Trump also claimed that Politico received “a illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government.”
Politico’s press team said in a post on X Friday that Trump’s claims that Politico “received government subsidies are false and have been thoroughly debunked.”
“POLITICO will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones. We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them,” the post said.
Trump addressed the bans in the Oval Office on Friday, saying that the new policy was the result of “cumulative stories over the last few years.” A White House spokesperson referred NBC News to the president’s spoken comments.
The move has drawn broad criticism.
During a Friday speaking engagement at Colgate University from which NBC News obtained audio, former President Barack Obama said: “I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘You know what? Fox News, you’re out of here.’ It’s unimaginable.”
He added that if a certain pocket of the country agrees with the proposed restriction, “we have not developed the kind of understanding of what democracy requires” and that people have to get to work to shore up that understanding.
In a special report on Saturday evening, MS NOW anchor Peter Alexander said the ban “is not normal.”
“This is not business as usual. What’s happening right now is different. The latest threat against our cherished freedoms, protected by the U. S. Constitution,” Alexander said.
Alexander later asked Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, whether Trump’s ban was legal.
“In a word, no,” Rottman said, calling the ban a clear violation of the First Amendment. “The fact that the White House would put the affected news organizations to the task of having to go to court and vindicate their rights, you know that in and of itself is an effort to intimidate the press writ large.”
White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich described the move as a constitutional violation in a statement Friday.
“The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference,” Heinrich said in a statement. “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.”
“The WHCA stands in defense of our colleagues at CNN, MS NOW, and Politico who are being singled out for doing their jobs,” she added.
Signs put up today in the White House press quarters. Megan Shannon / NBC News
In another statement released after the reporters were barred from the White House, Heinrich said the move violated the First Amendment.
“The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future,” Heinrich wrote in a WHCA statement. “The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably.”
Heinrich added that courts have previously ruled that the White House cannot deny access to journalists arbitrarily based on the content of their reporting.
“The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access,” Heinrich added.
New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander also pushed back on the move.
“The courts have twice found that the Trump administration violated the Constitution by suspending reporters’ White House press passes,” Stadtlander said. “The Times stands in support of the news organizations being unfairly targeted by the president.”
A ‘broader pattern’
Jaffer, the First Amendment expert, told NBC News that the move was “representative of a broader pattern” with the Trump administration, citing the president’s past attempts to expel The Associated Press from the White House press pool and the Defense Department limiting journalists’ access to the Pentagon.
“I see this latest move as part of that same pattern, which I think is an effort by President Trump to intimidate the press and to deter media outlets from reporting critically about his policies and decisions,” Jaffer said.
He called the move an attack on the “public’s right to independent information about government.”
“President Trump presents it as retaliation against these particular news organizations, but it’s really a move against the public’s right to know, and that’s how we should be thinking about it,” Jaffer explained.
The ban is part of Trump’s ongoing efforts to punish news organizations and broadcasters for their coverage. Shortly after taking office, Trump banned The Associated Press from the Oval Office, Air Force One and some events after it declined to acknowledge his effort to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
The AP filed suit, and the case is ongoing.
The AP’s chief communications officer, Lauren Easton, said in a statement Saturday that the publication stands “with those news organizations who’ve had their access restricted.”
“No news organization – or person – should be retaliated against by government over words they use,” Easton stated.
Trump has also sued outlets including BBC , The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal , claiming defamation. The suits against The Times and The Journal were dismissed but have since been refiled. The BBC has filed for dismissal.
