HTownAg98 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Dallas82 said:

---

Fox isn't standing in solidarity. The five networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN) jointly fund to Presidential press pool. They split the costs of staffing a camera crew as well as covering the fees the White House charge the media to be on Air Force One. It costs a lot. When Trump banned CNN, the press pool lost 20% of the money they need to cover Trump. So they stopped.

---

So...you're saying those media organizations are lying about why they stopped?


Cool...proof that they will lie to damage Trump.

---

It's likely both. The major media outlets all boycotted the White House when Fox was banned during the Obama Administration.

---

Was FOX actually banned? I don't think so. Obama might have said he wasnt taking questions from them, but banned?

Yes, they were banned from covering a US Treasury event. It only lasted a couple of hours because of the boycott.

🚨 WTF?! The Big 5 legacy media networks have INCREASED their demands following their re-admittance to the White House

They're STILL refusing to cover President Trump if CNN isn't allowed back into the OVAL OFFICE and pool rotation

They're holding the American people HOSTAGE… https://t.co/D6IzaDk2Zb pic.twitter.com/i2MkGbd4qm

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 24, 2026

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Should be an interesting response. Something along the lines of, "well, my client says he doesn't want these people inside of his residential home and there really isn't much I can do about it besides tell him you ordered otherwise."

---

I bet its more along the lines of "sorry, mess up on our part"

---

That's probably right. May just have been an innocuous issue from an operational standpoint. The White House isn't exactly a storage unit in terms of security, logistics etc.

Why the Trump administration went this route in the first place makes no sense to me. I thought they'd get better results just ignoring the people they don't want to talk to.

Looks like Trump TACO'ed.

Nick Sorter,.... No added psyops opinions.

It was moving https://t.co/fO93dMs3Gf

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 25, 2026

Good job Elon! Thank God you're around!

HTownAg98 said:

---

Yes, they were banned from covering a US Treasury event. It only lasted a couple of hours because of the boycott.

---

There was no boycott, there was a threat of a boycott.

It's interesting how Trump's opinions on state dinners with Xi have evolved over the years, since he entered office.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Siri, what is a show cause order?
Despite your proselytizing to the contrary, the Trump Administration has generally decided it's good policy to follow a judge's order and take it up with a higher court when it can.

---

"Trump Administration has generally decided it's good policy to follow a judge's order and take it up with a higher court when it can."
This is the truth, so all the bull**** arguments spawning No Kings protests, claims he is literally Hitler, Russian collusion, etc. are just that bull*****
What is absolutely amazing is the MSM has never once apologized for these transparent lies and should be held liable for slander and libel.

DeschutesAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote that news outlets were "likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process," and on the grounds that "'individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them' of a constitutionally protected interest."

---

A Trump appointee.

Quote:

---

Trump told reporters on Friday that his decision to ban the three media outlets from the White House had not been sparked by any specific reporting but the accumulation of what he called "two years of unfair and negative coverage."

---

What a petty narcissist juvenile the GOP and our country is ruled by.

---

"constitutionally protected interest"
IMNAL and can't find this interest involving access to the White House anywhere in the Constitution.

richardag said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Siri, what is a show cause order?
Despite your proselytizing to the contrary, the Trump Administration has generally decided it's good policy to follow a judge's order and take it up with a higher court when it can.

---

"Trump Administration has generally decided it's good policy to follow a judge's order and take it up with a higher court when it can."
This is the truth, so all the bull**** arguments spawning No Kings protests, claims he is literally Hitler, Russian collusion, etc. are just that bull*****
What is absolutely amazing is the MSM has never once apologized for these transparent lies and should be held liable for slander and libel.

---

Conversely, the posters here and elsewhere saying "Trump should ignore the order, because what judge is going to make him?" are equally stupid.

Trump doesn't need to ignore the order, just treat the "reporters" like they're invisible.

richardag said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote that news outlets were "likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process," and on the grounds that "'individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them' of a constitutionally protected interest."

---

A Trump appointee.

Quote:

---

Trump told reporters on Friday that his decision to ban the three media outlets from the White House had not been sparked by any specific reporting but the accumulation of what he called "two years of unfair and negative coverage."

---

What a petty narcissist juvenile the GOP and our country is ruled by.

---

"constitutionally protected interest"
IMNAL and can't find this interest involving access to the White House anywhere in the Constitution.

---

Lots of stuff isn't in the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Because part of what the courts do is determine that in this case, how does something that the government does align with the rights in the Constitution? When the government gives a journalist a hard pass, that creates a property interest. The courts have said that if you're going to revoke it, you can't do it without due process. And due process is definitely in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Yes, they were banned from covering a US Treasury event. It only lasted a couple of hours because of the boycott.

---

And Fox was never banned from anything..any other lies to support your claims?

Exactly what is the protocol? Can the BFE Bugle Beacon news paper and YouTube channel demand entrance? I believe I've asked before how TASS and PRAVDA are treated. I really don't think entrance to the events is a right.

Rockdoc said:

---

Trump doesn't need to ignore the order, just treat the "reporters" like they're invisible.

---

just do what the democrats do

Rockdoc said:

---

Trump doesn't need to ignore the order, just treat the "reporters" like they're invisible.

---

and only select reporters who will be like this "guy"

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Trump doesn't need to ignore the order, just treat the "reporters" like they're invisible.

---

and only select reporters who will be like this "guy"

---

No, Trump can handle real questions. No what flavor ice cream stuff.

B-1 83 said:

---

Exactly what is the protocol? Can the BFE Bugle Beacon news paper and YouTube channel demand entrance? I believe I've asked before how TASS and PRAVDA are treated. I really don't think entrance to the events is a right.

---

The White House sets requirements that have to be met in order to get a pass. I doubt BFE Bugle Beacon, a random YouTube Channel, TASS, and PRAVDA would be able to qualify.

HTownAg98 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Exactly what is the protocol? Can the BFE Bugle Beacon news paper and YouTube channel demand entrance? I believe I've asked before how TASS and PRAVDA are treated. I really don't think entrance to the events is a right.

---

The White House sets requirements that have to be met in order to get a pass. I doubt BFE Bugle Beacon, a random YouTube Channel, TASS, and PRAVDA would be able to qualify.

---

Yeah, there are a number of requirements but the key for this case is that they are viewpoint-neutral.

Two of the key qualifications are (1) you must already be credentialed by Congress or the Supreme Court (meaning you meet other baked-in criteria) and (2) you must pass a Secret Service background check.

Those are two hurdles for something like a Pravda.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Exactly what is the protocol? Can the BFE Bugle Beacon news paper and YouTube channel demand entrance? I believe I've asked before how TASS and PRAVDA are treated. I really don't think entrance to the events is a right.

---

The White House sets requirements that have to be met in order to get a pass. I doubt BFE Bugle Beacon, a random YouTube Channel, TASS, and PRAVDA would be able to qualify.

---

Yeah, there are a number of requirements but the key for this case is that they are viewpoint-neutral.

Two of the key qualifications are (1) you must already be credentialed by Congress or the Supreme Court (meaning you meet other baked-in criteria) and (2) you must pass a Secret Service background check.

Those are two hurdles for something like a Pravda.

---

Yep, huge hurdles to join the press pool..

Literally 4 days ago, CNN said we new media folks didn’t have the resources to replace them in the White House press pool

But tonight, the White House REPLACED CNN on Air Force One with us @RealAmVoice for 47’s trip this weekend

RIP @CNN. And God Bless @X🇺🇸 https://t.co/hDapdFAhr6

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 26, 2026

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Exactly what is the protocol? Can the BFE Bugle Beacon news paper and YouTube channel demand entrance? I believe I've asked before how TASS and PRAVDA are treated. I really don't think entrance to the events is a right.

---

The White House sets requirements that have to be met in order to get a pass. I doubt BFE Bugle Beacon, a random YouTube Channel, TASS, and PRAVDA would be able to qualify.

---

Yeah, there are a number of requirements but the key for this case is that they are viewpoint-neutral.

Two of the key qualifications are (1) you must already be credentialed by Congress or the Supreme Court (meaning you meet other baked-in criteria) and (2) you must pass a Secret Service background check.

Those are two hurdles for something like a Pravda.

---

The gates are run by journalists who already have the credential. No flaws at all with that process. Of course they are viewpoint-neutral /sarc

That should be changed.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Exactly what is the protocol? Can the BFE Bugle Beacon news paper and YouTube channel demand entrance? I believe I've asked before how TASS and PRAVDA are treated. I really don't think entrance to the events is a right.

---

The White House sets requirements that have to be met in order to get a pass. I doubt BFE Bugle Beacon, a random YouTube Channel, TASS, and PRAVDA would be able to qualify.

---

Yeah, there are a number of requirements but the key for this case is that they are viewpoint-neutral.

Two of the key qualifications are (1) you must already be credentialed by Congress or the Supreme Court (meaning you meet other baked-in criteria) and (2) you must pass a Secret Service background check.

Those are two hurdles for something like a Pravda.

---

Considering most of those reporters would put out classified information if they received it - to get a scoop - I don't think they would be able to pass the background check.

RAV IS "STEPPING INTO CNN'S POSITION. THANK YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE!"

"Seeing X BLOW UP, telling everybody how great RAV's coverage has been this week. Thank you to the WH for the opportunity and TRUSTING us to cover @POTUS."@taymitchell_tv pic.twitter.com/1dDOr1Jusx

— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) September 26, 2026

HTownAg98 said:

---

richardag said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote that news outlets were "likely to succeed in showing that their hard passes were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process," and on the grounds that "'individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them' of a constitutionally protected interest."

---

A Trump appointee.

Quote:

---

Trump told reporters on Friday that his decision to ban the three media outlets from the White House had not been sparked by any specific reporting but the accumulation of what he called "two years of unfair and negative coverage."

---

What a petty narcissist juvenile the GOP and our country is ruled by.

---

"constitutionally protected interest"
IMNAL and can't find this interest involving access to the White House anywhere in the Constitution.

---

Lots of stuff isn't in the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Because part of what the courts do is determine that in this case, how does something that the government does align with the rights in the Constitution? When the government gives a journalist a hard pass, that creates a property interest. The courts have said that if you're going to revoke it, you can't do it without due process. And due process is definitely in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

---

True, and apparently some posters don't understand the courts have made some exceptionally bad decisions. Activist judges have been the bane of American Justice for a long time.

So the Constitution does not in itself allow News agencies access to the White House, but some courts have made that decision.

There's only 40 years of precedent and a judge Trump appointed judge that have said the law is what the law is. But sure.

HTownAg98 said:

---

There's only 40 years of precedent and a judge Trump appointed judge that have said the law is what the law is. But sure.

---

You may want to read the actual opinion from the judge. He said he was bound by the prior district court precedent but that he was NOT making a decision on the broader issue.

Has that not been posted on this thread? He kept it primarily on the due process issue (though I think that argument is a bit weak itself - is a press pass really property? And if it is of value, then denying it to others less privileged presents a whole host of issue).

He said the national security argument likely fails. But the WH is already undermining some of their arguments such as sharing expenses for cameras, AF1 and such. That went poof.

Rotating others in also shows that maybe having this ultra elitist WHCA is maybe not what was intended by "freedom of the press".

Quote:

---

You may want to read the actual opinion from the judge. He said he was bound by the prior district court precedent

---

Close. He is bound by circuit court precedent.

Maybe you want to read the actual opinion

Prior and precedent redundancy could also have been noted.

Irregardless, the point is made.

It's also comical that folks think Trump really has a power in some circuits/states to choose judges freely.

Some how, I wish Trump's team could just figure out a way to end the relationship with the utterly corrupt/partisan sham of an organization known as the WHCA.

They say keeping CNN out is “viewpoint discrimination.”

In 2020, DOJ told them inviting me — even based on viewpoint — is not a First Amendment violation.

I am the OAN reporter in this letter.

WHCA kicked OAN out of the rotation. Roped off my chair. Made me stand in the back.… pic.twitter.com/aEWckLPi4N

— Chanel Rion OAN (@ChanelRion) September 27, 2026

Quote:

---

I am the OAN reporter in this letter.

WHCA kicked OAN out of the rotation. Roped off my chair. Made me stand in the back.

Then Brian Karem's lawyer screamed that Stephanie Grisham inviting me as her guest was unconstitutional.

DOJ's answer, on White House letterhead:

- The briefing room is White House property.
- The club's seating chart is a practice the Press Secretary "merely acquiesced" in.
- Special access to a particular reporter is not a First Amendment violation.
- "That is true whether or not such an invitation is based on viewpoint."

So which is it, WHCA?

---

No. What this establishes is exactly the argument the WHCA wants forever buried. That ultimately, access is not one private, single organization’s to control.

That the WHCA exists, as I have been saying since 2020, at the grace of the White House press office.

That there is…

— Chanel Rion OAN (@ChanelRion) September 28, 2026

But now it's a constitutional emergency if some leftist propagandists from CNN aren't seated at the front.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

There's only 40 years of precedent and a judge Trump appointed judge that have said the law is what the law is. But sure.

---

You may want to read the actual opinion from the judge. He said he was bound by the prior district court precedent but that he was NOT making a decision on the broader issue.

Has that not been posted on this thread? He kept it primarily on the due process issue (though I think that argument is a bit weak itself - is a press pass really property? And if it is of value, then denying it to others less privileged presents a whole host of issue).

He said the national security argument likely fails. But the WH is already undermining some of their arguments such as sharing expenses for cameras, AF1 and such. That went poof.

Rotating others in also shows that maybe having this ultra elitist WHCA is maybe not what was intended by "freedom of the press".

---

You may want to go back and read what I was commenting on instead of making an argument that I've already agreed upon.
The precedent I was talking about was in regard to Sherrill v. Knight, a 1977 DC Circuit opinion that acknowledges a hard pass "undoubtedly qualifies as [a] liberty [interest] which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment."

HTownAg98 said:

---

There's only 40 years of precedent and a judge Trump appointed judge that have said the law is what the law is. But sure.

---

that's not an argument against what I just said. For example, you may want to consider how long slavery was allowed decades centuries, eons eras, your argument is facetious and pointless.

So, after all this hubbub, have we missed anything by this POTUS over the last week and a half of this?

Of course not. Legacy MSM having priority access is meaningless and unnecessary.

One merely has to watch the back to back interviews by Kristen Welker on MTP this past Sunday to see clearly who NBC is behind. She berates Matt Walsh US Ambassador to UN then plays softball party cake with the Iranian Foreign Minister.

She and her network choose the IRGC over America, and they want privileged access to POTUS?

They can kindly **** either the **** on off.