Trump says he’s banning MS NOW, CNN and Politico from White House
Category: News & Politics
Via: hallux • 2 months ago • 155 commentsBy: Kevin Breuninger & Dan Mangan - CNBC
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump said Friday that he is banning MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House over their coverage of him.
Trump, who frequently accuses mainstream media outlets of writing “fake news,” said in a Truth Social post that those outlets “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.”
He did not identify any specific coverage.
“Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” Trump added.
The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the post.
CNBC has reached out for comment from the three media outlets Trump targeted.
Trump has long targeted news outlets and individual journalists over what he claims is unfair coverage. He encourages his supporters at political rallies to boo and jeer at reporters present, and he regularly takes to social media to call out journalists by name and insult them in personal terms.
But the attempt to block White House access to disfavored news outlets takes Trump’s open hostility for critical reporting to a new extreme.
It could also draw a legal challenge over violations of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects the freedom of the press.
Trump sought to bar Associated Press journalists from the Oval Office and Air Force One following the wire service’s decision to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its centuries-old name instead of the “Gulf of America.”
A federal judge ruled in April 2025 that Trump’s action against the AP was “contrary to the First Amendment.” An appeal of that decision is still pending.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Coward works as a description!
For a guy so quick to sue for libel, he's got to know he can't win this fight.
his legion of maga morons don't care ...
He doesn't know anything. He certainly doesn't understand the First Amendment
If one points a camera at Trump or his blond bimbo and then broadcasts the results, then they are guilty of broadcasting fake news.
The remaining news agencies will be provided with official, monogramed, Whitehouse pillows for the reporters to kneel on while they suck his small flaccid penis.
Remember when Obama tried to ban Fox News and the other major carriers told him to fuck off? Wonder which ones will stand up to Trump?
Okay... they tried to limit access. Being pedantic with the details doesn't make it better.
I noted that. Who's going to pushback against Trump? The AP still has a pending 1st Amendment lawsuit against the White House for their retaliation against the the AP for not using Gulf of America.
There will be lawsuits over this. They just haven't filed yet because Trump posted on his social network on Friday (I don't know what time he posted as I have much better things to do than follow him) and the White House didn't block their entrance until Saturday. This is just another lawsuit that he will lose and taxpayers will foot the bill.
This seems to be the same defense of Trump his followers have used for years "You guys are overreacting, the courts and constitution will keep him in check" instead of actually ever acknowledging that what he's attempting to do is unconstitutional and anti-American. Say the words MAGA folk, don't keep hiding behind fantasy protections that don't work if the people in power refuse to do their job of oversight.
Trump harms this nation every day more than any other individual on the planet.
People need to pay attention to what he is doing and then take appropriate action. Those who are not ready to mitigate his impact by taking the feckless GOPTRUMP out of power—for abdicating congressional oversight to Trump—are doing the nation a great disservice.
That's some amazing gymnastics to twist my post into a defense of Trump. It's a shame that knee-jerk reactions are so in vogue, we'll never fix the divide in this country until people can actually stop those reactions. Perhaps reread the last sentence in my post.
Everyone should be critical of Trump and the feckless GOPTRUMP at this stage. We are not in normal circumstances where people merely bicker over political differences. Trump and his cronies continue to damage our nation — abusing their power for personal gain. We have witnessed a historic failure of Congress to rein in the worst PotUS in our history. The people need to step in and hold Congress accountable for their inaction.
Trump needs to be hobbled. This should register as an extremely serious matter to patriots.
I read the last sentence, but simply acknowledging he'll lose in court and stick us with the bill isn't enough from those who everyone knows would have screamed bloody murder over this kind of thing had Biden attempted it. Could you imagine how rightwing conservatives would have reacted had Biden simply ejected all conservative media because they weren't writing nice enough stories about him? Are you fucking kidding me? And all you have is "Well the courts won't let it stand" when the guy you've been carrying water for years is doing it. Pardon me for not being more magnanimous of the Trump supports finally acknowledging that maybe the orange man is bad.
Got it. So because I didn't scream to have him drawn and quartered, there are those who believe I support Trump in this. All I can say is have a nice day.
One need not go to extremes—just normal, fact-based criticism of the worst, most corrupt, most damaging PotUS in US history. Criticism of an ever-present agent damaging our nation rather than deflection, defense, and/or token tepid criticism.
Read this morning they will file this morning.
This is one more check on the wannabe dick-tatar's list.
Yep, I saw that. And they will probably win that fight. While the First Amendment does not guarantee a special right of physical access to restricted government property like the White House, federal courts have ruled in the past (Sherril v Knight (1977)) that the White House cannot revoke or deny press passes based on a dislike of a journalist's reporting or viewpoint. The government does not have to open the White House to reporters but case law establishes that if the government chooses to open a press facility and issue credentials, it cannot do so arbitrarily.
Exactly! I am so tired of this bullshit, and I fail to understand how EVERYONE isn't at this point. Nobody liked it when Obama made much less of a move against Fox News back in his day. Why would something much worse be acceptable now?
Just think this one through. This is EXACTLY why many of our founders felt it necessary to draft and ratify the Bill of Rights. This is EXACTLY what the First Amendment, and by incorporation later legal precedent and the 14th Amendment was supposed to prevent. The Government, including any of its levels and branches, cannot prohibit or abridge the freedom of speech or the press. This includes ALL freedom of the press, including access to briefings on what the Government is saying and doing. To allow a government to ban/block those in the press with whom they disagree invites tyranny, it most certainly does not invite the truth.
From the Trump Administration's vantage point, how will banning certain unfriendly press groups from White House briefings end the "unfriendly" positions and statements made about them? Indeed, it will make them worse. At least with those agencies present at such briefings you could make a case for how they did not report on what was said accurately. It makes zero sense to block them out, on top of being obviously unconstitutional even to those without a legal degree or experience.
On one, single, occasion. That's a BIG detail...
Honestly, does it even matter anymore? I’m sick to death of seeing Trump’s face and hearing his voice on my news channel. It makes zero difference if they are in the WH, the outcomes will be the same, and the reporting will be the same just less offensive by virtue of less visual and audio of the worst human on earth (using the word “human” here pretty generously). Fuck Trump.
Fascist says what?
[✘]
Let me guess you are fine with what trump is trying to do?
most of maga hates the first amendment, except the "freedom of religion" part for trump fellating thumper scum ...
But the only religion they want freedom for is the Bible-thumping, evangelical, Christian Nationalist shit
Another dictatorial move by Trump. The free people of America have no alternative but to RESIST.
It's a cowardly move, but I actually think he should be allowed to ban anyone he wants from the White House - or at the very least, the Oval Office. I mean, it's not his personal house, but it is there for his use while he is president.
There are already limits on who can enter and when. It's not as if the media outlets are not still free to do stories on him.
If there is a Constitutional problem, it will be that he did it explicitly because he doesn't like their reporting. This is literally the reason he gave. Viewpoint discrimination is pretty much always unconstitutional. I don't think he needed to give a reason, but since he volunteered one, it is the unconstitutional one.
I would support banning a genuine troublemaker—for example, someone who repeatedly refuses to follow established rules or protocols.
Trump banned entire organizations.
midterm red meat for the maga morons ...
The 1st Amendment covers their REPORTING the news. Not access to people or places. This adminstration isn't playing like Biden's did and restrict information being put out.
Do you approve of Trump banning these organizations from the White House?
It happens under every administration. You just want to cry about it because, well, because it's Trump.
Trollish response. Disagreeing with your viewpoint is not crying. Attempt to discuss matters in an adult manner.
Apparently, you approve of Trump banning organizations. Trump acts, and you automatically agree.
BULLSHIT. Obama threatened Fox News and then backed down due to its illegality. Only Nixon banned an organization: the Washington Post. Modern case law would have precluded that ban.
A federal judge has a current block on a White House ban of the AP (issued back in Feb 2025) while the case winds through court. The ban was issued because the AP refuses to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
POS/POTUS can't answer the hard questions ...
[✘]
[✘]
LOL
You have nothing to contribute; just here to troll?
So you'd be okay if the next Dem admin banned Fox and OAN?
Are they blocking them from reporting?
Yes. See 8.3.2 below.
No. 8.3.2 is mere fictitious bullshit. They can report on what they see happening. They don't have to be in the room.
Tell us all, how do you see what's happening in a room you can't be in.
As I stated. They do it with the military daily.
You haven't answered a single question.
And neither have you. Just stomped your feet because I won't capitulate.
I posted how better legal minds than you will argue it is a 1st and 5th Amendment issue. They are actually going to go to court, site the law and argue their case. It's more than you have done.
Capitulate? Hahahaha. You never answer anything. You're opinion here means less than than you think.
I do answer.
Then give us the legal foundation of your option. Show us the legality on how barring press access from the government isn't an abridgment on the freedom of the press.
Bloggers are banned from certain briefings in the Pentagon. In fact their access was restricted because the nature of these briefings. Shit, they aren't even permitted past the enterance of the building I work in.
We're not talking about bloggers, or the Pentagon.
We are talking about whole news orgs that on Friday had access before being attacked by the President as Fake News and on Saturday barred from doing their jobs.
Try again.
You asked for an example. I gave you one. You not liking it, well, that's your problem, not mine.
Trump violated the 1st Amendment when he banned access to the White House that he offers to other news organizations simply because he dislikes the reporting.
No he didn't. He banned the access. He didn't ban them from reporting.
How can one report on a press conference they aren't able to attend? From Politico this morning (bolding mine) -
Strawman! I did not state that he banned them from reporting.
This has already been legally tested:
They do it for military operations daily.
Blah, blah, blah.
But you did state a 1A violation. Which is false.
I showed you case law. Even when proven wrong, you keep insisting you are right. Pathetic.
Does that apply to all news outlets, or some news outlets?
What you didn't show was where they are prevented from reporting.
I made no claim that they cannot report. My claim is that case law shows that Trump cannot exclude a news organization from a venue where others are allowed merely because he does not like the coverage.
You have nothing but bullshit, so you fall back on strawman arguments.
Of course it does. What fool would thing it didn't?
Where.
Which is not a violation of the 1st Amendment. Making your statment false.
Blah, blah, blah. What I have is an opinion that doesn't agree with yours and you don't like it; so here we are.
Again, I cited case law.
Your illogical opinion does not matter. Case law matters.
This is not my opinion vs. yours, it is case-law vs. your partisan desires and feeble attempts to defend Trump.
Your bullshit, your opinions, your strawman nonsense does not matter.
Put it another way... Lets say trump banned all guns in the USA except for BB-guns. Is that a violation of the second amendment? By your argument, no, it isn't. Guns are still being sold, so the 2nd amendment hasn't been violated.
Which is an infringement on the 1st amendment.
Of course it does what?
A room full of constitutional lawyers that drafted a pending lawsuit say otherwise. Current case law precedent says otherwise. You have offered nothing to support your opinion.
And again, you didn't show a violation of the 1st Amendment happnened.
Their 1st Amendment Rights have not been violated. Access to a person or facility is not part of the Amendment no matter how many times you all stomp your feet and cry about it.
Access is not guarenteed under the 1st Amendment.
You really need to keep up.
And where in the 1st Amendment does it state that bloggers will have 100% access?
You've been presented with documented evidence and ignore it. This is why no one takes you seriously. You're trolling here now.
Just repeating the same stupidity doesn't make it true. Perhaps, in your vast constitutional law knowledge, you can show the legal foundation of your option?
This Trumpesque ploy of denying everything - even when you are obviously wrong - only works on stupid people. Not likely to persuade anyone here.
[✘]
Yet here you all are.
[✘]
I'm sure. Are you sure?
I asked you to explain yourself. You can't even do that.
[✘]
As expected you have nothing. Nothing at all...
Government discrimination based on the viewpoint of expression is unconstitutional. Trump explicitly said he was banning them because of what they say when they report on him. That makes it unconstitutional.
Maybe we need to make the "based on the viewpoint" portion clearer for Trump supporters.
... based on the viewpoint ...
[✘]
So we're at the same level.[✘]
Did it help? I can't read the responses[✘]
Of course not.
Yes how dare they report exactly what he says....the NERVE of these people.
What part of FREEDOM are you not getting?
The FREE part
they hate anything that's free
whatever.....some people deserve to be mocked especially when they are trolls....then they make everything about themselves
Their freedom to report isn't being infringed. There is no guarentee for access to facilities or people.
Their freedom to report from the Oval office is infringed if they cannot be there. This should be obvious to anyone. Getting information secondhand is not the same as firsthand. Being able to ask their questions is superior to simply reporting on answers to questions asked by others.
This should be obvious. Good grief, man.
Except there is. The networks had to submit to a certain process to gain access. That access was taken away without due process, and on the basis of the viewpoint of their speech. Both elements violate the Constitution.
Yeah, I'd agree but then we'd both be wrong. Press isn't permitted past the foyer of my office building.
Assume they were. Assume further that it’s a government building. Assume further still that there is a process for gaining access. Now your building decides to revoke that access without any kind of process or appeal and it does so solely on the basis of certain press members saying something you don’t like. That violates the Constitution.
And a Trump appointed judge yesterday ruled in agreement.
So when were you elected to the presidency?
Not surprising that so many liberals don't understand the constitution, they try to twist it to say what they want it to say, the sad thing is they vote. please tell me in detail how banning CNN or any other agency violates the constitution? GO
You clearly need to be informed because in this case your understanding of the CotUS is fundamentally flawed.
Let's have federal judge McFadden explain this to you:
And for more details, read case law content starting with:
Some stupid [removed] [✘] who will be overturned doesn't a Cotus make, until the government tells CNN what to print or not print there is no violation, most 3rd graders know this, but I'm glad to see you can copy and paste another person's views who also managed to pass a bar exam [removed][✘]
Calm down, George. You are wrong. Not the end of the world.
[✘]
I delivered case law that is extremely relevant to this issue.
Your 'rebuttal' was that you think you are right, and then you attempt to diminish the court and McFadden.
A truly pathetic response. You cite nothing but 'nuh-uh' and other meta nonsense.
[✘]
tell us you're not a constitutional lawyer without telling us you're not a constitutional lawyer
looks like muscular class maga is defending the constitution as well as they can comprehend it ...
I passed the bar over 30 years ago, so i wouldn't have to take a shitty job like driving a bus or some other menial labor. when did you pass the Arkansas bar?
i notice you didn't say how this violates the constitution. do you lack the knowledge to do so? how many stations aren't allowed press passes? are their rights also being violated?
There is nothing that abridges their ability to print or report whatever they want, using the retarded arguments posted here, saying no comment is the same as violating their first amendment right. access is a privilege not a right.
I notice you don't think trump supporters should have to answer direct questions.
The ‘believe me rather than a court because I claim to be an attorney’ is unlikely to influence anyone. I find it to be a feeble, pathetic response.
I never saw you ask a question, pathetic response
pathetic deflection, When did trump limit what they could report? and do all News organizations have access to the Whitehouse? if not, is trump also violating their first amendment rights?
The government can't pull access because Trump feelings got hurt. As a lawyer surely you should know that. Taking away access without due process is an unconstitutional restriction of the press to report on the government. It was wrong when Nixon did it. It was wrong when Obama tried to do it and it's still wrong now.
Always defending Trump no matter what. WTF drives people like you to defend this psychopath?
Your refusal to deal with legal reality would be funny if this were not a serious matter.
Strawman. Where do you see me stating that this is a ban on reporting? If you are going to attempt to debate me, then at least make an attempt to address what I wrote. If all you can do is make up an argument I did not make (although I could argue this), then you illustrate yet again that you have nothing.
This shows that you either do not understand—or refuse to acknowledge—the core First Amendment principle at issue here: the government cannot exclude organizations merely because it dislikes their viewpoint .
You ignore extremely relevant case law, do not seem to recognize the problem with a ban based on viewpoint , and dismiss the cogent opinion of an engaged judge on the matter. I have made this crystal clear, yet you ignore this key legal principle!
V I E W P O I N T Here, maybe a picture will help:
And here is one of many legal reports on this matter. Very straightforward:
It pays a lot more than you probably realize.
And recently we have Fox News voluntarily joining the refusal to provide pool coverage of Trump:
Seems like most everyone understands that this ban is unconstitutional ... even Fox News will not go along with Trump on this one.
But you think you know better ...
Claims do not establish credibility; the content does. You passing the bar thirty years ago—as you merely claim†—is irrelevant. What matters is whether your analysis is accurate. State your propositions, support them with relevant factual evidence, construct a sound argument from those propositions, and show that the argument supports your conclusion.
Best I can tell, you refuse to do that. Seems to me that your claims and questions reveal a misunderstanding of the legal issues involved in this situation.
† Claiming to have passed the bar—or to be an attorney, or even a constitutional attorney—can reasonably be accepted at face value until evidence suggests otherwise. There are two (at least) attorneys in this forum that have demonstrated persuasive knowledge and expertise through content, not mere claims. In your case, the substance of your analysis gives me reason to doubt your claim, or at least to doubt that it reflects meaningful expertise/knowledge.
More precisely, passing the bar does not by itself mean one is a practicing attorney, much less a competent one. Expertise is better demonstrated through accurate analysis, sound reasoning, and command of the relevant law than through unsupported assertions of credentials, especially when undermined by faulty content.
Yes, this is my opinion; I am speaking for myself and do not claim to know your background. In short, I am explaining why I do not buy your claim of legal expertise / knowledge.
As the group Rush would offer:
Here is the key underlying the legal question: the government cannot exclude organizations merely because it dislikes their viewpoint .
Now show me, citing case law, where this is wrong. Show me, show us, how Trump is going to win the lawsuit filed against him for this ban.
Sure, they can still publish whatever information they can glean from outside the White House.
But that is not the issue, and it is not what the lawsuit claims. The lawsuit challenges Trump’s decision to revoke their White House access because he objects to their reporting.
Why do you refuse to deal with the facts and legal claims in the case? Why do you instead focus on whether the organizations remain capable of publishing at all?
(rhetorical: It is obvious why you focus on a strawman.)
what an elitist attitude!
I was about to say "In which country?" but then when you said Arkansas where my brain-dead bigot MAGA cousins live and it made some sense. That's a state of being that set's 'the bar' as low as it can go. But seriously, your comment about liberals not understanding the constitution is hilarious for being so fucking wrong. And thankfully Amer4ica will right this ship by absolutely fucking destroying the Republican party and Trumpism this coming November. I am going to enjoy the years of trials and investigations into all the criminals acts of this feckless unconstitutional grifting convicted felon some dipshits decided to saddle our nation with, and I am hopeful that the truth will out and the traitors to our nation will be held accountable.
Arkansas is not that bad. It's got lots of good people.
[..][✘]
Arkansas is where trout is chiming in from,
[✘]
you noticed!
Jesus! What now?
go figure ...
Late to the party, sorry, but do you or anyone else on this forum think Fox News Media joined solely because it's the right thing to do / solidarity for when O's administration tried to do it to them, fear it'll happen to them if/when a Dem gets into office, or a combination?
I think it's a combo....with large fries. I don't think Trump will get away with it this time, sure hope not. These sorts of precedents seem to grow like a cancer. Examples are the growing number of executive orders from one administration to the next, the pre-pardoning of friends and investigations/prosecutions of enemies, and of course the blatant gerrymandering. All at the taxpayer's legal expense.
Yes, I think Fox News did this based on a longer-term perspective. Trump is gone in two years.
FOX is moving to a more moderate right of center position for self preservation, since they have another billion dollar settlement coming due in the near future ...
They should have recognized Trump was a disaster years ago.
rupert and lachlan murdoch should've disappeared years ago ...
In the list of 100 most useful distractions from being in a child prostitution operation with his dear friend Jeffrey Epstein, this one ranks pretty high. Take a deep breath everyone, it’s just another troll designed to infuriate you.
t another troll designed to infuriate you
following
istractions from being in a child prostitution operation with his dear friend Jeffrey Epstein
Lol...
You’re welcome. The heavily guarded truth is obviously very sensitive, so we’ll just have to wait for it to be revealed by a less servile government.
At the U.N. today the fascist wannabe dictator Trump told Kaitlan Collins of CNN: "You shouldn't be here."
No doubt he would have her arrested and jailed if he thought he could get away with it.
So much for the reactionaries idiotic defense of the sick fuck.
He really does think he controls the world. He only banned her from the White House not the entire country
maga forgets the 2nd guarantees the 1st ...
One of the many benefits of the Second Amendment
which is why I encourage trump and his sycophants to keep attacking the 1st, along with the 4th and the 10th ...
I'm sure conservatives will be happy to know that their choice of a convicted felon President is making millions of patriotic Americans on the left appreciate their second amendment rights more.
I'm ready to rock and roll ...
They hypocrites did say there weren't going to cover him. Yet they were there...covering him. And got called out on it.
It's no wonder people don't take them seriously.
[deleted][✘]
No, they said they pulled the tv pool.
Either way, they covered him and were called out.
They didn't say they were not covering him. They said they were pulling the tv equipment they share to a pool for white house coverage.
The whole point of suing to get back their presses is so they can cover him.