Trump Bans Certain News Outlets from White House
On Friday, President Trump declared that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico would be banned from the White House, with the order taking effect immediately.
By the following morning, the ban was in place. Reporters from all three outlets were denied entry to the White House, with press passes being revoked or taken away, as reported by Reuters. By Monday morning, these media organizations had started filing lawsuits.
The First Amendment indicates a basic standard, and a president who claims to support free speech should hold himself to a higher standard.
The response from many on the right was predictably supportive: “Good! About time!” A friend of mine even restated Trump’s announcement on social media, saying simply, “Late but welcome.”
While I can grasp the feeling behind such reactions, I personally don’t align with that sentiment.
After all, the mainstream media has spent years eroding its own trustworthiness. CNN often comes off as severely biased, Politico can be contentious, and MS NOW is hard to watch. Journalists do mess up, promote agendas, and sometimes push out less than stellar reporting. Trump has every right to voice his dissatisfaction.
Yet, this brings up a crucial question: What should the government’s response be?
This First Amendment situation is more nuanced than the usual immediate reactions might imply. Journalists don’t have an inherent constitutional right to step into the Oval Office, take a seat on Air Force One, or be part of the presidential press pool.
Legal precedents never suggested otherwise.
Indeed, the White House secured a significant legal victory last year when the Associated Press sued after being omitted for refusing to use “Gulf of America.” A June ruling by two judges from the D.C. Circuit concluded that specialized areas like the Oval Office, Air Force One, and Mar-a-Lago are not open forums under the First Amendment. This means the White House has significant leeway in determining which journalists can gain access—even, as the judges pointed out, based on their viewpoints.
Brian Stelter can react strongly all he wants; CNN doesn’t inherently own a seat in the Oval Office.
However, that same ruling also affirmed an older guideline.
When the White House makes press facilities available to “bona fide journalists,” like the Brady Briefing Room, access cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily or due to the officials’ disapproval of a journalist’s expression. This principle traces back to a 1977 ruling in Sherrill v. Knight.
Trump has crossed a line by not just excluding CNN from the Oval Office pool.
He has stripped away typical White House access for entire news organizations simply because, as he noted, he disagrees with their reporting. “They purposely write negative news,” he stated on Friday.
Legal discussions can dig into where precisely the First Amendment boundaries lie, but presidents should ideally steer clear of that contentious space.
This is especially true for presidents who have consistently criticized censorship, the government’s influence over social media platforms, and attempts to suppress unwanted viewpoints.
Trump kicked off his second term with an executive order denouncing government censorship aimed at advancing a “preferred narrative” as unacceptable in a free society. Vice President JD Vance later condemned European countries for restricting unpopular speech during a speech in Munich.
Such values hold up under scrutiny during discussions of distasteful speech, not when it becomes acceptable speech.
Feel free to dislike the media. That’s not a problem. Just find other sources to read or watch. Critique them, and when they mess up, highlight those instances. When CNN or MS NOW gets it wrong, make sure everyone knows about it for a full month.
In a free society, ineffective journalism finds a remedy through the vehicle of more speech.
Once the government starts imposing consequences based on the officials’ loathing for certain journalism, the focus shifts. The central issue changes from whether CNN deserves disdain to what extent one is willing to entrust the government with power. Me? I’m not inclined to give much.
Barack Obama’s administration faced a similar temptation in 2009. Officials voiced their concerns that Fox News operated more like an extension of the Republican Party than a legitimate news organization. When they attempted to exclude Fox from a group interview with a Treasury representative, other networks objected, threatening to withdraw. The administration yielded.
And rightly so.
Fox did not magically become acceptable in Obama’s eyes. The administration stopped trying to resolve disputes with a news organization through manipulation of access.
Ronald Reagan had a more constructive outlook. He had genuine concerns over negative press coverage, but he labeled the tension between presidents and reporters “the friction of freedom.”
Anyone celebrating the presidential exclusion of a media outlet today should think critically about whether this same approach might eventually be used by a future president who deems Fox News, Blaze News, or another right-leaning outlet as producing “negative news.”
This is not a defense of CNN; it’s a plea for us.
Particularly, the safest rules governing governmental authority are those you are willing to accept when employed by your opponents.
Trump might ultimately be successful on some aspects of this constitutional debate. The D.C. Circuit has already acknowledged broad presidential power regarding access to restricted areas. However, revoking regular White House credentials due to hostile coverage raises a different set of questions.
The First Amendment lays out a basic standard. A president who claims commitment to free speech ought to strive for more.
CNN doesn’t require defending, but the principle does.
So, let them in anyway.
That’s the friction of freedom.
