ban

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that removes President Trump’s ban on three news outlets from White House grounds, a rebuke of the administraton’s most severe attack yet on the Washington press corps.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said in his ruling that the administration’s ban is likely unconstitutional and that the outlets affected — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — were not given due process before the action was taken. Kelly also rejected the White House’s court argument that the ban was motivated by national security concerns. The restraining order will be in effect for 14-days as the litigation proceeds.

Kelly, appointed by Trump during his first term, made a similar ruling in 2018 after the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN. Acosta’s credentials were restored.

The three outlets jointly filed a lawsuit Monday alleging that the ban violates the 1st Amendment by retaliating against protected newsgathering as punishment for unfavorable coverage, amounting to viewpoint discrimination.

Trump announced the ban Friday in a Truth Social post, describing CNN, MS NOW and Politico as “fake news.” He claimed the outlets have long been unfair to him and that their negative coverage was a danger to the country.

Journalists from the three organizations were barred from White House grounds on Saturday, the day after Trump announced the ban in a Truth Social post.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico all reported Thursday that their access has not been restored despite the judge’s ruling. Politico reported that one of its journalists had a credential confiscated by Secret Service.

Whether the confiscation was a security snafu or a defiance of the court order remains to be seen.

In a emergency court hearing Wednesday, the White House shifted away from Trump’s initial stated reasons for the ban and argued that the three outlets engaged in reporting that threatened national security.

The administration went on to detail letters sent to each outlet that provided examples of such reporting. One was a background briefing set up by the White House, where an official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House itself.

In response to the ban, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News, suspended pool coverage of President Trump this week as he traveled to New York for the General Assembly at the United Nations.

The four networks along with CNN rotate the coverage which is shared with other news organizations. While the networks that aren’t banned have sent reporters to cover President Trump’s activities, they are not shooting video.

Some right wing outlets sympathetic to Trump such as One America News have been providing video coverage, but they lacked the technical capabilities of the larger networks. Another outlet, Real America’s Voice, posted video that showed President Trump’s detail traveling through New York City.

Keven Tripp, the Los Angeles correspondent for NBC News Radio posted on X that the “Press is NEVER supposed to reveal operational aspects of security detail,” calling the move by Real America’s Voice “stupid and unprofessional.”

Sept. 23, 2026 3:24 PM PT

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Rhode Island struck down a Trump administration directive that would have barred some immigrants from accessing certain federal programs, including Head Start preschools, community health clinics and adult education initiatives.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by President Trump in 2019, temporarily barred his administration from moving forward with the rule last year, so it never was implemented. On Monday, she made the injunction permanent.

Officials from the Republican administration had said the directive would stop “illegal aliens” from accessing federal benefits by reclassifying broad swaths of social services programs under a Clinton-era law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

But the rule also would have swept up many immigrants in the U.S. legally, including work and student visa holders. It also would have barred services from Temporary Protected Status holders, who are granted work permits if the U.S. government determines conditions in their home country are too dangerous to return, along with recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, who were brought to the country illegally as children and receive temporary protection from deportation and work authorization.

Those groups, which are considered “nonqualified aliens” under the law, already are unable to access full Medicaid benefits and federally funded food aid and cash assistance.

The Trump administration issued its directive in July 2025. Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia sued.

They said the change upended three decades of policy allowing people to access community health clinics, domestic violence shelters and Head Start centers without proving their immigration status. They warned the harms could spread, deterring any immigrant from seeking services and throwing up barriers even for U.S. citizens unable to document their legal status. The new rules also would have put administrative burdens on underfunded social service agencies, including Head Start operators, which might have been forced to close if they were unable to comply with the directive’s new requirements, the lawsuit said.

In her ruling, McElroy declared the directive “unlawful” and said the Trump administration did not follow the proper avenues to rewrite the rules. She called the administration’s actions “procedurally invalid.” She added that the administration still could pursue rule changes through the federal notice-and-comment process, which officials bypassed when they issued the directive last year.

Requests for comment were sent to the departments named as defendants in the wide-ranging lawsuit. The Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees Head Start, said it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The Labor Department referred inquiries to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who was among those who sued, hailed the judge’s ruling.

“From cancer screenings to food banks to early childhood education, the federal government’s attempts to decimate the social safety net would have been catastrophic for working families,” James said.

Balingit writes for the Associated Press.

Washington — Two leading progressive lawmakers, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar, are unveiling legislation Wednesday that would ban artificial superintelligence and create a federal agency to oversee advanced AI as some of the industry’s own leaders urge Congress to impose guardrails on the advancing technology.

The bill, provided first to the Associated Press, would also pause advanced AI development until guidelines are implemented while creating the Department of Artificial Intelligence. Multiple employees at leading AI companies are endorsing the bill.

“It doesn’t take a genius to say, ‘slow it down,’” Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with AP. “Do we really want to develop a super intelligence that when it becomes smarter than human beings could act independently of human control? I don’t think we do.”

Congress has so far done little to rein in the AI industry even as some of its most prominent leaders warn about potentially catastrophic risks. President Trump has resisted recent calls for greater government oversight, putting him at odds with tech leaders including Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and xAI’s Elon Musk.

The bill aims to dramatically slow down AI development

The legislation would permanently prohibit artificial superintelligence, which it defines as a system that exceeds human cognitive ability or has sufficient capabilities to plan and execute the destruction or disempowerment of humanity.

It would temporarily pause development of the most advanced AI systems until new federal safety rules are established by a new Department of Artificial Intelligence. Advanced AI systems would then need federal approval before they could be deployed. Violations could carry significant penalties, including up to 20 years in prison in some cases.

A number of current employees at AI companies and experts signed on in support of the bill, according to a statement shared with AP.

Juan Felipe Cerón Uribe, a researcher in OpenAI’s Safety Systems, said in a statement supporting the bill that “superintelligence could either go extremely right or extremely wrong” and that “we shouldn’t be playing such games.”

Swante Scholz, a software engineer at Google DeepMind who said he was not speaking on behalf of his employer, said on the current path of development, the “most likely outcome is an existential catastrophe for humanity.”

“A ban on superintelligence development would be a positive change for the foreseeable future,” Scholz said in a statement.

The bill faces long odds but draws a line in a growing fight

The bill from Sanders and Casar faces long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress, where lawmakers have struggled to coalesce around even less sweeping AI regulations.

But it offers a window into how the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is approaching AI regulation ahead of November’s midterms and a 2028 presidential campaign in which the technology is expected to be an increasingly prominent issue. Casar, a Democrat from Texas, is the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Potential 2028 presidential candidates have rushed in recent weeks to release proposals showing they’re taking the issue seriously. Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore announced a plan to regulate AI on Tuesday, while California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to accelerate implementation of a California law that calls for independent oversight of AI companies last week.

Sanders, a two-time presidential candidate who is now 85, has especially focused on the issue in recent months. In June, he introduced legislation to create a sovereign wealth fund financed through a one-time tax on the stock of the largest AI companies. Last week, he hosted colleagues for a briefing with experts and also attended a conference focused on the issue alongside Republicans, including former White House adviser Steve Bannon.

The debate over AI regulations has scrambled political alliances both in Washington and for voters across the country.

Americans have grown more concerned about the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence over the last year, according to a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

The survey data say about half, 53%, of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about artificial intelligence’s environmental impacts. That is up from 41% last year. Democrats are driving much of the increase in environmental concern, but the poll also reveals broader worries about the local impact of data centers, which power AI and cloud computing.

Trump has shown little interest in curbing AI risks

While some industry leaders have called for new safeguards, Trump has pushed in the opposite direction. On Tuesday, Trump told the United Nations General Assembly that artificial intelligence will be renamed “super intelligence.”

“I think Trump has very little understanding of what this issue is about,” Sanders said. “I think he’s mainly concerned about the economic implications of a slowdown.”

AI safety is expected to be a central part of talks between Trump and China’s Xi Jinping at the White House this week as the countries compete for dominance in the sector. The prospect of slowing development in the United States while China continues on has also been one of the central arguments against sweeping restrictions.

Sanders argued that avoiding the most dangerous forms of AI would ultimately require cooperation between the two countries, comparing the challenge to nuclear arms control during the Cold War.

“Ronald Reagan, arch-conservative, was smart enough to understand that he had to sit down with Gorbachev, a communist, and work out a nuclear treaty that protected humanity,” Sanders said. “I think we can do that again now.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

In April 2022, Moore tested positive for nandrolone and boldenone at a WTA 250 event in Bogota, with an independent tribunal ruling in December 2023 that contaminated meat was the source.

Moore, who was Britain’s leading women’s doubles player at the time of the failed test, was found to bear “no fault or negligence”, but the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) appealed against the decision.

Last year, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) ruled in favour of the ITIA and Moore was banned until 2028.

Moore then initiated proceedings with the American Arbitration Association, in which she claimed the WTA’s “failure to warn against eating meat in Colombia was a direct cause of her positive test result and the harm that followed”.

The arbitrator supported the ruling made by Cas and dismissed the case against the WTA.

In response, Moore filed a motion against the decision at the United States District Court in New York.

Moore, who was ranked a career-high 77th in the world in 2022, claimed she was denied a fair hearing by the arbitrator.

The motion detailed how Moore was seeking “no less than $20m in compensatory damages” after claiming the WTA “stayed silent in the face of a known and specific danger and then shifted the blame for its own negligence” to the player.

On Friday, United States district judge Andrew Carter found Moore’s challenge was “not justified” on a legal basis.

The WTA and ITIA have been approached for comment.

A day after unveiling Pontes, its system for settling tokenised assets in central bank money, the ECB has set out how it wants Europe’s crypto rulebook rewritten.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The response, published on Tuesday by the European System of Central Banks, which groups the ECB with the EU’s national central banks, argues for tougher rules on stablecoins, staking and crypto firms.

It feeds into the European Commission’s review of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, known as MiCA, the EU’s rulebook for cryptocurrencies and the firms that trade them.

MiCA has applied since December 2024, and the last transitional deadline for existing operators expired on 1 July, including Binance, the world’s largest exchange, to stop serving European customers.

The Commission’s consultation will close on 30 September, a month later than planned.

The central banks’ recommendations are not binding, and the Commission will weigh them alongside other responses before deciding whether to reopen the law.

EU diplomats have told Euronews they expect a revision in 2027, which would need the approval of the European Parliament and member states.

No interest and no loopholes

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to hold a steady value, usually by tracking the US dollar.

MiCA already bars both issuers and crypto exchanges from paying interest on them, and the central banks want it kept that way.

“The payment of stablecoin remuneration should continue to be prohibited,” the ECB response says.

Their targets are the workarounds. Some exchanges, the response notes, offer crypto lending, borrowing and staking, “thereby replicating the economic effect of interest payments through ancillary or unregulated services.”

The central banks want the ban extended to those activities and to indirect rewards, such as certain loyalty-programme benefits, calling it “a clear legislative priority”.

Washington has gone the other way.

The 2025 GENIUS Act banned US stablecoin issuers from paying interest but left exchanges free to offer rewards, and whether to close that gap became one of the most contested fights over the CLARITY Act, the landmark crypto bill that fell ten votes short in the US Senate on 15 September.

A brake on US dollar stablecoins

The central banks want stronger tools against tokens pegged to foreign currencies.

It would be useful, they say, if authorities could impose “a prohibition to issue new tokens, as well as an obligation to redeem existing tokens” on issuers where central banks judge that the tokens pose a threat, including to financial stability.

More broadly, they see limited benefit in stablecoins for everyday payments at home, given instant bank transfers and the planned digital euro. They warn that MiCA provides no legal basis for issuing the same stablecoin both inside and outside the EU.

In a bank run, European reserves could end up paying holders elsewhere, while “EU authorities cannot determine with certainty how many tokens are held within the Union.”

Eurozone central banks also do not currently let stablecoin issuers hold customer funds with them.

A token fully backed by central bank money, the response warns, “would effectively result in a ‘synthetic’ central bank digital currency” that is essentially a private imitation of the digital euro and could, in theory, drain deposits from commercial banks, especially under stress.

Staking and decentralised finance

On staking, where users lock up crypto in exchange for rewards, the response is blunt: “Staking, lending and borrowing of crypto-assets should be regulated at Union level.”

Where a firm takes customers’ crypto and promises to return it, potentially with a premium, the central banks argue that the arrangement can be “comparable to the taking of repayable funds”, in the language of banking.

The same applies to decentralised finance, or DeFi, where lending and trading run on automated software rather than through a company.

MiCA exempts fully decentralised services but never defines the term, and the central banks cite studies showing that full decentralisation is rarely, if ever, achieved, leaving it unclear who is in control.

Who licenses crypto exchanges?

The central banks also back a Commission proposal to move licensing and supervision of crypto firms from national regulators to ESMA, the EU’s markets watchdog.

Currently, one national licence covers the whole bloc, which was the route Binance originally pursued in Greece.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week, citing people familiar with the discussions, that ECB President Christine Lagarde urged Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis not to approve Binance’s application because of the exchange’s past compliance problems and fears that its scale could deepen the use of US dollar stablecoins in Europe.

A senior Greek regulator, according to the newspaper, told the exchange that Lagarde wanted the decision delayed until ESMA took over, the same shift the central banks endorse in Tuesday’s response. Binance withdrew the application on 24 June.

Neither the ECB nor the Greek regulator has confirmed the account. The ECB, which has no formal role in licensing crypto firms, declined to comment, while Binance said it would “not comment on speculation”.

Trump later reacted to news of the lawsuit, calling the news organisations “Third Rate Clowns” and “Crooked and Corrupt Press” that “trivialise and demean” his achievements.

“Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

He added that “almost without question” his team will file an appeal.

The First Amendment forbids the government from “abridging” the freedom of the press – language that courts have traditionally interpreted as preventing the government from discriminating against the media based on the content of their coverage.

The statement from CNN, Politico and MS NOW said: “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting.

“Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The media organisations filed the lawsuit on Monday in US District Court in Washington, asking a judge to quickly rule Trump’s ban unconstitutional and prevent his aides from enforcing it.

On Monday morning, major US TV networks pulled out of White House pool duties, which sees media organisations share material with each other to save on costs and space when broadcasting presidential events to the American public.

Fox News Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton, who currently holds a rotating role helping to organise media TV crews covering the White House, wrote in an email seen by the BBC that “effective today, the TV pool will not be covering designated as pool coverage” of President Trump.

The message said the move followed the White House “preventing” CNN from fulfilling its pool duties for Trump’s trip to New York and that “there will be no replacement pool put in place”.

CNN – one of only five US news outlets in the White House press pool for live television – was originally due to cover Trump’s trip to the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday and Tuesday.

But on Monday morning, the five-seat CNN booth in the basement of the White House press area – typically manned throughout the day from the early hours of the morning – was empty and closed. Screens and monitors inside were turned off.

Instead, a CNN crew was outside the secured area of the White House grounds, broadcasting live from a public pavement.

Five TV networks, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC, issued a joint statement: “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government.

“No administration should restrict a news organisation because it objects to its reporting.”

Those five networks are considered the only ones with the money and infrastructure to distribute live coverage from the White House and presidential events.

For now, the White House media slot has remained vacant and instead the conservative TV outlet, Real America’s Voice, was listed as “secondary” crew on Trump’s trip to New York, where he will meet Mayor Zohran Mamdani and French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday.

The Clippers hired John S. Gibson as interim CEO and governor on Monday, taking over the roles previously held by team owner Steve Ballmer, who is serving a one-year ban by the NBA.

Ballmer recently said he won’t fight the league’s salary-cap circumvention punishment in a reversal of the team’s initial defiance and vow to fight against what it called “a heavily biased investigation.”

The league suspended Ballmer for one year, fined the team $30 million and forced it to forfeit five first-round draft picks. Ballmer said the team has paid the fine.

Gibson will immediately oversee the team’s basketball and business operations and represent the Clippers in league voting matters. He’s a long-time Clippers season ticketholder.

“I am honored to take on this responsibility and grateful for the opportunity to serve an organization I have supported for many years,” Gibson said in a statement. “My focus will be on supporting our people, providing steady leadership, and helping the organization continue moving forward.”

Gibson spent the last six years as a trial lawyer and litigation partner at DLA Piper in Los Angeles, where he co-chaired the firm’s U.S. Business & Commercial Litigation practice. He previously advised and represented major corporations, technology and health care companies, pro sports organizations and business leaders.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are headed to court to challenge the constitutionality of President Trump’s order to ban the three news organizations from the White House.

The three outlets announced Monday they are jointly filing a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court in Washington, D.C. asking for a temporary restraining order that restores their access immediately while the case is heard.

“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 and publishes,” CNN, MS NOW and Politico said in a statement. “Without notice or due process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to indpendent journalism free from government interference.”

The lawsuit against the Trump Administration will allege that the ban violates the 1st Amendment by retaliating against protected newsgathering as punishment for unfavorable coverage, as well as blocking reporters from a “nonpublic forum” for unlawful reasons.

The suit notes precedent is a case from 1977 that ruled the White House cannot arbitrarily restrict press credentials for reporters on grounds that there’s retaliation for viewpoint discrimination.

Trump announced the ban Friday in a Truth Social post, describing CNN, MS NOW and Politico as “fake news.” He did not cite any specific story that prompted the action, claiming the outlets have long been unfair to him and never provide any positive coverage.

Trump was asked Friday how his ban will hold up in court.

“I don’t think a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day,” he said. “I think that somebody has a right to keep them away if they’re going to write false stories all the time.”

Trump’s asserts that the ban is the result of unhappiness with the coverage he receives from the three outlets. Trump’s statements are likely to be used against him in court.

The ban has already raised questions on how the public will be able to monitor the president’s activities. CNN was scheduled to provide the video feed of Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The pool feed, as it’s called, provides video to all other press outlets.

CNN’s assignment does not appear on the press schedule issued Sunday by the White House.

On Saturday, journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred from entering White House grounds as they learned their press credentials were no longer valid. Some were asked to hand them over to Secret Service.

Trump has tried twice to deny news organizations White House access. In 2018 during his first term, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be resinstated.

Last year, the Trump White House issued a ban on the Associated Press when the news organization refused to recognize the president’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by executive order. A federal judge ordered that the AP’s access to the White House be restored on the grounds that the government cannot punish a journalistic outlet over the content of its speech.

A divided appeals court panel later paused that ruling for the Oval Office, Air Force One and other restricted spaces, allowing the White House to keep the AP out of them while the case proceeds.

Trump has railed against outlets that he considers unfriendly to his administration, calling for the Federal Communications Commission to pull the TV station licenses of the broadcast networks. He has also asked the FCC to take action against individual journalists who irk him, the last being “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has tried to act on Trump’s behalf by calling for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

“This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office,” Heinrich said in a statement.

Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms — insulting them in briefings, or in his recent speech at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner.

Trump’s press attacks have spread to other parts of his administration. The Department of Defense tried to restrict journalist access to the Pentagon.

The department also recently fired three journalists at the military’s newspaper Stars and Stripes for insubordination after they appeared in a CBS News report on how the Trump administration has tried to restrict their reporting.

Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were denied access to White House after Trump calls news outlets ‘fake news’.

Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico have been barred from entering the White House and have had their press credentials deactivated or confiscated, as United States President Donald Trump’s ban on the three news organisations took effect.

Journalists were turned away from the grounds on Saturday after Trump announced on Friday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing the outlets of reporting what he called “fake news”. Trump has said other outlets could also face bans.

CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW White House correspondent Akayla Gardner both reported on air that they had been denied access. Gardner said an officer confiscated her badge after telling her it had been disabled and that the decision was “above him”. An MS NOW photographer also had their badge disabled, she said.

Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett was subsequently turned away, with Politico saying the Secret Service denied her entry and confiscated her White House access pass.

“A few minutes ago, our colleague Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House to do her job as a POLITICO reporter,” the news organisation said. “Secret Service denied her entry to the complex and confiscated the pass that allows her access to the White House.”

“We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House,” Politico added. “As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”

“The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” MS NOW said in a statement. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”’

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter called the move “a direct threat to press freedom in the United States”.

“It’s so much bigger than CNN,” Stelter said. “This is a free speech test in America.”

The White House Correspondents’ Association said Trump had described “his own planned action as a ‘ban on the free press’”, and said constitutional press protections do not depend on whether a president approves of a news organisation’s coverage.

The ban is the latest in a series of confrontations Trump has had with news organisations during his first and second term.

In 2025, his administration restricted Associated Press access to the Oval Office and presidential travel after the agency declined to adopt the administration’s preferred name, “Gulf of America”, for the Gulf of Mexico. That case remains ongoing.

A key precedent is a 1977 federal appeals court ruling, Sherrill v Knight. The court found that once the White House establishes press facilities for credentialed journalists, access cannot be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. It also said journalists denied credentials must receive notice of the factual basis, an opportunity to respond, and a final written explanation.

It is not yet clear what legal recourse CNN, MS NOW or Politico may pursue, or how courts would apply Sherrill to the administration’s decision to revoke existing credentials.

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher reported from Washington, DC, on Friday that Trump’s ban will likely be challenged soon.

“The United States has the First Amendment [of its Constitution] that says the government cannot restrict access to this sort of thing,” he said.

Press freedom advocates are watching closely.

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in a news release that the move raises constitutional concerns.

“If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints,” Jaffer said.

The fight over access could now become a broader test of the limits on the White House’s ability to control which journalists can cover the administration.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move.”

CNN and MS NOW journalists have been denied access to the White House after US President Donald Trump announced he was banning the outlets.

An MS NOW reporter and a photographer tried entering the White House grounds on Saturday morning, but their badges would not scan and an officer confiscated them, the outlet reported.

CNN also said Saturday morning that one of its reporters was denied access and had her badge seized.

Trump said on Friday he was barring MS NOW, CNN, and Politico – three major US media outlets – from the White House, accusing them of writing “fiction or lies” about his administration. Press freedom advocates called the move “unconstitutional”.

“The officer asked me to hand over my badge. He said that it was disabled,” MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner said. “I asked why I was not able to get inside. He said it was above him.”

Gardner added that while her and her colleague’s badges were disabled, an MS NOW producer was still able to scan her badge to get in, though she was not given an explanation as to why the producer’s badge still worked.

CNN reporter Betsy Klein said a Secret Service agent told her her badge had been deactivated.

An MS NOW spokesperson said in a statement that the White House “belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars”.

“MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

It was not clear whether Politico reporter were at the White House on Saturday. Following Trump’s ban, all three outlets have spoken out against the decision, accusing Trump of violating their constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

“We have a right under the US Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right,” CNN said.

In his announcement, Trump did not mention specific stories or reporting from the three outlets that prompted the move, but later said “it’s really just cumulative stories over the last few years”.

Trump added that there “may be others to join them”, but has not given a directive banning additional news outlets. When later asked by a reporter what he meant by others to come, Trump responded: “Others to come in terms of fake news? Well, you know, the New York Times is fake news, the Washington Post is fake news.”

Several groups dedicated to the freedom of the press have called out Trump’s White House ban as illegal and unconstitutional.

A major group that provides legal services to the media – the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – said it expected Trump’s ban to be struck down quickly by the courts because it was “flatly unconstitutional”.

“The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can’t ban others because it doesn’t like their reporting,” said Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which provides legal services to the media.

It’s the latest in a series of moves by the administration to target media outlets Trump says are critical of him, including legal action against US and international outlets like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC.

Some of the lawsuits have resulted in media organisations agreeing to pay multimillion dollar settlements. Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC is ongoing.

Additional reporting from Bernd Debusmann Jr and Max Matza.

The United Nations General Assembly will allow Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to address via a prerecorded video.

The European Union says it regrets the denial of visas by the United States for the second year running to Palestinian Authority (PA) officials seeking to attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, urging it to reconsider the decision.

The statement on Saturday comes just days after the UNGA voted to allow Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to address the body during the upcoming 81st session via a prerecorded statement.

“In light of its existing headquarters agreements with the UN and its obligations as host state, we urge the United States for this decision to be reconsidered,” said Anouar El Anouni, a spokesman for the EU’s diplomatic service.

On Friday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also expressed regret at Washington’s decision, adding he was concerned about its impact “on the ability of the State of Palestine to participate fully in the work of the United Nations”.

The US Department of State announced on Wednesday that it would prolong visa sanctions on officials of the PA and members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

“As a consequence of their failure to reform, contrary to their commitments to the United States, and their ongoing activities that undermine the prospects for peace, the United States will extend sanctions that deny visas to PLO members and PA officials,” the State Department said in a statement.

The department accused the PA of violating US law by bypassing direct negotiations to seek international recognition of Palestinian statehood.

It also cited the PA’s decision to take its dispute with Israel to international courts and its financial support for people the US and Israel label as convicted attackers and their families.

No Israeli officials face equivalent US travel restrictions, despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Abbas’s address this year is expected to push for international recognition of Palestinian statehood and revive momentum for a two-state solution, building on a wave of formal recognitions by the United Kingdom, France, Canada and other Western nations last year.

His speech will also highlight the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza alongside the rapid growth of illegal Israeli settlements and settler pogroms across the occupied West Bank.

Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates welcomed the UN resolution passed on Thursday allowing Abbas to address the assembly next week, saying it “represents a breaking of the attempt to prevent Palestine’s participation” in the UNGA’s annual session.

President Trump announced Friday he intends to ban CNN, MS NOW, Politico and other news outlets from covering the White House, his strongest threat yet against a free press.

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump attacked the the reporting of the three outlets which he described as “FAKE NEWS!”

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States of America,” Trump said.

How a ban would be enacted remains to be seen. In 2018, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be restored.

Trump has stepped up his attacks on the press during his second term. Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr has threatened the broadcast licenses of outlets Trump dislikes. Carr has called for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

After the post circulated, Trump held a press briefing from the Oval Office to discuss drug pricing. According to the pool reporter, no journalist was removed from the press room.

Trump was asked about the Truth Social post. He responded by further attacking the three outlets. He did not cite any specific report that led to his call for a ban.

“I dislike dishonest press,” he said.

Trump’s remarks generated an an immediate outcry from press freedom groups.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

“It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move. The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him.”

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has updated its travel guidance for British nationals travelling to Thailand, with tighter visa-free stay restrictions for UK travellers coming into force on 15 September 2026, alongside revised weather warnings

The Foreign Office has warned Brits to check their paperwork is in order as a country changes its entry rules.

As of today, Thailand’s entry system has changed. After two years running a generous scheme under which citizens of 93 countries and territories could enter visa-free for stays of up to 60 days, a harsher system has taken over. Effective this morning, the length of stay has been cut in half from 60 days to 30 days for many nationalities.

For US, UK, Australian and Canadian citizens, the principle remains straightforward: no visa is required for a tourist stay of up to 30 days in Thailand. However, the visa-free period has been halved from 60 to 30. If you want to stay in the country for longer than that, you’ll have to apply for an extension of up to 30 additional days. The Thai government has indicated that this should be granted.

Another major change is that the visa-free scheme now applies only to tourists. Those entering the country for work or other purposes now use the visa category corresponding to their activity.

The reform also reintroduces a restriction on land-border entries, with those using the 30-day visa exemption allowed only two land-border crossings per calendar year. Nationals of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are not subject to this limit.

Ahead of the changes coming into effect today, the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) issued updated advice to Brits, a record-breaking million of whom visited Thailand last year. The government warned of the consequences of overstaying your visa or visa-free period.

“If you overstay the period of your visa, you will get a fine of 500 Thai baht a day up to a maximum of 20,000 baht. You risk being:

• held in detention
• deported at your own expense
• banned from re-entering Thailand for up to 10 years

“Conditions in detention centres can be harsh.”

Thailand relaxed its visa rules in 2024, expanding the number of countries that qualified for visa-exemption, while extending the maximum length of stay to 60, in a bid to boost its tourism sector post-Covid. Tourism accounts for as much of 20% of the country’s GDP.

However, the rise in visitor numbers has caused tensions in the country. Back in May government spokesperson Rachada Dhanadirek told reporters that while tourism provided “benefits, such as boosting the economy”, the former visa scheme had allowed people to “exploit” the system. Foreigners overstaying and illegally operating businesses in tourism hotspots, without the proper permits, is a particular concern in parts of the country.

The full FCDO advice reads: “From 15 September 2026, if you enter Thailand under the visa exemption scheme, you can stay for up to 30 days for tourism. If you entered Thailand before 15 September 2026, you will usually be allowed to stay for the period granted when you arrived. If you want to stay longer, you must get the appropriate visa before you travel or, if eligible, apply for an extension through the Thai immigration authorities.

“You may be asked to show that you meet the entry requirements. This could include proof that you have enough money for your stay (at least 10,000 Thai baht per person or 20,000 Thai baht per family) and evidence of onward or return travel. British nationals have been refused entry for failing to provide this evidence.

“If you overstay your permission to stay in Thailand, you could be fined, detained, deported or banned from re-entering the country. Make sure you understand the conditions of your stay and get any visa extension you need before your permission expires.”

Alongside the entry guidance, the Foreign Office has revised its advice on Thailand’s rainy season and the dangers posed by heavy downpours.

The rainy season generally runs from May to October across most of the country, and from November to March in Koh Samui and south-east Thailand. However, the updated guidance warns that “weather patterns have become increasingly unpredictable and periods of intense rainfall can occur across Thailand.”

It continues: “Heavy rainfall can cause flash flooding, landslides and disruption to transport, particularly in northern, north-eastern and mountainous areas. Conditions can change rapidly and may result in road closures and local travel disruption. Lakes, caves and waterfalls are particularly at risk of dangerous flash flooding.”

Holidaymakers should follow instructions from local authorities and keep a close eye on weather warnings from the Thai Meteorological Department.

For all the hysterical outrage that accompanied the announcement of the UK’s measures against illegal Israeli settlements last Tuesday, the world did not end. The reality is that these steps were merely bringing Britain into line with its legal obligation to act against an unlawful occupation and narrow the gaping chasm between the reality on the ground in Palestine and the rhetoric deployed in Westminster.

The reaction of those who support the Israeli settlements — war crimes under the Rome Statute — was frenzied. Anti-Palestinian bodies bellowed outrage. The chief rabbi declared this would be a “dark day for British Jews,” as if somehow they were the target of the measures or the victims of what has been happening. His comments were dangerous as he, along with “establishment” UK Jewish groups like the Board of Deputies of British Jews, blurred the distinction between the actions of the state of Israel and British Jews. This deliberately conflates antisemitism with anti-Israel sentiment.

Others also claimed, with no evidence, that the measures would make British Jews unsafe. The deplorable increase in antisemitic attacks in the UK and elsewhere has never been motivated by British actions against Israel, not least as there has hardly ever been any such action.

In fact, a sizable segment of the British Jewish community welcomed the settlement trade ban or at least accepted it as a reasonable response to the unprecedented building of settlements and frenzy of state-backed Israeli settler violence.

The reaction of those who support the Israeli settlements — war crimes under the Rome Statute — was frenzied

Chris Doyle

The mainstream media coverage was frequently dire. Many columnists depicted British Jews as a victim of the settlement ban. Very few outlets dared suggest that the actions were designed to help Palestinians under threat of ethnic cleansing, forced dispossession and settler pogroms. Once again, the victims were erased from the story.

The other claim was that the US would retaliate against London. This was triggered in large part by the knee-jerk reactions of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who posted: “The Brits have lost it. The Jew hate of their government knows no boundaries and knows no facts.” He denies it but he probably did not know Ed Miliband, the foreign secretary, is a British Jew whose parents were refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe. But Huckabee is an extremist maverick, an ardent Zionist who believes in a “Greater Israel.”

Far from retaliating, the US State Department made clear Huckabee’s comments were not authorized. He had been freelancing again. One official said Washington was “staying out of it.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio was far more measured in his comments. He did not even condemn the British actions. President Donald Trump, who is rarely shy of airing any disagreement, has said nothing. In short, the US has taken zero steps. Trump looks increasingly disenchanted with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not Andy Burnham or Miliband. The president has yet to declare support for Netanyahu ahead of next month’s Israeli elections, as the beleaguered leader hopes.

The settlement lobbies were almost certainly shocked by the 11 countries that joined the UK in confirming they were or would be adopting similar measures. This included France and Canada, meaning three of the G7 states are acting.

Those states yet to adopt the ban have at least condemned the settlements and are not opposing London’s actions

Chris Doyle

Britain was far from isolated, quashing yet another criticism. Those states that have yet to adopt the ban have at least condemned the settlements and are not opposing London’s actions.

In contrast, it is Israel and the US that find themselves once again in a crowd of two. These two states, as they were with the foolhardy war on Iran, align themselves against international law and accountability.

The retaliatory Israeli measures will also hardly dent the British interest. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the closure of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the ejection of the British participants in the International Gaza Support Center that oversees aid flows into Gaza and the termination of the British support team that is helping to train the Palestinian Authority.

Note that all these measures hit Palestinians far more than the UK, which is of course the Israeli priority. It means fewer states overseeing aid into Gaza, less support to the PA and, by closing diplomatic premises linked to the Palestinians in Jerusalem, further severs the remaining Palestinian ties to the city.

Expect a raft of settlement announcements shortly. This will be the primary Israeli response to the actions of these dozen states.

Will these measures have an impact? Are they sufficient? Almost certainly not. And the Netanyahu coalition, in election season, will just press the accelerator on the aggression and violence. Other Israeli politicians may get the message: The patience of international actors has finally worn out, albeit decades too late.

These steps should not be belittled. The 12 states have shifted from a declaratory poise to a position of action. For once, the Israeli government is going to have to bear a cost for the occupation that has hitherto not existed.

The message is clear. If Israel behaves like a pariah state, it will start to be treated like a pariah state.

Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. Twitter: @Doylech

More from Chris Doyle

Paris: The French government submitted a reworked proposal to ban social media for children, after its previous ban was struck down by the country’s top constitutional authority, President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday.

“After rigorous technical work the government today is notifying” the European Commission of the new draft, Macron wrote on X. The notification is a key step, as it ensures that the legislation is in line with European Union laws.

LONDON: Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has voiced support for the UK’s new ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

He told The Guardian that the decision, announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, “became unavoidable as a result of a continuous effort of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by a large group of Jewish terrorists in the West Bank.”

Olmert added: “The crimes of these terrorists are actively assisted by police and military units over a long period of time.

“The highest levels of government led by Minister of Defence (Israel) Katz and Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu are actively supporting these terrorists and avoid taking the necessary measures to stop it.”

Olmert’s comments come as Israelis prepare to go to the polls late next month. “Millions of Israelis are appalled by this terror and are actively resisting the terrorists,” he said.

“Sanctions are directed against the terrorists not against Israel, and as such they are unavoidable.”

In announcing the new UK policy, Miliband referenced earlier comments by Olmert, saying: “Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, has described what is happening as, I quote, ‘a violent and criminal effort to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.’”

LONDON: The UK government is banning trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, where it says “settler terrorists” are carrying out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband says the UK will ban imports of all goods from the settlements, and some services including financing, construction, infrastructure, real estate and advertising for settlements.

In a toughening of its stance against Israel’s occupation, Miliband told lawmakers in the House of Commons that the government was acting to preserve the chance of a two-state solution.

Developing…