Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

“CNN, MSNOW and Politico back at the White House, hours after judge ordered Trump to lift ban,” read a September 24, 2026 Associated Press headline, published just one week after the administration had barred the three outlets from press briefings. In response to the ban, the White House press pool — a rotating group of journalists, photographers, and broadcast technicians organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) to cover the President of the United States (U.S.) — refused to participate in news conferences until the ban was lifted. Even after the federal courts put a temporary 14-day restraining order on the ban, CNN, unlike right wing media producers, was blocked from covering Trump on Air Force One. Rather than waiting for the courts to issue a permanent ruling halting the Trump administration’s punishment of CNN, the press pool abandoned its protest and returned to the White House following the restraining order. When the press pool traded collective solidarity for a rushed return to the briefing room, it laid bare a troubling structural reality: in modern journalism, the pursuit of daily access routinely overrides the defense of a free press.

President Donald Trump publicly justified the press ban on national security grounds. However, the move was more plausibly driven by political vulnerability. Facing historically low approval ratings ahead of the midterm elections — with his party underwater in 47 states and projected to lose both chambers of Congress — the administration sought to suppress widespread public discontent by censoring the press. Compounding this friction, the White House released taxpayer-funded advertisements promoting the Republican agenda that sparked bipartisan warnings of illegality, functioning essentially as state propaganda disguised as public service announcements. These spots featured dubious claims, such as pledging to dismantle the “deep state” — despite the administration’s own deep-state affiliations and ties to figures like the late Jeffrey Epstein — or promising to eliminate “warmongers” from government while simultaneously prosecuting an elective war in Iran.

The court’s decision to suspend the ban came as no surprise given that the 1977 federal appeals court ruling Sherrill v. Knight established that while the government is not strictly required to open its doors to the media, once it voluntarily establishes a public press facility or invites the press, it cannot arbitrarily ban or deny access to specific news outlets based on the content or viewpoint of their coverage. Furthermore, efforts to execute similar authoritarian bans on journalists Jim Acosta and Brian Karem during Trump’s first administration and the Associated Press in his second term failed.

Nor did it come as a surprise that other corporate-funded news outlets eventually abandoned their refusal to cover the White House, capitulating before the courts could legally invalidate the........

© Truthout