Remember the “hands up, don’t shoot” hoax? How about the “Russian collusion” lie? Do you recall Nicholas Sandmann from Covington Catholic and his interaction with an elderly Native American protester? These were all popular stories that left-wing news outlets reported, were advanced in numerous subsequent news stories, and helped persuade the American public that they were true.
As we all know by now, they were not true. Yet it didn’t stop left-wing media from peddling lies and misinformation that aligned with their political ideals and beliefs, all to convince the American public of something that was never true.
So is it any wonder that President Donald Trump wants to ban left-wing media from the White House? If we are being objective, the real question would be, “What took him so long?”
Trump’s decision on Friday to ban three media outlets considered to be aligned with left-wing ideologies and viewpoints sent shockwaves through the country last week. The president announced in a post to his Truth Social account last week that CNN, MS Now, and Politico were prohibited from entering the White House due to their “constant ‘reporting’ [of] fake news!”
Predictably, many were outraged by Trump’s decision, citing a violation of free speech and First Amendment rights. All three outlets filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, with lawyers asserting that it was a “disregard of the most basic guarantees of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause.”
“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” read the legal complaint.
Is Trump’s media ban warranted? Absolutely. Is it legal? Probably not.
FORMER DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE DETAILS THE RACISM, LIES, AND DANGERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The lawsuit is likely to go against Trump, and CNN, MS Now, and Politico will probably be returning to the White House press pool sooner rather than later. Yes, we have the First Amendment in this country, and we should unquestionably uphold and honor our country’s cherished liberties to a free press. This goes without saying. But I would be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy seeing them banned, even if it is likely to be only temporary. And I would be dishonest if I said I would be happy to see their return.
As mentioned above, CNN was caught fabricating stories such as Russian collusion, the Covington Catholic student who was portrayed as a racist white person because he smirked at an elderly Native American man, and perpetuating the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth from the Michael Brown shooting in 2014. Who could ever forget this image of four CNN panelists while advancing the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie? And these are just a few of the many examples over the years. We’d be better off being outraged at false media reports than demanding fake news be allowed in the White House.
And these kinds of “errors” in reporting only seem to go one way. There rarely seems to be an instance in which a false media report tends to benefit the conservative Republican viewpoint. Gosh, I wonder why.
While the Constitution does guarantee the right to a free press, that free press should uphold its powerful responsibility to perform like an actual media service, not as an unofficial extension of the Democratic National Committee. CNN, MS Now, and Politico have all regularly championed news coverage that’s arguably sympathetic to left-wing causes and agendas. With their privilege of having access to the White House, CNN, MS Now, and Politico should exhibit a great responsibility to be fair and balanced. After all, Fox News has shown that it’s relatively easy to be fair and balanced in news coverage, and that the network has dominated news ratings for decades.
I liken the current circumstances surrounding this ban to two quotes from former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia about protesters who burn the flag of the United States, in the landmark 1989 decision Texas v. Johnson. It is often affectionately referred to as Scalia’s “bearded weirdo” quote.
In 2012, while discussing the case, Scalia said, “Yes, if I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. And it is addressed, in particular, to speech critical of the government.”
He added on to that idea in 2015, in one of his last public appearances before he died, at an event at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag,” said Scalia. “But I am not king.”
If it were up to me, and obviously Trump, every agenda-driven, dishonest, deceptive media publication that failed to report on things fairly and honestly would be banned. If it were up to me, every outlet that refused to give fair, balanced, and truthful media coverage would be denied access.
However, as Scalia noted, that is not what the Constitution says. And while the Constitution does not mention media access to the White House, subsequent court decisions have ruled that restricting media outlets on the basis of viewpoint is unconstitutional.
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden wrote in a memorandum order in Associated Press v. Budowich (after the Trump administration restricted the Associated Press‘s White House access for failing to recognize the name change of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America): “Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.”
TRUMP HAS SHOWN THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING FOR YEARS ABOUT NONCITIZENS VOTING IN ELECTIONS
So, given their penchant for biased reporting, I’ve rather enjoyed this recent serving of schadenfreude at the outlets’ expense. They’ve never been fair in their coverage of the first or second Trump administrations. They regularly broadcast convoluted reports to consistently portray the Trump administration in a negative light. During the last presidential election, they arguably did everything possible to shield then-President Joe Biden and then-Vice President Kamala Harris from criticism with fair, honest, and accurate reporting.
So, yes, it is enjoyable to see them suffer a bit. But, admittedly, my enjoyment of this pettiness is likely to be short-lived. In a just world, however, it wouldn’t be.