The White House has a list of stories it says are biased, even dangerous, enough to warrant banishment of those outlets from the credentialed press there. How false were they? Read for yourself.
Three media titans appeared in court Wednesday to convince a federal judge their press credentials and access to the White House should be restored. The Justice Department has named specific articles CNN, MS Now and Politico have published in the past year for the revocations.
The judge presiding over the case didn’t rule on the day, despite outlets urging him to rule quickly, but said he would act soon.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
Lawyers with the Justice Department argued in court papers that CNN, MS Now and Politico each have published articles that threaten national security or “spread falsehoods,” according to letters sent to each organization. Michael Velchik, senior counsel for the civil rights division, argued that President Donald Trump has the executive duty to revoke credentials for places and journalists that interfere with government operations.
Velchik’s reasoning clashes with Trump’s own, where he claimed on Truth Social it was due to their “constant ‘reporting’ fake news.”
“After all, access to the White House is a privilege—not a right,” Velchik wrote.
The three news organizations haven’t responded to Velchik’s claims outside of the Washington, D.C. courtroom.
A coalition of 51 news organizations and affinity groups filed a Friend-of-the-Court brief Wednesday supporting the trio’s request for a temporary restraining order. Among the group is ABC News, CBS News, NBC Universal, Fox News, The Guardian, McClatchy Media Group, The Associated Press, Minnesota Public Radio and Reuters.
“The administration’s rationalization for its conduct provides all the evidence needed to demonstrate that its expulsion of journalists is illegal and unconstitutional under controlling precedent,” they wrote.
Media law and press freedom advocates have said the Justice Department is misinterpreting the law.
“The Pentagon Papers case rejected a prior restraint aimed at specific documents claimed to pose national security risks,” the Freedom of the Press Foundation wrote on X Wednesday. “Anyone who argues ’national security’ are magic words justifying banning news outlets should be laughed out of court and sanctioned.”
Access is disputed, but media lawyers have urged journalists to always exercise caution when publishing classified material, since they can be prosecuted for disseminating such documents, according to the First Amendment Institute at Middle Tennessee State University.
Two of the most famous cases with First Amendment exemptions involve Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency administrator with top-level security clearance.
Assange pleaded guilty in 2024 to publishing military secrets, which federal prosecutors initially said violated the Espionage Act, according to The Associated Press. Snowden was accused of leaking classified information to The Guardian and The Washington Post in 2013 and charged under the Espionage Act as well. He lives in exile in Russia.
“News outlets publish classified or ‘sensitive’ information every day,” the free press organization said on X. “If that’s the standard, Trump could ban any reporter at any time. Journalists must refuse to be intimidated. Publish even more about every news story this White House wants buried.”
Investigations into a journalist, Iran War
Velchik listed 11 articles he argued validated Trump’s right to revoke CNN, MS Now and Politico’s access to the White House. The majority of the stories focused on the Pentagon and where the Department of Defense stood in the Iran War.
He listed one published on Aug. 6 by MS Now, where the television network reported concerns military officials expressed to other media about the nation’s weapons stockpile. The network followed up, stating that the Iran War further depleted supply.
MS Now didn’t indicate in the story that it received information directly from sources with top-level security clearances, nor did it grant anonymity requests because the information was confidential. Instead, the story relied on combining articles across the media landscape on the Trump administration’s military supply.
In Politico’s case, Velchik pointed to a story the publication exclusively ran in April 2025 where five anonymous sources said that the White House debated easing sanctions on Russia. Politico granted the sources anonymity and reached out to the White House, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff for comment on the story, which all three provided.
For CNN, Velchik’s claim is more targeted at the publication’s access to sources that have provided “top-secret” and military information. The first centered on an exclusive about Trump’s plans to restore the White House bunker under the East Wing, which CNN attributed the “top secret” phrase to White House Historical Association historian Bill Seale.
“Publication of sensitive security information, and misinformation about national security information, diverts White House resources and those of the national security team in particular, which must evaluate whether the leaked information is classified, the source of any leak, and the security implications of any such disclosure,” Velchik wrote in court papers. ”The spread of misinformation, especially relating to national security, is a threat that undermines the President’s ability to safeguard the national security.”
Round out your reading
- He built his own Flock-style camera to track police. The police didn’t like it.
- Trump’s apparent joke about letting Iran bomb LA and San Diego catches bipartisan condemnation.
- Grandparents are fighting for access to their grandchildren. Here’s what the law says.
- When the ‘victim’ is made with AI, child pornography cases get complicated.
- Fibermaxxing is trending. Here’s what the science says.
