Three prominent news organizations, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, have filed a request with a federal court to block the White House from enforcing a ban on their access to the White House grounds. The ban, implemented by President Donald Trump, was abruptly imposed on September 19, and the outlets claim it is an unlawful assault on their First Amendment freedoms. The ban was partially lifted by a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly last week, but the order is set to expire on October 8.
The news organizations argue that the White House has continued to implement the ban in an unpredictable and inconsistent manner, despite the temporary restraining order. On September 26, CNN was barred from fulfilling its role as designated television network pooler, and on Saturday, the White House banned the network from Air Force One, preventing it from covering Trump's trip to a college football game in Tennessee. The other networks in the pool declined to provide a replacement, in solidarity with CNN.
The White House has maintained that access to the White House is a privilege, not a right, and that the president has every right to decide who gets to cover his events. Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the decision to bar CNN from Air Force One, saying that Trump was "sick and tired of certain media outlets just refusing to report accurate news." Blanche also claimed that news coverage he described as "misinformation" amounted to a national security issue.
However, Judge Kelly expressed skepticism about the White House's claims that national security concerns motivated the ban. In his ruling last week, Kelly wrote that "the court is skeptical … that defendants' interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation" for the removal of access. The news organizations argue that the ban is a form of retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, and that it will inflict irreparable harm on them and the public if not restrained.
The pool access issue has presented networks with tough choices. For now, networks in the pool have decided to address the ongoing standoff on a case-by-case basis. On Sunday, Fox covered a pool event; on Monday, NBC was covering the president in the Oval Office. CNN is not in the rotation until Thursday. If the network is again barred from a pool event, the networks will decide together whether to provide a replacement or to refrain from coverage.
The issues at stake are difficult, with the networks wanting to take a stand on behalf of press freedom and against efforts to intimidate coverage, while also having an obvious purpose of providing news to their audiences. Media experts say that the networks "may well feel like they're between a rock and a hard place," and that "capitulation might be perceived" if they choose to comply with the White House's demands.
The news organizations are seeking a preliminary injunction to extend their White House access until the case is finally resolved. The lead attorney for the three news outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., called the ban "a blatant violation of the First Amendment and due process," and said that the president and his administration have continued to make clear that the ban has only one purpose: to punish reporting he doesn't like.
Key points
- The White House ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico has raised concerns about press freedom and the First Amendment.
- The news organizations argue that the ban is an unlawful assault on their freedoms and will inflict irreparable harm on them and the public.
- The White House maintains that access to the White House is a privilege, not a right, and that the president has every right to decide who gets to cover his events.