President Donald Trump took a bold step against left-wing, liberal bias in the media this month when he prohibited the political publication Politico and cable outlets CNN and MS Now from the White House grounds. The ban, while unquestionably warranted, was predictably short-lived, as Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled against Trump’s directive and ordered the restoration of their White House credentials.
However, Trump doesn’t have to ban these outlets to accomplish his goals; he can just not call on them during press briefings. It would accomplish his overall objective of freezing out the publication and networks, and it would be legal, as there is no known constitutional law that requires the president or his administration to call on representatives from any publication or network. Instead, Trump or any member of his administration can opt to answer questions from journalists only at other media outlets.
Consider the words of Kelly, who called Trump’s decision to limit their access to the White House an act that violated “due process.”
“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” Kelly wrote in his ruling. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s order revoking the outlets’ press passes violated due process, which is the procedural standard the government must go through before revoking someone’s rights.”
Kelly’s ruling is consistent with the law and other legal precedents on similar matters. It was to be expected, and Kelly’s ruling against Trump should come as no surprise. It also echoes the same logic and standards applied in Associated Press v. Budowich, the lawsuit filed by the Associated Press in 2025 when the Trump administration sought to prohibit the outlet’s journalists from accessing the White House, after it refused to go along with renaming the Gulf of Mexico 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,” U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden wrote at the time. “The Constitution requires no less.”
The media ban was always going to face legal scrutiny and probably be reversed. I would imagine that Trump and his advisers knew that. It would be hard to imagine anyone not expecting it to eventually be overturned. However, all is not necessarily lost. While the courts ordered the outlets to return to the White House, nothing requires Trump or any representative of his administration to call on a network or answer its questions. That is perfectly legal and the strategy to apply.
Just imagine that either Trump or the successor to former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is holding a briefing on an important issue. And let’s say, hypothetically, sitting in the briefing is CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. What better way to get back at a network for failing to report news fairly and accurately, as Trump has alleged — and most people would objectively agree with given the network’s long history of one-sided and erroneous reporting — than seeing Collins raise her hand for a question, looking at her, and then opting to answer a question from a Washington Examiner reporter or other outlet that provides fair and balanced news coverage.
IT WILL FACE LEGAL HURDLES, BUT TRUMP’S MEDIA BAN IS UNQUESTIONABLY WARRANTED
Granted, some may argue that such a strategy is petty and vindictive. Some may even call it childish or say that doing so is beneath the dignity of the White House. However, while some people would take the aforementioned position, it should be recognized that being more angry over that retaliatory move, and not the biased and prejudiced news coverage such networks engage in, is the bigger matter and ultimately the much larger problem. And until they change, they should be met with the power of silence. It’s constitutional and retribution all at once.
The public has become too accepting and comfortable with permitting unfair, biased, prejudiced, and agenda-driven news coverage. Whatever one feels about Trump’s decision, he should be applauded for having the courage to fight back and bring much-needed awareness to the horrific discrepancies that exist in legacy media’s reporting and the biased news coverage of outlets. And, given that this clash is not going to end anytime soon, it’s at least comforting to know that Trump has taken significant steps to mount some semblance of a counter to the biased media’s monopoly on news coverage. No other president before him had enough courage and guts to do so.