White

Even Fox News, one of President Trump’s preferred media outlets, isn’t exempt from his go-to term for any woman he dislikes.

“She can be so nasty,” was how Trump recently described the conservative-leaning network’s senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich.

Never one to hold back, the president has also had harsh words for her spouse, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican congressman. “Her husband votes against me all the time,” Trump once said. “Can you imagine?”

The double-barreled attacks don’t bother Heinrich, who as president of the White House Correspondents Assn. is leading the fight against Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. When Trump delivered his insult at the WHCA’s dinner in July, Heinrich just shrugged and smiled.

“You don’t get into journalism to be well liked by the subject that you’re covering,” Heinrich said in a recent phone interview. “As long as I’m doing my job, which is to get the story and tell it fairly and fully, the rest of it is not really my business to care about. It’s probably not the last time I’ll upset him. The president still takes my calls.”

Heinrich’s durability is being put to the test as she delivers the public and private messaging on the latest battle with the White House over press freedom. Trump banned the three outlets from the White House grounds due to what he believes is their constant negative coverage.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to block the move, calling it viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the outlets’ 1st Amendment rights. But the administration continues to prevent CNN from serving in
the press pool that follows the president at all times. More court hearings are ahead.

Over the last 10 days, Heinrich has issued public statements condemning the ban, monitored the legal proceedings and held back channel conversations with the White House in an effort to get Trump’s decision reversed. It’s a second job on top of covering the president and co-hosting a weekend program “The Sunday Briefing.”

Executives and journalists say privately that it’s helpful to have someone from a Trump-friendly outlet lead the organization to restore the press credentials of outlets the president views as hostile. The WHCA exists to maintain and facilitate access to the White House for its 900 members across 250 news organizations.

But for Heinrich, it’s logical that 1st Amendment arguments transcend any political leanings of any media outlet. If Trump’s ban stands, conservative news organizations could find themselves facing similar restrictions the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office.

“When you empower the president to select who is allowed to ask them questions, it shrinks the room,” Heinrich said. “It shrinks the perspective and it hands over that same authority to the next administration, who will surround themselves with only voices that approve of or are supportive or friendly toward what they’re doing.”

Eugene Daniels, a co-host at the progressive-leaning MS NOW and a former White House Correspondents Assn. president, said the organization’s members from Fox News and the further right-leaning Newsmax were always supportive of 1st Amendment and press access issues during his tenure.

“A lot of our news organizations understand intrinsically that at some point the shoe could be on the other foot,” Daniels said. “The solidarity matters.”

Daniels has also known Heinrich since the two worked together years ago at a TV station in Colorado Springs, Colo., and believes she is well-equipped to push the WHCA’s cause.

“She’s clear eyed about the role of White House correspondents in covering any president,” he said. “She is very tough and always has been since we’ve met. She stands 10 toes down when it comes to what’s right.”

Heinrich’s respect for journalistic principles has even extended to her personal life. When Fitzpatrick first asked her out on a date five years ago, he had to wait several weeks for an answer. Heinrich checked with her Fox News bosses to see if dating an elected official was a conflict even though she was no longer assigned to covering congress.

“He was very patient,” Heinrich said. The couple was married at New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral in June.

Heinrich is among the correspondents at Fox News — which this week will mark 30 years on the air — whose reporting doesn’t adhere to the leanings of its opinion hosts and commentators.

In 2020, Heinrich reported on Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in the election he lost to Joe Biden, while commentators, hosts and guests on the network continued to raise doubts about the results. Her reporting angered hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, who were concerned that her work was alienating viewers loyal to the president.

Carlson called on Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to fire Heinrich in a text that came to light three years later when Dominion Voting System filed its defamation suit against the network. Dominion claimed Fox News deliberately aired false statements about the company’s role in the 2020 election, settling the suit for $787 million.

But Heinrich said she was unaware of the conversations before they were revealed in a legal brief in February 2023. (Carlson was fired from Fox News two months later.) She has been promoted twice since 2020.

“My bosses never interfered with my reporting,” she said.

Heinrich, 37, studied international affairs at George Washington University and wanted to pursue a career in the State Department before internships at MSNBC and WRC-TV in Washington led her to journalism. After working at several local TV stations she became a Fox News correspondent in New York in 2018. She covered Congress and the 2020 presidential campaign before moving to the White House beat in 2021.

Heinrich was raised in New England in what she describes as a politically diverse family. Her parents divorced when she was young, and she split her time between a conservative father in New Hampshire, a politically moderate mother in Maine and a Bernie Sanders-supporting stepfather from Vermont. She believes her upbringing was excellent training for her profession.

“It was ‘Live Free or Die’ and socialism all under two roofs but one family,” she said. “We have developed a really keen ability to listen. I think that’s one of the most important parts of journalism, is hearing and understanding someone’s perspective enough that you can describe it to someone else in a way that is fair and complete.”

Once Heinrich gets past the current conflict with the White House, she’ll have to plan the association’s annual dinner. (The event was cut short and rescheduled this year after a gunman attempted to enter the ballroom at the Washington Hilton.)

Heinrich said even with the president’s open hostility toward the press, he will be welcomed to the event in 2027.

“We have invited the president every single year for the last 115 years and that’s not going to change just because of President Trump,” Heinrich said. “We uphold laws, norms, and traditions around here and we intend to keep it that way.”

A Black police officer asked whether a monkey was named “Tyrone,” to the laughter of a roomful of Latino and Asian colleagues.

A Latina cop described how to inflict maximum pain: “You hit Black people in the liver — I heard they got weak livers,” she said, according to an LAPD internal affairs report.

The report said their boss, an Asian sergeant, stood by as his employees used terms like “midnight” and “chocolate, chocolate” to describe people’s skin tones.

Those were among the comments that came to light last year after an LAPD whistleblower secretly recorded his colleagues in a unit that screens police recruits.

The scandal, which has seen new developments in recent weeks, is forcing department officials to reckon with a harsh reality: Years of efforts to make the LAPD more diverse have seemingly done little to stamp out prejudice in the ranks.

For much of its history, the LAPD was a white man’s department. Aggressive tactics in communities of color fueled racial uprisings in the 1960s and early 1990s, when the beating of motorist Rodney King led to the discovery of messages similar to those in the recruitment unit tapes, with officers referring to Black men as “Buckwheat” and bragging about “busting heads.”

Under pressure from lawsuits and consent decrees, police leaders pushed to recruit more Black, Latino and Asian officers, seeking to build up trust in minority communities.

1

2

1. Los Angeles Police Department graduates a total of 22 recruits at the Los Angeles Police Academy in Elysian Park on Friday, September 18, 2026. 2. (Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Latinos now make up more than half of the 8,500-officer department. Black officers constitute less than 9% of the force, coinciding with a decline in the city’s Black population.

The officer who made the recruitment unit recordings, Daniel Flores, is Latino.

He recorded dozens of conversations over a six-month span in 2024, eventually handing them over to the department’s inspector general for investigation.

Last week, Flores filed a new lawsuit against the city, adding to a previous claim that alleged he faced retaliation from his bosses for documenting the offensive comments he heard while on the job.

According to his latest claim, department officials recommended that he be suspended for 22 days without pay. After initially seeking to keep his job with the LAPD, the 13-year department veteran said in the lawsuit that he recently decided to retire rather than endure an increasingly hostile work environment.

Flores also alleged LAPD officials were responsible for pushing a criminal case against him for violating a state eavesdropping law that prohibits recording conversations without consent. Initially alleging 16 felonies, Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman has since reduced the charges to misdemeanors, likely allowing Flores to avoid jail time.

An LAPD spokesperson declined to answer questions about Flores’ case.

“The Department takes these allegations seriously,” Lt. Elpidio Orozco said in a statement. “Because the case and related personnel proceedings remain ongoing, we cannot discuss individual disciplinary actions or make comparisons to unrelated past incidents.”

The department’s defenders maintain that progress has been made toward rooting out bigotry.

Officers are required to undergo psychological screening and training aimed at teasing out unconscious biases. New recruits and seasoned officers alike take field trips to the Museum of Tolerance, where trainers extol the virtues of multiculturalism. The department has sent recruiters to historically Black colleges in the South and the East Coast.

But others, including civil rights attorney Connie Rice, say the latest scandal proves that the LAPD’s problems run deeper than the hateful actions of a few individuals.

The beating of Rodney King in 1991 forced a reckoning for the LAPD.

(George Holliday / Associated Press)

“Racism is like the herpes virus in the body of the LAPD: You can suppress it with a good chief, but as soon as they leave, it breaks out again,” Rice said.

A 2024 study by British researchers examined racial attitudes among members of the department’s vaunted Metropolitan Division.

The researchers found that LAPD officers were “shockingly defensive” when asked about systemic racism, taking a negative view of diversity hiring programs and insisting that left-leaning activists, elected officials and media outlets were stoking public outrage over racial profiling.

“The dismissive reactions … to a question on such an important issue highlight an unhealthy antagonism which prevents any organization from learning or developing its practice,” the researchers concluded. “It is a fundamental barrier that must be overcome.”

While hiring more officers from historically marginalized groups has long been pushed as a way to improve police practices and build trust in minority neighborhoods, studies have not necessarily borne that out, said Daniel Gascon, a sociology and criminology professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

“Just because there’s more numbers of a given sort in a department doesn’t mean it’s going to change automatically,” said Gascon, who has studied the LAPD’s relationship with Latino communities.

Since the start of the year, a review of recruit graduation announcements shows the department has hired just seven new Black officers. By contrast, roughly 80% of the 241 officers to graduate from the police academy over the last nine months have been Latino.

The growing Latino presence in the LAPD has been reflected in police use-of-force numbers.

A Times analysis of police shootings since 2016 found that of the roughly 150 people who have been shot dead by the LAPD across the city, at least 94 were Latino men. In 3 out of every 4 of those shootings, at least one of the officers who fired was also Latino, the analysis showed.

LAPD Officer Daniel Flores, left, listens as his attorney Alan Jackson speaks to reporters at the Superior Court building.

(Libor Jany / Los Angeles Times)

Despite the increased diversity, interviews with current and former LAPD members indicate deep divisions are reflected in the way that Black and Latino officers see the department’s racial issues. Most agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation.

Several Black officers told The Times they still experience workplace hostility and racial dog whistles, such as fretting about the lowering of police recruit standards. The comments, they said, came from Black and Latino colleagues alike.

Too often, the Black officers said, Latinos who wear the uniform see themselves only as victims of discrimination, and not perpetrators.

Some Black officers said they avoid conversations about race entirely for fear of upsetting conservative colleagues — who feel emboldened by the divisive rhetoric coming from the White House.

The Latino officers who spoke to The Times said the department has for too long prioritized the promotion of Black members of the force to leadership roles while the representation of Latinos in the highest ranks has slipped.

Others argue that because society tends to lump Latinos of different backgrounds together, workplace discrimination against and within the community is often missed.

Officers from both groups said their race has been used against them when it comes to promotions. But both sides also say racism is a problem in society writ large, and not limited to the LAPD.

In a recent interview with The Times, Mayor Karen Bass said that although she is pleased that the department has increased the number of Latino officers to reflect the city’s demographics, its percentage of Black officers continues to dwindle as older African Americans are on the brink of retirement with very few young Black officers coming onto the job.

Bass, who was a young community organizer in South L.A. when the King beating happened, said it was foolhardy to believe that merely because the LAPD is more diverse, old problems cannot be repeated.

“Just because this happened 30 years ago and there are new policies that were put in place, that’s not enough,” she said in an interview with The Times. “You’ve gotta make sure that those policies are constantly updated.”

Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

The Chicago White Sox used a big first inning and a three-run homer from Chase Meidroth to propel them to a 7-3 win over the Houston Astros on Wednesday to sweep their AL Wild Card Series.

It’s the first time Chicago has won a playoff series since beating Houston in the World Series in 2005. Under the direction of second-year skipper Will Venable and with a letter of support from Pope Leo XIV, the White Sox advanced to face AL Central champion Cleveland in the AL Division Series beginning Saturday in Cleveland.

The White Sox, who lost 100 games in each of the last three seasons, are the only team in major league history to follow consecutive 100-loss seasons with a playoff berth.

The AL West-winning Astros went 81-81 to become the first team to reach the postseason without a winning record. Their recent playoff woes in Houston continued Wednesday as they dropped their ninth straight home playoff game in a ninth trip to the postseason in the last 10 years.

Chicago pounced on the Astros for four runs in the first inning a day after scoring three in the first two innings of a 6-3 win. Houston ace Hunter Brown was lifted after getting just two outs and wasn’t helped by a sloppy defense which committed two first-inning errors.

It seems like a simple equation: $338 million produces 100.

That’s the Dodgers’ season-ending payroll and victory total. But to assume a franchise can merely buy a playoff berth is a stretch.

The New York Mets sit at home — or more likely at lavish vacation destinations, given their perch at the top of baseball’s payrolls at $345.8 million. They finished last in the National League East with a 74-88 record.

The Cleveland Guardians also sit at home, but are quite pleased about it. They earned a first-round bye and berth in the American League Division Series this weekend despite a payroll of only $74.2 million — baseball’s lowest and barely one-fifth that of the Mets.

Twelve of the 30 MLB teams qualified for the postseason, with four best-of-three Wild Card Series beginning Tuesday. Eight of the dozen have payrolls in the top 10, with the defending AL-champion Toronto Blue Jays joining the Mets as supreme underachievers given their No. 5-ranked payroll of $275.4 million.

Yet three playoff teams — the Tampa Bay Rays ($98.3 million) and Chicago White Sox ($98 million), in addition to the Guardians — rank among the six lowest payrolls, according to present-day salary calculations from the MLB Labor Relations Department, or LRD, obtained by USA Today.

The combined LRD payrolls of those three overachievers don’t come close to the Mets or Dodgers, highlighting the enormous disparity between the haves and have-nots that team owners point to while demanding a salary cap during ongoing collective bargaining negotiations.

Oddly, only one playoff qualifier is among the 14 mid-range payrolls of roughly $100 million to $200 million — the Milwaukee Brewers, who achieved baseball’s best record at 103-59 while paying its roster $143.5 million. The Angels are also among that group, ranking No. 15 at $179.8, not enough to keep them from losing 100 games for the first time in franchise history.

The LRD payroll tracks a team’s real-time salary commitments for the current season, accounting for the 26-man MLB roster’s base salaries plus a prorated portion of signing bonuses. LRD differs from luxury tax payrolls, which are based on the average annual value of every player contract on the 40-man roster.

Luxury tax payrolls determine whether a team exceeds the league’s luxury tax threshold and owes financial penalties. MLB is using luxury tax payrolls in the CBA negotiations over a hard salary cap and floor, proposing a $245.3-million ceiling and $171.2-million floor for 2027.

Luxury tax penalties from clubs that exceed the thresholds funnel back to low-revenue clubs through revenue sharing. A record $402,637,907 was paid in luxury tax penalties last season, with the Dodgers paying the most at a record $169.4 million. This year, the Dodgers’ luxury tax is projected at $180 million — higher than the LRD payroll of 16 teams.

The Dodgers also have the highest luxury tax payroll at $430 million, dwarfing the Mets’ $363-million number. Reasons? The Dodgers pay more in penalties because they have exceeded the luxury tax six years in a row, they have more players with massive average annual values and they took on additional penalties by acquiring starter Tarik Skubal at the trade deadline.

MLB 2026 payrolls (playoff teams in bold)

1. New York Mets: $346.8 million

2. Dodgers: $338.0 million

3. New York Yankees: $304.6 million

4. Philadelphia Phillies: $291.7 million

5. Toronto Blue Jays: $275.4 million

6. Atlanta Braves: $263.9 million

7. Houston Astros: $249.5 million

8. Chicago Cubs: $248.8 million

9. San Diego Padres: $223.9 million

10. Boston Red Sox: $210.2 million

11. Detroit Tigers: $202.1 million

12. San Francisco Giants: $197.6 million

13. Arizona Diamondbacks: $192.8 million

14. Texas Rangers: $192.5 million

15. Angels: $179.8 million

16. Seattle Mariners: $170.5 million

17. Baltimore Orioles: $169.2 million

18. Kansas City Royals: $149.8 million

19. Milwaukee Brewers: $143.5 million

20. Cincinnati Reds: $128.3 million

21. Colorado Rockies: $117.0 million

22. Minnesota Twins: $109.5 million

23. Pittsburgh Pirates: $107.6 million

24. Athletics: $98.7 million

25. Tampa Bay Rays: $98.3 million

26. Chicago White Sox: $98.0 million

27. St. Louis Cardinals: $94.7 million

28. Washington Nationals: $90.3 million

29. Miami Marlins: $83.0 million

30. Cleveland Guardians: $74.2 million

Private dinner will be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, according to reports.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is set to dine one-on-one with US President Donald Trump at the White House.

The meeting on Sunday evening, confirmed by Trump, comes after months of open conflict between the artificial intelligence startup and the Trump administration.

The private dinner would be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, according to US media, including Axios, which first reported the dinner.

Trump confirmed the dinner on Sunday evening and reaffirmed his stance against slowing the pace of AI development.

Trump also reiterated his belief that new regulations would open the door for China to outpace the United States in AI advancement.

Although he acknowledged Amodei’s concern that going too fast on artificial intelligence could expand risks, Trump said it was more important for the US to maintain a technological edge over China.

“We’re about maybe a year and a half up on China,” Trump told Fox News while attending the Presidents Cup golf tournament in Illinois.

“We’re leading, and we’re building tremendous, trillions of dollars’ worth of places. And why should we give that up?”

The meeting comes two days after a federal appeals court upheld the Pentagon’s decision to classify Anthropic as a “supply chain risk”, which prohibits the US military from using its models.

The startup was sanctioned by the Trump administration after refusing in February to allow its tools to be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

Trump also badmouthed Amodei, saying he was trying to be “a perfect little angel” after the Anthropic chief called for a pause in AI development.

Amodei was absent from the state dinner held for Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, attended by AI industry leaders, including Amodei’s rival Sam Altman of OpenAI.

Despite mounting calls to slow down AI development due to the risk of losing control of the technology, the US government believes that the sector’s major players – OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta – cannot afford to slow down for fear that China will gain the upper hand.

Trump and Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, are set to meet with leading AI executives on Tuesday.

Netflix and Saudi powerbroker Turki Alalshikh’s fight announcement was striking for who it included – and who it did not. The event was presented as a collaboration involving Alalshikh’s The Ring and White.

There was no mention of Matchroom’s Eddie Hearn, who has promoted Joshua throughout his professional career, or Queensberry’s Frank Warren, Fury’s long-time promoter.

White’s involvement was not entirely unexpected.

The Zuffa Boxing promoter has been saying for weeks he would be involved in Fury-Joshua.

Hearn has been equally adamant he would not. After Thursday’s announcement, Hearn said Joshua’s contract specifically prevented White and American sports entertainment company TKO from having a promotional role, claiming Netflix had not been made aware of that provision.

Hearn said there had been breaches of the agreement which needed to be resolved and cast doubt on whether Wednesday’s news conference would go ahead.

Fury says a similar restriction originally appeared in his own contract but was removed because he wanted White involved.

Warren has taken a more pragmatic position. Speaking to BBC Sport before the latest dispute escalated, he said his understanding was White had helped secure the Netflix deal and compromises had been necessary to get the fight made.

On Saturday, White was generally non-committal on the future of the contest but much clearer in his criticism of Hearn. “The guy who is supposed to be helping the fight has been hurting the fight,” White said. “He hasn’t done the fight any favours.”

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.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge early Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s move to ban three news outlets from the White House grounds and said CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored.

It’s the latest development in an escalating showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. The president announced he was banning the outlets Sept. 18, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently, Trump has said negative coverage is dangerous for the country.

The outlets argued that they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination — and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the 1st Amendment.

In an order posted shortly after midnight Eastern time, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the media outlets had met the legal thresholds needed to obtain a temporary restraining order, which include the likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the case and of suffering irreparable harm without an order.

“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” he wrote.

Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments Wednesday and ended the hearing without ruling.

On Thursday, he issued the temporary restraining order, which will be in effect for 14 days. Such orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.

During the hearing, Kelly questioned whether the administration had met its legal responsibilities and provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with adequate due process before banning them.

The rulings in two prior cases over press access, including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, made it clear that journalists are entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.

The judge noted that his decision would be guided by prior rulings in comparable 1st Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them.

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.

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.”

Sept. 19, 2026 Updated 8:37 AM PT

NEW YORK — Journalists from three major news organizations — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — were denied access to the White House on Saturday morning, with reporters from the two cable networks both going live to report they’d been barred following a ban imposed by President Trump.

The actions escalated Trump’s long-running efforts to restrict news coverage by journalists he finds objectionable, and is the latest test of 1st Amendment protections in the United States. Trump said Friday he would ban all three organizations because of their coverage — which he called “fake news.”

Politico said its White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was denied entry to the White House and had her badge confiscated Saturday. The announcement came shortly after the turning away of MS NOW and CNN journalists.

Editor in chief Jonathan Greenberger said in a statement to the Politico newsroom: “We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. … We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”

CNN and MS NOW have issued similar statements.

“We will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account,” CNN said. The statement was shown on the air before senior White House reporter Betsy Klein began to report on her ban.

Journalists from three major news organizations — MS NOW, CNN and Politico — were denied access to the White House on Saturday morning.

(Graeme Sloan / Getty Images)

MS NOW said in a statement that it stands behind its journalists. “The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” the network said in a statement Saturday. “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.”

In his second term, Trump and his administration have upped the ante and punished certain media outlets, both in the courtroom and through regulatory action. Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms.

Turned away, badges confiscated

Both CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner went on the air to report they’d been banned from entering the White House.

Network correspondents are usually present on the weekends when the president is in Washington or at nearby Camp David. Trump is at the presidential retreat in Maryland this weekend.

Gardner was turned away and her entry badge confiscated, she said. She noted she had walked through two gates successfully, but once she got to where her badge needed to be scanned, an officer told her it was disabled and asked her to hand it over. He said the decision “was above him,” she reported. An MS NOW producer was able to get in, but a photographer’s badge was also disabled, Gardner said.

CNN Senior White House Reporter Betsy Klein, left, walks to the White House, Saturday.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Klein, senior White House reporter at CNN, also said her badge had been deactivated.

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.”

Continued attacks on press freedom

The president wrote on his social media site Friday that effective immediately, “I am banning” CNN, MS NOW and Politico “from the White House as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” Minutes later, speaking at an event in the Oval Office, Trump was asked to explain his statement.

“Because they’re fake news,” he said. “You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. When you look at CNN, it’s just fake. That’s why their ratings are no good. When you look at MS NOW … , it’s fake news.”

President Donald Trump arrives at the Ellipse before departing the White House on Friday. Trump hosting a MAGA fundraiser at his private club in Sterling, Virginia, before spending the weekend at Camp David.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

“And when you look at Politico … the stories they wrote are fake. So there’s a lot of news and there may be others to join them, and maybe they can get better,” he said. “But our country has to have honest news.”

The move follows the president’s decision last year to bar Associated Press reporters from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events in retaliation for the news outlet’s decision not to follow his lead in changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, which lies partially in Mexican and other waters. The AP said that it would note when appropriate that Trump had ordered it renamed the “Gulf of America.”

The AP filed suit and the case is ongoing. Since returning to office, Trump has pursued other legal action against a variety of outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. His administration is also involved in a long-simmering confrontation involving ABC over renewal of its broadcast licenses.

Noveck writes for the Associated Press.

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.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and administration officials have repeatedly clashed with members of the White House press corps. In his second term, Trump has also moved to bring conservative bloggers, influencers and other media into the press room, arguing it is necessary to provide diverse perspectives to the American public.

In February, the White House announced it was taking control of the press pool which has access to Trump and had for more than a century been managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The same month, the administration moved to bar Associated Press (AP) reporters and photographers from spaces where access is limited, such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, because of the outlet’s usage of the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of “Gulf of America”.

AP swiftly filed a lawsuit and the case remains ongoing.

The president has frequently clashed with reporters in the Oval Office on Air Force One and during White House events, often referring to them as “fake news” and “rude”.

In his first term, Trump also banned CNN correspondent Jim Acosta from the White House, although his credentials were restored after CNN sued.

CNN is one of only five US news outlets that film video for the pool. The pool refers to an outlet or reporter sharing material from a presidential event with other media outlets. The BBC contributes to the White House radio pool.

The announcement was immediately criticised by leading advocacy organisations for freedom of the press.

In a statement on Friday afternoon, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said that “with so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now”.

“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,” said the institute’s executive director, Jameel Jaffer.

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 the group’s president Bruce Brown, calling the potential ban “textbook viewpoint discrimination”.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation also said it was illegal, adding: “It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move”.

Trump “has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him,” it said, saying “these outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public”.

Trump has pursued legal action against a number of US and international news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times 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.