In light of current events, we wanted to take a moment to say a huge thank you to our readers for allowing us to operate as independent media who will not bend to the President and his team of bullies. Engagement from free readers helps get more eyes on our content and the support of paid subscribers enables us to continue our operations. If you’re able to, consider upgrading to a paid subscription today.
For the insecure tyrant, “all questioning is a forcible intrusion … like a knife cutting into the flesh of the victim,” the writer Elias Canetti once wrote. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarianism at NYU, invoked that line to describe President Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
Trump has insulted and excluded individual journalists throughout both of his terms, Ben-Ghiat noted, but banning entire news organizations marks an escalation. She places the latest move inside a recognizable pattern of autocratic behavior, noting that “such leaders very rarely course correct. Instead they double down: aggressions increase as their legitimacy decreases, and the mania to control the narrative grows.” She calls it “autocratic backfire” and ties it to Trump’s sinking numbers ahead of the midterms.
It began, as many things do with the 47th president, with a Friday afternoon Truth Social post, perhaps with help from his aide and confidante, Natalie Harp. “I am banning [CNN, MS NOW and Politico] from the White House as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” Trump wrote, adding that the ban was “effective immediately.” He continued, “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” warning that “other Fake News Media Outlets” would follow. He gave no indication of how the ban would be enforced, and some White House staffers were reportedly caught off guard by the announcement, as has become quite common of late.
On Saturday morning, security stopped reporters and a cameraman from MS NOW at a West Wing entrance, and Secret Service officers confiscated their press badges. CNN’s Betsy Klein and Politico’s Cheyenne Haslett were denied entry the same morning. By Sunday night, the White House had also pulled CNN from Monday’s pool television rotation, an assignment that would have had CNN crew members traveling with Trump to the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
Asked whether the ban was meant to intimidate the press, Trump denied it. “No, no, no, no. I dislike dishonest press, like you. I think you’re terrible,” he responded to a Bloomberg reporter, adding that the outlets “purposely write negative news” to “diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.”
Monday evening, the White House’s official account teased an announcement. “Something’s coming. Stay tuned,” it declared over footage of an old television set. Then it launched “Trump TV: The Essentials Station” at 7 p.m., a 24/7 stream described as covering “the Trump Administration’s biggest moments all in one place.” It went live the same day the television pool went dark. A handful of pro-Trump accounts moved to fill the coverage gap within hours, declaring themselves a replacement White House pool. But as legal analyst Joyce Vance pointed out, they lacked the technical capacity, meaning the equipment, staffing and control-room infrastructure pool duty requires.
Propaganda, Ben-Ghiat wrote, needs both “noise and silence.” The ban supplied the silence, and the White House supplied the noise: a 24/7 in-house stream, “Trump TV,” launched from whitehouse.gov the same evening. But the audience did not follow. According to reporting by The Daily Beast, the stream, hosted on the White House’s YouTube channel, drew about 8,000 viewers at its 7 p.m. launch; 90 minutes later, viewership had fallen below 4,000, and by 9 p.m. it was down to roughly 3,000 — a fraction of what the major networks draw in the same prime-time hour. By 10:40 p.m. only 2,425 people were watching, a sliver of the channel’s 3.18 million subscribers, and it bottomed out overnight at barely 1,000 viewers during a rerun of a year-old Trump speech alongside Britain’s King Charles.
Trump TV may have failed right out of the gate, but the ban is in place for now. So will it be struck down by the courts? This should be an easy yes, but there are some nuances. To understand where things stand and how we got here, we need to rewind to Trump 1.0.
This is, of course, not the first time Trump has tried to silence his critics with an outright ban. During his first term, in November 2018, we got a clear view of the autocrat-to-be when Trump suspended CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House press credentials, following a heated exchange over the midterm elections. CNN sued, arguing the revocation violated both Acosta’s First Amendment right to report and his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, whom Trump had appointed to the bench the year before, granted CNN a temporary restraining order. But he did so only on the due process claim. He found the White House’s decision-making “so shrouded in mystery” that no one could explain who had pulled Acosta’s pass or why. Kelly was explicit about the limits of his ruling. “I have not determined that the First Amendment was violated here,” he wrote. Rather than litigate further, the White House permanently restored Acosta’s press pass, and CNN dropped the suit. The First Amendment question went unanswered.
Fast forward to Feb. 11, 2025, when Trump banned the Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One after it declined to adopt “Gulf of America” in place of “Gulf of Mexico” in its stylebook. That was a particular level of petty, and the AP understandably sued. The case went before U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, another Trump appointee.
On April 8, 2025, McFadden granted a preliminary injunction, writing: “under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.” He added that the AP was not asking for “extra special access” — “all the AP wants, and all it gets, is a level playing field.”
The White House appealed, and on June 6, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit stayed McFadden’s order as to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other small spaces. Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the panel’s conservative majority, reasoned that “these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion” and that “the White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.” But the panel drew a line at the Brady Briefing Room, where reporters work daily. “When the White House opens its facilities to the press generally... it cannot exclude journalists based on viewpoint.” The full D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the stay en banc on July 22, 2025. The same three-judge panel heard oral argument on the underlying merits on Nov. 24, 2025. Ten months later, it has still not ruled.
Following the White House’s latest blanket ban on three news outlets, CNN responded within hours of Trump’s post, before the ban had even taken effect. “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government,” the network wrote, “and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right.” Politico’s global editor-in-chief, Jonathan Greenberger, told his newsroom on Saturday that reporter Cheyenne Haslett had been turned away at the gates. “We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”
By Monday morning, those statements had gelled into court filings. CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a joint lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, naming as plaintiffs the outlets themselves along with three of the barred reporters. The case, Cable News Network v. Trump, also names as defendants White House communications director Steven Cheung, Secret Service Director Sean Curran and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.
“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the outlets said in a joint statement. “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.” The complaint named the harm directly. “This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.”
The Associated Press, which fought its own yearlong access battle with the administration, issued a statement of solidarity. “No news organization — or person — should be retaliated against by the government over the words they use.” The White House Correspondents’ Association, led by Fox News correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, called for a reversal of the decision, warning that the exclusion set a standard that “could be applied to any outlet in the future” and declaring, “The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably.” The New York Times and The Washington Post joined the boycott by withholding even still photographs of Trump’s events that day.
ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC — the five networks that make up the White House television pool — announced Monday that they would suspend pool coverage of the president entirely in solidarity with the banned outlets. In a rare joint statement, the five declared, “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.” C-SPAN noted that it could not broadcast White House events without the pool feed.
The Find Out portion arrived within hours. Monday afternoon, Trump held a ribbon-cutting for a new White House helipad. He declined to take questions shouted at him before he boarded Marine One but, without a pool camera or microphone present, his remarks were unintelligible over the noise of the parked helicopter. Newsmax, one of the few outlets still covering the event, acknowledged the problem on air. “There’s no microphone because the pool cameras aren’t there,” anchor Bianca de la Garza said, adding: “Obviously the ramifications are right here. Can’t hear what the president’s saying.” Axios called the moment “a remarkable and immediate ramification of Trump’s attempt to limit pool access.”
Later Monday, asked about the boycott after a meeting with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Trump insisted he was not worried. “They said they were going to boycott me, but they never boycott me, so I wasn’t very worried about that.”
Veteran journalist and longtime anchor Dan Rather called the ban a test Trump is failing on his own terms. “Journalism has survived dictators, despots, and others who have tried to control the Fourth Estate. It will survive Donald Trump too.” He noted that the ban was announced without consulting the president’s own staff — “his chief of staff wasn’t even in Washington” — and argued that Fox’s participation in the boycott, more than anything else, “may be an indicator that even they are sensing that he has gone too far.”
Monday’s lawsuit drew an immediate reply from Trump himself. In a second Truth Social post, he complained about the assigned judge directly and previewed his own expected outcome: “The Judge’s name is Tim Kelly, and he was, sadly, appointed by ‘TRUMP.’ In other words, almost without question and, as usual, we’ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our N…
