🚨This Is a Press Freedom Emergency: Trump Is Banning News Organizations From the White House

This story needs to be treated with the urgency it deserves.

The President of the United States has banned major American news organizations from the White House because he does not approve of their journalism.

Not because their reporters presented a security threat.

Not because they violated White House safety procedures.

Trump himself said he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico because of what he calls their “fake news” coverage. He has also warned that additional news organizations could be next.

And now the threat has become reality.

On Saturday, reporters representing CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied access to the White House.

CNN senior White House reporter Betsy Klein discovered that her badge had been deactivated.

MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner said she made it through two gates before being told that her credential had been disabled. She was asked to surrender her badge. The credential of an MS NOW photographer was also disabled.

Politico White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was denied entry and had her badge confiscated.

Read that again.

Journalists are having their White House credentials disabled or confiscated after the president announced that he was banning their organizations because he objects to their reporting.

That is an extraordinary escalation in the government’s confrontation with the American press.

This is a First Amendment issue

The First Amendment does not say that freedom of the press exists only when the president believes the coverage is fair.

It says:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The constitutional issue here is not whether CNN, MS NOW or Politico have ever gotten a story wrong.

Every news organization makes mistakes.

The question is whether the federal government can punish journalists by denying them access because officials dislike what those journalists publish.

There is already significant legal precedent addressing that question.

In the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that although the White House is not required to establish press facilities, once it does, access cannot be denied arbitrarily. The court specifically recognized First Amendment protections surrounding White House press credentials and required procedural protections when credentials are denied.

That precedent is especially important now because Trump has publicly connected these bans directly to the outlets’ journalism.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has gone further, declaring that Trump’s ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico “violates First Amendment rights.”

And we’ve already seen where this can go

The Associated Press was targeted before this.

Last year, the Trump administration restricted AP journalists’ access to spaces including the Oval Office and Air Force One after the organization refused to completely adopt Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

The AP sued the administration, and that litigation remains ongoing.

Now the confrontation has expanded.

CNN.
MS NOW.
Politico.

And Trump has made clear that the list may not stop there.

After announcing the bans, Trump told reporters that other organizations could be added and said he wanted the restrictions to go “as far as you can.”

That should make every journalist in America pay attention.

You don’t have to like these outlets

This is the part I cannot emphasize enough.

You do not have to like CNN.

You do not have to watch MS NOW.

You do not have to read Politico.

You can criticize their journalism. You can cancel your subscription. You can call out bad reporting. You can choose independent media instead.

The President of the United States does not get to decide which journalists are allowed to cover his government based on whether he likes their reporting.

That distinction is everything.

Freedom of the press does not mean freedom only for journalists the government considers friendly.

It exists specifically so journalists can investigate, question and criticize the people holding government power without fearing government retaliation.

This isn’t just about three news organizations

It’s about what happens next.

If a president can remove CNN because he dislikes CNN’s reporting, the precedent doesn’t magically stop with CNN.

It doesn’t stop with Politico.

It doesn’t stop with MS NOW.

And it certainly doesn’t stop with massive corporate news organizations.

Independent journalists could face the same pressure.

Local reporters could face it.

Small newsrooms could face it.

Anyone whose reporting becomes inconvenient to people holding power could face it.

That is why this moment is so important.

A free press isn’t supposed to be comfortable for the government.

Journalists aren’t supposed to need the president’s approval to report on the president.

And the White House is not the private property of whichever president happens to occupy it.

The American people have a right to know what their government is doing.

This is a press freedom emergency, and it needs to be treated like one.

Cup of Culture will continue tracking every outlet targeted, every journalist denied access and the legal challenges that follow.

Because when the government begins deciding which journalists are acceptable based on what they report, journalists have an obligation to pay very close attention.