Editors at National Review Online explain why President Donald Trump should reverse his decision to ban disfavored media outlets from the White House.
Stop us if you’ve heard this before — President Trump wants to ban media outlets that have displeased him from the White House.
He abruptly announced on Truth Social last week that he was cutting off access for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”
Over the weekend, correspondents from the news organizations were denied entry to the White House and had their credentials revoked. On Monday, CNN was supposed to provide pool coverage of the White House (which would typically get shared with the other networks) but was unable to. On Tuesday, in solidarity, Fox News Channel declined to provide pool coverage.
While we have to wait to see how the courts respond to a suit filed by the media organizations, Trump’s actions raise unresolved constitutional questions. Though there is no right to access the White House, and there are plenty of existing restrictions to operating within the secure environment, once the government agrees to grant access, to strip it away for a select few organizations explicitly because the president doesn’t like the way those organizations cover him is muddier territory.
(During Trump’s first term, the White House backed off, under legal pressure, a revocation of then-CNN journalist Jim Acosta’s credentials, and it’s still fighting in the courts to enforce a ban on the AP from last year.)
Regardless of how this is resolved in the courts, Trump’s actions are at least a violation of the spirit of a free press — specifically, the idea that news organizations should be allowed to cover people in power critically and ask adversarial questions. …
… It’s an open secret in Washington that administrations have favored or disfavored certain outlets. There are outlets that get scoops and others that never get called on in press briefings. But a targeted ban on hostile journalists is something different.
