Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were denied access to White House after Trump calls news outlets ‘fake news’.
Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico have been barred from entering the White House and have had their press credentials deactivated or confiscated, as United States President Donald Trump’s ban on the three news organisations took effect.
Journalists were turned away from the grounds on Saturday after Trump announced on Friday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing the outlets of reporting what he called “fake news”. Trump has said other outlets could also face bans.
Recommended Stories
list of ۳ itemsend of list
CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW White House correspondent Akayla Gardner both reported on air that they had been denied access. Gardner said an officer confiscated her badge after telling her it had been disabled and that the decision was “above him”. An MS NOW photographer also had their badge disabled, she said.
Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett was subsequently turned away, with Politico saying the Secret Service denied her entry and confiscated her White House access pass.
“A few minutes ago, our colleague Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House to do her job as a POLITICO reporter,” the news organisation said. “Secret Service denied her entry to the complex and confiscated the pass that allows her access to the White House.”
“We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House,” Politico added. “As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”
“The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” MS NOW said in a statement. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”’
CNN media analyst Brian Stelter called the move “a direct threat to press freedom in the United States”.
“It’s so much bigger than CNN,” Stelter said. “This is a free speech test in America.”
The White House Correspondents’ Association said Trump had described “his own planned action as a ‘ban on the free press’”, and said constitutional press protections do not depend on whether a president approves of a news organisation’s coverage.
The ban is the latest in a series of confrontations Trump has had with news organisations during his first and second term.
In ۲۰۲۵, his administration restricted Associated Press access to the Oval Office and presidential travel after the agency declined to adopt the administration’s preferred name, “Gulf of America”, for the Gulf of Mexico. That case remains ongoing.
A key precedent is a ۱۹۷۷ federal appeals court ruling, Sherrill v Knight. The court found that once the White House establishes press facilities for credentialed journalists, access cannot be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. It also said journalists denied credentials must receive notice of the factual basis, an opportunity to respond, and a final written explanation.
It is not yet clear what legal recourse CNN, MS NOW or Politico may pursue, or how courts would apply Sherrill to the administration’s decision to revoke existing credentials.
Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher reported from Washington, DC, on Friday that Trump’s ban will likely be challenged soon.
“The United States has the First Amendment [of its Constitution] that says the government cannot restrict access to this sort of thing,” he said.
Press freedom advocates are watching closely.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a news release that the move raises constitutional concerns.
“If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints,” Jaffer said.
The fight over access could now become a broader test of the limits on the White House’s ability to control which journalists can cover the administration.
“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move.”
