After Judge Kelly pressed both sides on the national security issue, he appeared to agree that blocking journalists from the White House can’t be “viewpoint driven.” He also signaled agreement with Boutrous’ main argument that the “national security issue” was moot.
“[‘National security’ is] the magic word he uses whenever he can’t get what he wants,” Kirschner said. “He used it to justify his ‘big, beautiful’ ballroom and his arch — which he now says will be loaded with drones and snipers. It’s ridiculous.”
Trump’s latest attempt to muzzle reporters has been met with significant resistance from the press, but Acosta said that the White House press corps probably wouldn’t be in this position “had we stood strong previously.”
In both Acosta’s case and the Karem v. Trump case, there was scant support from fellow journalists. News outlets as a whole also demonstrated a tepid response to those cases.
As I told FOX 5 D.C this week, the conservative network’s stance is the surest sign yet that Trump has severely miscalculated his position. Even his billionaire friends who own the biggest media outlets aren’t backing this play.
Despite his longstanding antipathy toward the free press, Trump was invited to and spoke at this year’s White House Correspondents Dinner — both the initial one disrupted by a gunman and the subsequent event held at a smaller venue several months later.
“Why was he there? To insult us? What did we get out of it?” Acosta said. “He still kicked people out of the White House.”
Boutrous argued Wednesday that the president is “arbitrary and irrational,” and that he “cannot use his power to punish the press” on a whim.
Kirschner went further, saying Trump “lost it and is intent on destroying the Constitution.”
The issue appears to be ongoing, with several reporters saying they have been denied even simple day passes to the White House despite being accredited journalists. Attorney Mark Zaid, who is representing Raw America’s interest, has said he’s also mulling a lawsuit against Trump’s White House.
“This administration has a track record of being opposed to any reporting they do not agree with,” Zaid said.
