Several prominent Republicans are backing President Donald Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW, and Politico reporters from the White House, while the affected news organizations and press-freedom advocates argue the restrictions violate the First Amendment.
Trump announced Friday that the three outlets would no longer be permitted inside the White House, accusing them of repeatedly publishing what he described as “fake news” and unfair coverage of his administration.
Reporters from all three organizations were subsequently denied entry Saturday, with some saying their White House credentials had been deactivated or confiscated.
The decision has drawn support from several Republican lawmakers who say the president is justified in pushing back against news organizations they contend have treated him unfairly.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., defended Trump during an appearance Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” arguing that access to the White House is not guaranteed to every journalist.
“There are literally thousands of media outlets in America,” Scalise said, adding that only a fraction can physically operate from the White House because of space limitations. He argued that the administration has the authority to determine which organizations receive access.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, also defended the president’s decision, pointing to what he described as years of inaccurate or unfair coverage of Trump.
Other Republicans have similarly argued that the White House has discretion over press access and that the three organizations can continue covering the administration without having reporters physically stationed inside the complex.
Trump has suggested additional news organizations could face similar restrictions.
“Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” Trump wrote when announcing the decision. Asked Friday about other organizations that could potentially lose access, Trump criticized The New York Times and The Washington Post but stopped short of saying they would be barred.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico have strongly rejected the administration’s action.
The three organizations filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking to restore their White House access, arguing that the government retaliated against them because of their reporting. They are seeking a temporary restraining order that could quickly put the dispute before a federal judge.
“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the organizations said in a joint statement.
The White House Correspondents’ Association has also opposed the restrictions.
WHCA President Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News anchor, called on the administration to restore access, warning that allowing the government to exclude organizations because officials object to their coverage could establish a precedent affecting other news outlets in the future.
Not all conservatives have supported Trump’s decision.
Former White House press secretary and Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer argued that conservatives should challenge news organizations they believe are biased rather than remove their access.
“Argue and defeat them,” Fleischer said. “Don’t ban them. Or one day they’ll ban us.”
Fox News contributor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly called excluding disfavored media organizations from the White House a “terrible precedent and practice.”
The dispute is the latest confrontation between the Trump administration and the press.
Early in Trump’s second term, the White House took control of decisions over which journalists participate in the presidential press pool, a role traditionally managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association.
The administration also previously restricted access for Associated Press journalists following a dispute over the organization’s decision to continue using the name Gulf of Mexico while acknowledging Trump’s executive order renaming it the Gulf of America. The AP challenged those restrictions in federal court.
There is also legal precedent involving White House press credentials.
During Trump’s first term in 2018, the administration revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass following a contentious exchange with the president. CNN sued, and a federal judge ordered the White House to temporarily restore Acosta’s credentials while citing due-process concerns.
A 1977 federal appeals court decision, Sherrill v. Knight, also held that once the White House establishes press facilities, decisions involving credentials must satisfy constitutional protections and cannot be made arbitrarily. That precedent is expected to figure prominently in the latest legal challenge.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
