Staff Reports
President Donald Trump announced an immediate ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from entering the White House Sept. 18.
Following the announcement, Secret Service agents confiscated the press credentials of journalists from these organizations. This escalation has triggered unprecedented collective pushback from the media industry, a federal lawsuit, and the sudden launch of a White House-run streaming channel.
Trump defended the ban on Truth Social, stating that the outlets constantly report “fiction and lies” and “purposely write negative news” to diminish the Republican Party.
When pressed on whether a specific article provoked the ban, Trump stated it was due to “cumulative stories over the last two years.” However, reports emerged that Trump acted shortly after his aide, Natalie Harp, showed him television clips and a specific Politico graphic that angered him.
In official court documents filed by the U.S. Justice Department, the administration expanded its reasoning, accusing the three outlets of “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods” that “threatened national security.”
In a historic show of solidarity, the five major television networks that make up the daily White House press pool—ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC—collectively suspended their pooled television coverage of the president. They refused to send cameras to cover his events (such as Oval Office meetings or travel) as long as their colleagues were banned.
Deprived of the standard network pool cameras ahead of his trip to the United Nations General Assembly, the White House bypassed the press entirely by launching its own 24/7 streaming channel, Trump TV, to broadcast unedited clips of the president.
THE MEDIA’S ARGUMENT
The outlets argue that the ban violates the First Amendment (freedom of the press) and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (due process). The government cannot engage in “viewpoint discrimination”—meaning once a space is opened to the press, the president cannot selectively revoke access based on whether he likes the coverage.
The U.S. Department of Justice urged a federal judge not to block Trump’s ban Sept. 21, saying, “Access to the White House is a privilege—not a right.”
The filing came ahead of the scheduled Sept. 23 teleconference hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where Judge Timothy Kelly will hear arguments by a lawyer for the outlets, which have asked him to enjoin Trump from continuing the ban as part of a lawsuit filed against him Sept. 21.
“The President has determined that Plaintiffs have reported classified or sensitive information bearing on national security,” the DOJ said in the filing to Kelly, who is a Trump appointee.
Targeting claims by the media outlets in their lawsuit, the DOJ said that there is no First Amendment right of news reporters to the White House.
The DOJ, in its filing, included new letters, dated Sept. 22, to the media outlets, giving each of them a chance to contest the initial decision to ban them and the factual basis for the ban.
The letters reference stories published by the outlets that allegedly threatened national security.
“Plaintiffs may submit any response by 5 pm on Sept. 25,” the filing says. “Otherwise, ’this initial decision will be final.”
The TAKEAWAY
TRUMP’S STORIED PAST WITH THE MEDIA
Trump’s relationship with the media is one of the most combative, litigious, and structurally transformative in modern political history.
Over his decades as a real estate developer, reality television star, and president, Trump evolved from a media darling who masterfully used the press for self-promotion into a political figure who systematically challenges the institutional authority of mainstream journalism.
When Trump first launched his 2016 presidential campaign, media outlets showered him with unprecedented, often unfiltered airtime. This “earned media”—valued in the billions of dollars—fueled his political rise because his rallies and statements generated immense ratings and web traffic.
As scrutiny of his business dealings and political policies intensified during the 2016 campaign, Trump’s posture toward the press radically shifted.
Trump popularized the term “Fake News” to delegitimize negative reporting, expanding the phrase to apply to almost any coverage critical of his administration. He frequently labeled mainstream outlets—including The New York Times, CNN, and NBC—the “enemy of the people.”
To bypass traditional journalistic filters, Trump leveraged social media platforms such as Twitter (and later, Truth Social). This allowed him to drive the news cycle directly, often forcing major networks to respond to his real-time commentary.
Throughout his first and second presidential terms, Trump translated his anti-press rhetoric into direct administrative policy, breaking several long-standing White House norms.
The Trump administration repeatedly restricted access for journalists. It famously suspended the credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta in 2018 (which CNN successfully countered in court).
More aggressively, the administration has barred outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Politico from White House press pool briefings. Reporters have also faced eviction from spaces at the Pentagon and the Treasury Department.
And for long stretches of his first term, the traditional daily White House press briefing was entirely discontinued in favor of impromptu, chaotic exchanges where Trump personally chose which reporters to address.
As a small, local paper ourselves, the Sun staff believe in supporting the First Amendment right and the rights of a free press. The press, both big and small, are a part of democracy.
A free and independent press acts as a core pillar of democracy by holding leaders accountable and informing the public. Trump banning certain outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t agree with them goes directly against that, and is an attack on democracy.
A win allowing the executive branch to permanently revoke press credentials based on the “negativity” or viewpoint of coverage would lower the constitutional bar for viewpoint discrimination.
Trump seeing success in his retaliatory defamation lawsuits against major news organizations would embolden public figures to use aggressive litigation to financially pressure or intimidate critical reporting.
Judicial validation that White House press access is a revocable government privilege rather than a protected public function would give future administrations unchecked authority to curate the press corps.
