outlets

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.”

SACRAMENTO — President Trump and the Republican Congress have unintentionally provided California state government with the financial means to subsidize — help save — endangered local news reporting.

Now it’s up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to capitalize on the unanticipated gift.

He can sign or veto legislation to end state tax breaks for large corporations paying top executives $1 million-plus salaries and, instead, provide tax breaks for struggling California news outlets employing local reporters.

The state legislation would conform California law to a little-known provision of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that eliminated corporate deductions for execs’ compensation exceeding $1 million.

California newsrooms — print, broadcast, digital — would receive an estimated $43 million in tax credits for employees’ wages. There’d still be a net $15 million left over for a small state revenue boost.

I’ll admit to feeling a bit squeamish about this.

First, it’s a conflict of interest, arguing that a governor — whom my colleagues and I write about often — should shovel public dollars into our profession.

Second, why should state government and taxpayers be asked to subsidize a private enterprise that’s flailing in the marketplace? Especially one that prides itself in being an impartial watchdog over government actions and politicians’ behavior. The dog shouldn’t be begging for food from the critters it watches.

Well, one answer is that state government provides tax breaks for lots of interests, including Hollywood movie studios. We’re allotting $750 million annually in tax credits for films produced in California.

And there’s a bill on the governor’s desk to offer $100 million annually in tax credits for post-production work, such as editing, sound mixing and visual effects.

That’s all fine. What would California have become without a healthy Hollywood? I don’t want to imagine.

Newsom also recently provided $3,500 rebates to first-time electric vehicle buyers, benefiting Tesla and other EV makers. It was “investing in our future,” the governor explained.

OK, but subsidizing local news reporting is investing in democracy. Robust coverage of city halls, school boards, Sacramento politicians and the like is essential for self-government.

And that journalism is in free fall all across America as exploding technology and social media opportunism have altered news consumption, mostly bypassing local communities and often spewing misinformation.

So this legislation, AB 2222 by Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), reaches far beyond just helping the troubled news industry. It’s about more than providing media outlets with financial incentives to retain and hire local reporters. It’s bolstering democracy.

Independent journalism is a pillar of democracy, providing citizens with reliable, fact-based information about how their elected representatives are performing their duties, fulfilling their campaign promises and cozying up to special interests.

You’re not going to glean that information from the politicians. You’re going to get mostly self-serving spin — government propaganda — whether it emanates from the White House, the state Capitol or the local mosquito abatement district.

That’s why the nation’s Founders protected press freedom in the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Of course, that was early in Jefferson’s political career, before he became vice president and later president. He ultimately turned into a harsh press critic. For example: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson, like countless politicians ever since, apparently carried a huge chip on his shoulder because of reporting on his job performance that ticked him off.

Newsom is a master at attracting friendly national news coverage, especially on cable TV. But he naturally shudders at more critical coverage by Sacramento beat reporters.

As of this writing, the governor hadn’t publicly disclosed how he feels about the local reporter tax credit bill.

His finance department, which crafts the state budget, opposed the measure when legislators were considering it. The state would “not [be] receiving any incremental economic benefit to justify the expenditure,” its analysis read.

Again, even if that were true, citizens and democracy would benefit.

Also, the analysis contended, the tax credit would likely “provide windfall benefits” for news media owners “rather than encourage new hiring activity.”

That’s not quite accurate. Anyway, it could discourage layoffs and save reporters’ jobs.

Late last week, the McClatchy newspaper chain — owner of the Sacramento Bee and several medium-sized California papers, plus dozens across America — announced massive newsroom layoffs.

Since 2002, more than 12,000 local journalism jobs have been lost in California, according to the bill’s sponsor, the advocacy group Rebuild Local News. More than 3,500 newspapers have closed nationwide.

Many communities have become “news deserts.”

When that happens, fewer citizens turn out to vote, tax money gets spent more carelessly and political corruption increases.

Under the legislation, California media outlets — big and small — would be granted modest tax credits for each employee covering state and local news. There’d be $20,000 for up to five full-time positions and $15,000 for each of the rest. On top of that, there’d be an additional $15,000 for every new full-time job that’s created. Part-timers would be entitled to $7,500.

“National news outlets would be excluded. So would partisan ‘pink slime’ sites controlled by political action committees,” says Matt Pearce, policy director for Rebuild Local News, a former Los Angeles Times reporter and newspaper guild leader.

It would be the most ambitious program of its kind in the country. New York, Illinois and New Mexico currently offer local news subsidies.

“It’s about civic infrastructure and the foundation of democracy. We’re teetering toward autocracy,” says former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), an ex-mayor who has long pushed for stronger local news coverage.

This bill won’t save local newsrooms. But it may give them breathing room while the big thinkers try to concoct a more profitable business model for democracy’s watchdog.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Architect of billionaire tax tried to ‘extort’ support for the measure and targeted women, union reports find
Money (That’s what I want): Becerra backers with business in Sacramento spend tens of millions boosting his gubernatorial bid
The L.A. Times Special: Will ‘Coxon Day’ save us from AI destruction?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.