President Trump's Legal Argument in Support of Excluding CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, September 23). President Trump's Legal Argument in Support of Excluding CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/23/president-trumps-legal-argument-in-support-of-excluding-cnn-ms-now-and-politico-from-the-white-house/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-23 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

President Trump's legal team argues against granting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico access to the White House by claiming that the president has compelling interests in setting standards for journalists and protecting national security information. The argument dismisses previous court decisions like Sherrill v. Knight, asserting that access to the White House is a privilege rather than a right and that viewpoints can be considered when granting access. This perspective aligns with more recent judicial rulings such as AP v. Budowich, which allow for consideration of journalists' viewpoints in determining press access.
Written by AI on 2026-09-23, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

On September 18, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump announced an immediate ban on several news outlets from entering the White House, including CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico. In a social media post on his platform Truth Social, Trump accused these outlets of reporting "fiction and lies" when covering the U.S. government. The decision sparked legal action with CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filing lawsuits arguing their First Amendment rights were violated. A federal court temporarily blocked the ban but it remains contentious, with the Justice Department petitioning for its reinstatement on October 3rd. This move escalates long-standing tensions between Trump and major media outlets, raising significant concerns over freedom of the press in the United States.

Written for “Trump Bans Media Outlets From White House” on 2026-11-05, grounded in this article and the 223 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Trump Bans Media Outlets From White House
Politics · 224 article(s) covering the same event. Compare every outlet's account →

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans strongly right and hedges 11% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Toronto Star
⚖️ Leans left further left than this Hedges 0 of 35 claims Outlet record 64/100
CBS News
⚖️ Leans left further left than this Hedges 2 of 29 claims Outlet record 65/100
Times of India
⚖️ Leans right further left than this Hedges 4 of 26 claims Outlet record 59/100
BBC News
Hedges 1 of 11 claims Outlet record 66/100
Washington Examiner
⚖️ Leans right further left than this Hedges 8 of 45 claims Outlet record 69/100
NBC News
Hedges 3 of 35 claims Outlet record 78/100
The Dispatch
⚖️ Leans left further left than this Hedges 0 of 4 claims Outlet record 61/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of President Trump's actions regarding press access and freedom of speech, but they describe distinct incidents rather than the same specific occurrence.”
BBC News
Hedges 1 of 11 claims Outlet record 66/100
“Article A describes Trump announcing a ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, while Article B discusses legal arguments supporting such an exclusion, indicating it's likely a later development rather than the same immediate announcement.”
Reason
⚖️ Leans left further left than this Hedges 2 of 5 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of a broader issue related to press access, but do not describe the same specific incident or time.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
45
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
11%
5 of 45 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans strongly right
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
224
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-23 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 1144 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
192 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 In May 2025, Harvard revoked Plaintiff's tenure and terminated her appointment with HBS.
🔮 The requirement would hold DSPs liable for their failure to adhere to state-set publication standards, not only "treat[ing] [them] as … publisher[s] or speaker[s]," but treating them as publishers subject to sweeping state controls.
🔮 From Sanchez v. Almond, decided Wednesday by Judge John McConnell (D.R.I.): Mr. Sanchez began working at the office of Rhode Island Governor Daniel J. McKee in May 2021 as a "constituent services" staffer.
🔮 Beauchamp believed that the post appeared to condone murder based on the victim's political viewpoints and statements and became concerned that this post and perception would reflect on GCAO in the public's eyes and thereby undermine the public's trust in GCAO's official duty to prosecute homicides without bias and without regard to a victim's views, statements, or affiliations.
2026-11-02 · assertive framing · Firing for "Rot in Hell Charlie Kirk" Post Upheld
🔮 After Judge Covington announced that she would be denying McClain's suppression motion, Outlaw stood up and said "the judge is a cocksucker" loud enough for Judge Covington to hear.
🔮 According to the Complaint, in August 2024, Plaintiffs and other District community members learned that then-member of the Board of School Directors of Souderton Area School District (the "Board") William Formica posted lewd comments on social media about Vice President Kamala Harris, disparaging teachers and non-English speakers, and deriding diversity programs.
🔮 Some excerpts from the long First Superseding Indictment in U.S. v. Hakim (E.D. Mich.), filed Oct. 21, alleging conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate commerce as well as, for two defendants, witness intimidation and destruction of property to prevent seizure (8 of the 12 defendants had originally been indicted in May); the targets included UM officials and businesses connected with them, as well as the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit:
🔮 Because "[t]he costs and efforts required to defend a lawsuit through [discovery] could chill free speech nearly as effectively as the absence of the actual malice standard altogether[,]" a public figure plaintiff must plausibly allege actual malice at the outset of the litigation.
🔮 The First Amendment forbids a State from using its investigative power that way, and I will not allow it while this case is pending.
🔮 The same logic could apply to nuns who had felt religious pressure to do the educational or nursing work that their order was known for, or to monks who had felt religious pressure to do agricultural work that supports the monastery.
2026-10-30 · assertive framing · Amicus Brief in OneTaste Criminal Prosecution
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-11-03 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 192 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

D.C. Cir. White House the D.C. Circuit the D.C. Circuit's the White House

Subjects

the White House ORG · 4× Sherrill PERSON · 3× White House ORG · 3× D.C. Cir. ORG · 2× Knight PERSON · 2× the D.C. Circuit ORG · 2× the D.C. Circuit's ORG · 2× Budowich PERSON · 1× Sherill PERSON · 1× Washington GPE · 1×

Narrative

Defendants "believe that the President's determination to revoke credentials for news outlets and reporters that have caused such interference with government functions would be effective in reducing the amount of information that is published that undermines national security." The motion will be heard today (Wednesday) at 3:30 pm; presumably Judge Timothy Kelly will issue a decision fairly soon.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-23
🔮 [T]he President's actions were not retaliatory because the Government would have taken the same action anyway, notwithstanding Plaintiffs' speech criticizing the President—indeed, the President has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the President….

Claims (45 extracted, 5 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent Here's an excerpt from the opposition to plaintiffs' temporary restraining order motion (for my view on why the plaintiffs should prevail as to access to the main press briefing room, see this post): asserted
plaintiffs → prevail → post
While the D.C. Circuit has held that some areas of the White House grounds constitute a nonpublic forum, Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Cir. 1977), that decision is wrong and should be overruled. asserted
decision → hold → Knight
But even under Sherrill, the President's actions must be sustained because the President has "compelling interest[s]" in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national security information…. asserted
President → sustain → information
[T]he President's actions were not retaliatory because the Government would have taken the same action anyway, notwithstanding Plaintiffs' speech criticizing the President—indeed, the President has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the President…. asserted
that → take → President
Sherrill v. Knight … held that because "White House press facilities hav[e] been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons." asserted
access → hold → reasons
While Defendants acknowledge the D.C. Circuit's decision in Sherrill, that case was wrongly decided, and Defendants expressly reserve their right to argue so on appeal. asserted
Defendants → acknowledge → appeal
In Sherill, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that "[t]hese press facilities [were] perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists[.]" asserted
facilities → emphasize → journalists
The reality is much better described by the D.C. Circuit's more recent decision in AP v. Budowich (D.C. Cir. 2025). asserted
reality → describe → Budowich
There, the court acknowledged that there are more journalists who wish to interview the President than he can accommodate; "[i]n deciding which journalists to speak with, the President may of course take into account their viewpoint." uncertain
President → acknowledge → viewpoint
Accord Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich (4th Cir. 2006) (upholding State Governor's press directive that "no one in the Executive Department or Agencies" should speak with two named reporters because the "Governor's Press Office feels that currently both are failing to objectively report on any issue dealing with" that administration). asserted
both → uphold → administration
As a result, the court concluded that at least for certain spaces, "the White House may consider journalists' viewpoints when deciding whether to grant access." uncertain
House → conclude → access
The same logic and standard should apply to access to White House grounds more generally. asserted
logic → apply → grounds
"Opening" the "White House" to some journalists should not "transform these spaces into nonpublic fora to which access must be granted on a viewpoint neutral basis." asserted
access → open → basis
Indeed, there are currently a finite number of hard passes, and yet the White House briefing room and West Wing facilities can accommodate only so many reporters. asserted
room → be → reporters
Under the AP decision, this counsels against the conclusion that the White House is a nonpublic forum. asserted
House → counsel → conclusion
See AP ("These spaces should not be classified as nonpublic fora because access to them is tightly controlled and highly selective…. asserted
access → see → them
In short, there is no principled way of easily distinguishing between rooms that are a nonpublic forum and those that are no forum at all—particularly where the White House is not obligated to respond to any questions by reporters in the first place. asserted
House → be → place
But this activity could occur anywhere and therefore lacks the essential connection to the government space required to create even a nonpublic forum."). uncertain
activity → occur → forum
The reasoning of AP should properly control as to all parts of the White House complex. asserted
reasoning → control → complex
Note that whatever one may think of the implications of AP's reasoning, it reaffirmed (citing Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Cir. 1977)) that "When the White House opens its facilities to the press generally, as it does in the Brady Briefing Room, it cannot exclude journalists based on viewpoint." uncertain
it → note → viewpoint
Yet even under Sherrill, Defendants' decision to deny Plaintiffs continued access to White House grounds complies with the First Amendment because they have at least two "compelling reasons," namely, enforcing minimum standards of professionalism for journalists and protecting classified information…. asserted
they → deny → information
First, Defendants may lawfully deny access to Plaintiffs because the President has concluded they fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of professionalism. uncertain
they → deny → professionalism
Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has acknowledged that the White House can set standards governing qualifications for journalistic access. asserted
House → acknowledge → access
Nothing about Sherrill is inconsistent with the President's judgment that reporters who publish classified and sensitive information fail to meet the Sherill standard. asserted
who → publish → standard
Nor does Sherrill prevent the President from concluding that bona fide journalists would identify sources instead of relying on anonymous sources, commit to factual accuracy, and provide the White House an opportunity to comment. asserted
journalists → prevent → opportunity
The President believes basic journalistic standards require calling, asking for comment, and providing a reasonable opportunity for a response. asserted
standards → believe → response
At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information. asserted
it → publish → information
To be sure, the D.C. Circuit in Sherrill and Karem v. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2020) has held that advanced notice of prohibited conduct and of the consequences of noncompliance are required before a hard pass can be revoked. asserted
pass → hold → noncompliance
Defendants submit those holdings should be overruled, but in any event, the White House has satisfied those requirements by providing an explanation of the relevant standards, both generally and with respect to Plaintiffs conduct specifically. asserted
House → submit → conduct
Here, the President's letters set out with specificity what is required and how Plaintiffs have failed to adhere to these standards. asserted
Plaintiffs → set → standards
The letters point out with specificity examples of Plaintiffs' conduct that he determined fell below these standards. asserted
he → point → standards
The letters also provide Plaintiffs with an opportunity to respond to these concerns and submit materials for the President's reconsideration…. asserted
letters → provide → reconsideration
Second, Plaintiffs' reporting gives rise to reasons to doubt their trustworthiness and, in fact, the President has determined that Plaintiffs have reported classified or sensitive information bearing on national security. asserted
Plaintiffs → give → security
Defendants have a compelling governmental interest in protecting such information. asserted
Defendants → have → information
Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution vests the President with the "authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security." asserted
Constitution → recognize → security
Ultimately, the responsibility and "authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief." asserted
responsibility → protect → Chief
Here, as explained in the Letters, the President has found that Plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security. asserted
that → explain → security
Indeed, multiple examples concern reports about the White House complex currently under construction. asserted
examples → concern → construction
Cf. Nat'l Park Serv. v. Nat'l Tr. for Historic Pres. in the United States (2026) (weighing increased "risk of foreign actors 'gathering intelligence' on the project"). asserted
actors → weigh → project
Such reporting directly raises national security concerns. asserted
reporting → raise → concerns
…and 5 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback · no sign-in needed

No sign-in needed for now. Your note is sent without a name, so it cannot be answered.

🕘History 🎫Support