Does the First Amendment Block Trump from Banning Media He Doesn’t Like? It’s Complicated.

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

President Donald Trump’s announcement Friday that he was “banning” CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House was swiftly condemned as an assault on the First Amendment by numerous journalists and commentators, but what does the law actually say on the issue?

The answer is complicated, more so than it should be.

On Friday, Trump wrote a Truth Social post saying he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, citing his usual claims of “Fake News” and threatening that other outlets would soon be banned too:

I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

At the time the post was published, CNN had reporters at the White House working and there were not immediately any noticeable signs anyone was seeking to remove them.

CNN Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes reported live from the White House lawn, noting that CNN was not among the rotating reporters in the pool today and it was still “really unclear” what the president meant this ban would entail or what had triggered it.

A CNN spokesperson released a statement to Mediaite that the network “stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting” and has “a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government.”

“Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right,” the statement concluded.

Numerous journalists, commentators, and free-speech advocacy groups denounced Trump’s efforts to ban these media outlets as unconstitutional.

Aaron Terr, the Director of Public Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), provided the following statement to Mediaite:

When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary. Press credentials aren’t a reward for loyalty to the government. A free, even adversarial, press is a sign of our country’s strength. The public deserves to hear about its government from independent voices, not just its leader’s loyalists and allies.

The White House Correspondents’ Association posted a statement from its president, Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, noting that Trump himself “said it plainly in the Oval Office, describing his own planned action as a ‘ban on the free press.'”

“The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference,” Heinrich added. “That protection does not depend on whether the president likes a news organization’s coverage, agrees with its reporting, or approves of the questions its journalists ask.”

During Friday’s Oval Office event, Trump also said that he wanted to ban these media outlets because “they purposely write negative news, and they do that because they want to try and diminish Republicans, and a Republican administration.”

A similar issue arose when Trump sought to ban the Associated Press after it refused to go along with his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” AP reporters were banned from the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other official White House events.

In February, the AP filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against three Trump administration officials, objecting to the White House ordering the wire service to use specific words in its reporting and stating that it had filed suit “to vindicate its rights to the editorial independence guaranteed by the United States Constitution and to prevent the executive branch from coercing journalists to report the news using only government-approved language.”

The district court granted the injunction the AP sought, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia entered a partial stay, in a 2-1 decision that the White House could restrict entry into some areas like the Oval Office and Air Force One because they were not public and required an express invitation. The lower court’s injunction was left in place for larger venues like the East Room that accommodate the public and larger press corps groups. The AP appealed to the full appellate court, but it too allowed the restrictions to remain in place.

It’s important to note that these injunctions and stays were all preliminary legal processes during the course of the litigation and not a final judgment. The court rulings essentially hit a “pause” button while the lawsuit continues. The appellate court heard oral arguments from both sides in November 2025  regarding the injunction and the underlying litigation remains pending in the district court.

Trump, unsurprisingly, is treating this court-ordered status quo as if it’s a permission slip carved into granite. He’s also been emboldened by past legal brawls that have ended with lucrative settlements or his media foes bending the knee. Examples would include ABC News groveling and forking over $15 million for comments George Stephanopoulos made on air about E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuits against Trump, and Paramount paying $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against 60 Minutes over complaints Trump had about how the program had edited an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

In both those cases and many other complaints and threats the president has lobbed at media outlets, legal experts said there were strong First Amendment defenses. But Paramount had a lucrative merger with Skydance on the line (and a critically important stamp of approval from Trump’s FCC to win), and the lawyers and bean counters in the executive offices likely calculated it was cheaper to pay a chunk of cash now rather than spend years dealing with both the court battles and Trump’s penchant for targeted harassment of his opponents.

Still, examples exist of journalists successfully defending their First Amendment rights. During Trump’s first term, he ordered then-CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass to be revoked after verbally sparring with him during a 2018 press conference. CNN filed suit against Trump and several White House officials, and then agreed to drop it after the White House restored Acosta’s press pass.

The core issue here is retaliation. There is longstanding case law precedent that a particular action or decision by the government might be legal and proper, but if it is done to retaliate for the content of someone’s speech, then it becomes a First Amendment violation.

The revocation of Acosta’s press pass was one such example. Another was the Brooklyn Museum’s spat in 2000 with then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The mayor had objected to an art exhibit at the museum that he called “sick” and anti-Catholic, and sought to defund and evict the museum from a city-owned building and slash its funding. A federal court ruled that Giuliani’s retaliatory actions were a violation of the museum’s free speech rights.

The NYC government had the power to lease its buildings, negotiate the leases, and determine budgets; that wasn’t in dispute. But when the mayor sought to use those government decisions to punish the museum for the content of its speech, the First Amendment stood in his way.

Likewise, the White House has the power to review and approve press passes, decide when the president or other officials are having press conferences or other events. It’s the revocation of such invitations based on disapproval of the reporter or media outlet’s speech that turns the otherwise allowable action into a constitutional violation.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico arguably have a stronger case than the AP did. It could be argued that refusing to adopt a geographic label the White House had decreed is more of an administrative matter. In contrast, Trump himself has openly declared that he banned these three outlets because he did not like their criticism of him. Political speech, specifically criticizing those currently in power in the government, is afforded a very high level of protection. Most cases do not normally see the government so openly declaring a retaliatory intent, but very little about the Trump presidency is normal.

So what does this mean? I’d agree with the numerous First Amendment advocates and legal scholars who decry this as a constitutional assault. But getting that established will take time and willpower.

The blunt reality is that with the AP case pending, Trump emboldened by past media surrenders, and the government having the guns, it is highly likely the White House may be able to succeed in banning these outlets or others, in the short term at least.

CNN is not going to send a SWAT team into the White House Press Briefing Room or drive their reporters up there in a tank. If the Secret Service and other military and security personnel say someone is not entering the White House or boarding Air Force One, that’s it.

Until a court orders otherwise, Trump changes his mind…

…or the rest of the White House Press Corps wakes up and realizes the alligator might eat them last, but he will eat them all in the end if they don’t stand together.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!