What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
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
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
Seems like it’s easier to lose our rights than defend them. It shouldn’t be.
The way Trump has exercised power and ignored the law should be a real wake up for everyone. Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
We just might. After a Democrat comes into office, gets blamed when the really bad consequences of Trump's policies manifest and gets run out on a rail, Republicans will sweep with a "return to traditional, serious business Conservatism" candidate who will really just be the next phase of Trumpism. I don't believe for a second that these people haven't been laying the groundwork for keeping the movement going after Trump.
After all, half the country still believes in everything Trumpism represents, they just want a President to follow through.
The thing is in America we had people who will 'use their guns to defend rights' and we had 'the other'.
The propagandist currently in control of the government has the people who will use their guns to defend their rights (which are currently and successfully being swiftly taken away) under his thumb. And the other are patiently waiting their turn at the post to make as much money as possible under Gavin Newsom.
Its more realistic to look at the situation as a leadership team during layoffs, except the layoffs are the American electorate.
There’s no reason, in 2026, that the White House, or any other organization, needs to accommodate third party journalists. It’s never been easier to get your own message out there.
I honestly don't understand what supposedly pro-social purpose is served by reporting on what the appointed head propagandist says from the official propaganda room in the presidential palace. A self respecting reporter should be ashamed to let anyone see their White House press credentials.
Aren't we, the reading public, better served by reporters developing sources, investigating things, and maybe reporting on something the government doesn't want to be in the news?
This is not a First Amendment issue. The press is still free to write their own stories.
This is not a censorship issue, as no one is being censored.
This _is_ a tradition issue, but the notion that the Press gets to decide who should be in that briefing room is silly. The notion that the courts should intervene is stupid.
Should Trump have revoked her credentials? Probably not, but this is really small potatoes. The breathlessness and pearl-clutching over it, and the cries of "treason" in this very thread... are deeply unserious.
What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
Absolute treason
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
I’m curious how a Jan. 6 insurrectionist would answer this question.
Any pardoned felons here?
Courts navigate this fine line already even for their own courtrooms. There are restrictions on rights like time/place restrictions, for instance.
No, it’s not a problem. The government can’t grant or withdraw a privilege for impermissible reasons.
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
Do they not have press cards in America?
Does gating access behind a card not make it a privilege?
Rights must be demanded and defended constanrly, otherwise some tin pot dictator will take them without much of a fight.
Do you what your rights or not?
Seems like it’s easier to lose our rights than defend them. It shouldn’t be.
The way Trump has exercised power and ignored the law should be a real wake up for everyone. Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
We just might. After a Democrat comes into office, gets blamed when the really bad consequences of Trump's policies manifest and gets run out on a rail, Republicans will sweep with a "return to traditional, serious business Conservatism" candidate who will really just be the next phase of Trumpism. I don't believe for a second that these people haven't been laying the groundwork for keeping the movement going after Trump.
After all, half the country still believes in everything Trumpism represents, they just want a President to follow through.
The thing is in America we had people who will 'use their guns to defend rights' and we had 'the other'.
The propagandist currently in control of the government has the people who will use their guns to defend their rights (which are currently and successfully being swiftly taken away) under his thumb. And the other are patiently waiting their turn at the post to make as much money as possible under Gavin Newsom.
Its more realistic to look at the situation as a leadership team during layoffs, except the layoffs are the American electorate.
I was really curious and looked it up. Gun owners went for Trump 2:1 in 2024. I thought it would have been higher tbh.
Which rights are being taken away, specifically?
There’s no reason, in 2026, that the White House, or any other organization, needs to accommodate third party journalists. It’s never been easier to get your own message out there.
I honestly don't understand what supposedly pro-social purpose is served by reporting on what the appointed head propagandist says from the official propaganda room in the presidential palace. A self respecting reporter should be ashamed to let anyone see their White House press credentials.
Aren't we, the reading public, better served by reporters developing sources, investigating things, and maybe reporting on something the government doesn't want to be in the news?
How would we know what they don't want in the news if there's no one paying attention to what they do want in the news?
It's 2026. They can stream it.
https://archive.ph/h6h43
This is not a First Amendment issue. The press is still free to write their own stories.
This is not a censorship issue, as no one is being censored.
This _is_ a tradition issue, but the notion that the Press gets to decide who should be in that briefing room is silly. The notion that the courts should intervene is stupid.
Should Trump have revoked her credentials? Probably not, but this is really small potatoes. The breathlessness and pearl-clutching over it, and the cries of "treason" in this very thread... are deeply unserious.
For 99.9% of people when they talk about “rights” they just mean “I feel entitled to this, this makes me feel good”
Religious people use of the same argument to oppose freedom.