Category: News

UPDATED: Coming right up against a deadline set by a federal judge, the Justice Department tonight defended Donald Trump‘s ban on CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House grounds. The response comes despite an outcry across media outlets that the restriction is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

Leaning onto a Wednesday hearing on a temporary restraining order, the administration argued for Trump and top White House aides in its opposition filing that the “President’s actions are lawful under the First Amendment.”

Adding to that, and sidestepping Trump’s previous quip that there was no particular reason for the ban the Department of Justice is now claiming that CNN, MS Now and Politico have “engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security” over stories on the construction of Trump’s much criticized ballroom. Swiping at past rulings on White House access, the DOJ is also maintaining that “While the D.C. Circuit has held that some areas of the White House grounds constitute a nonpublic that decision is wrong and should be overruled.”

After Trump banned the three outlets on Friday, CNN, Politico and MS NOW jointly sued the president and top staffers, claiming violations of the First and Fifth amendments.

“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” their lawsuit stated.

Late Tuesday, the DOJ laid out POTUS’ POV.

“The White House is the home and workplace for the Nation’s Commander-in-Chief,” the 19-page document from Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate and others at the DOJ states. “Plaintiffs CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have long been granted privileged access to White House grounds. But the President concluded that they have failed to maintain basic minimum “standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including” by ‘publishing sensitive or classified information.’”

The DOJ also claimed that the revocation of credentials was “preliminary” and that notices were sent to the networks on Tuesday. The letters, filed with the court and featuring no letterhead, gave them until Friday to contest the decision.

The letter to CNN stated, “No President has been as transparent to the public or as accessible to the press as President Trump. Nevertheless, your organization has exhibited behavior in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.” The letter to MS NOW cited, among other things, a report from a source that Trump had underestimated the “willingness of Iran to resume” the conflict. The letter to Politico pointed to a report on the funding of the ballroom and how the Secret Service would invest in security improvements.

Some of the stories cited had nothing to do with national security.

“In September 2026, Politico Playbook relied on unnamed sources to paint the Republican midterm convention in Dallas as a disaster. Media reporting showed that the convention had over 100 million live stream views,” the letter to the outlet stated.

Among the stories cited was a CNN piece on construction details of the White House ballroom, which the Trump team contended revealed “top secret” information. Other stories cited were reports on munition supplies in the war in Iran, and that the military had exhausted nearly 80% of its interceptors.

Snapping at UN credentialed CNN reporters while in NYC on Monday, Trump has found himself out of the usual spotlight.

Shortly after the filing on Monday, the five major TV networks that make up the White House TV pool said that they were suspending coverage in solidarity, leaving a void in video of Trump at the White House and other events. The pool is made up of CNN, NBC News, ABC News., CBS News and Fox News. Other outlets, like The New York Times, have protested the ban in other ways, like withholding their use of images from the White House.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday afternoon on the outlets’ motion for the TRO. Trump has already signaled that he expects the judge to rule in the networks’ favor and plans an appeal. Even though he appointed the judge in his first term, Kelly sided with then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after the network sued the Trump administration for revoking his hard pass in 2018.

The three outlets’ legal team, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., bolstered their case earlier on Tuesday when they noted a new D.C. Circuit decision on access to the steps of the Capitol. The judges ruled that the eastern steps of the Capitol were a “nonpublic forum” but speech regulations had to be “viewpoint neutral.”

Trump has complained about the three outlets’ coverage of him, telling reporters, “There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories.”

Boutrous’ team also filed one of Trump’s Truth Social posts in which he said that he “sadly” appointed Kelly to the federal bench. They also filed a report on Trump’s outburst at CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, when she was among the reporters at the United Nations, asking questions of the president on Tuesday. Surprised at her appearance there, as she was credentialed via the UN, Trump told her, “You shouldn’t be here.”

Shortly after the DOJ filing, the president against attacked Collins, as well as the judge.

He wrote on Truth Social at 11:53 p.m. ET, “All of the SLEAZEBAGS, like Third Rate ‘Reporter,’ Kaitlan Collins, of Fake News CNN, a truly unhappy person, said they weren’t going to be covering me. Then why were they ranting and raving like Lunatics, in the Press Area, at the United Nations? Why was she there? She’s got a ‘TRUMP’ addiction, and so does CNN and MSDNC. They’re all sick, treasonous, and demented! The ‘good news’ is that they have a great, for them, and totally disloyal Judge.”

A top Justice Department official is minimizing the concessions state attorneys general received in the settlement of their antitrust lawsuit to block the Paramount-Warner Bros Discovery merger.

Stanley Woodward, associate attorney general, said in a statement Tuesday, “After a thorough review of the Paramount/WarnerBros deal, DOJ concluded that market dynamics create the necessary incentives to protect competition.

“The only antitrust related provisions in the States’ settlement require that Paramount honor its already-stated commitments to maintain and grow its movie and TV businesses.”

The DOJ signed off on the $111 billion merger in June, with no concessions from Paramount of requirements of divestitures. Merger opponents criticized the DOJ’s review as insufficient amid Paramount’s wooing of the Trump administration, and the next month a dozen state attorneys general sued to halt the transaction.

But a settlement was announced Monday that includes a set of behavioral conditions to last for five years, including a commitment by Paramount to release 30 films for the first and second years, and 32 films for the third, fourth and fifth years. The consent decree also includes a theatrical release window of at least 45 days. Paramount CEO David Ellison had previously stated he would commit to such windows and to the 30-movies-per-year releases.

Woodward said in his statement, “Consumers benefit when transactions close quickly after federal enforcers have concluded a substantive review. Under President Trump’s leadership, DOJ will continue to prioritize affordability for all Americans across our economy.”

At a press conference Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who led the 12 states in the litigation, repeatedly said the settlement would be an “enforceable commitment,” including that it would “significantly increase domestic production in the United States, and necessarily production right here in L.A., in Hollywood.” Among other things, he said, Paramount also would spend $300 million more each year in domestic film production, while agreeing to conduct Paramount and Warner Bros cable channel negotiations independently. The settlement also includes an independent monitor to oversee compliance, Bonta’s team noted.

Bonta had previously indicated that only a structural remedy — like a commitment to divest assets — would suffice when it came to a settlement. The consent decree does contain requirements to sell off Miramax and selected cable channels if there are breaches of the settlement terms.

Just last week, before the settlement was reached, the DOJ sided with Paramount in its motion to require that the state AGs put up a $1.88 billion bond as the litigation dragged on. The trial had been scheduled for March, but Paramount faced having to pay a $7 million-per-day ticking fee to Warner Bros. Discovery for each day that the merger didn’t close after September 30.

A federal judge has set a hearing for Thursday on the proposed settlement between state attorneys general and Paramount-Warner Bros Discovery.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin set the hearing for 11 a.m. PT via Zoom.

She wrote in an order Tuesday that the hearing would be to “address certain outstanding questions regarding the factual and legal underpinnings of the parties proposed consent decree, as well as the implementation of the proposed consent decree.”

The parties have filed a motion to approve the consent decree, which lays out a series of settlement conditions to resolve the lawsuit brought by the state AGs in July. Among the provisions are Paramount commitments to release at least 30 movies per year, and another to create an independent board to oversee CNN and CBS News adherence to journalistic standards.

The judge also canceled a scheduled hearing on whether to require the state AGs to post a bond as the litigation proceeded.

The judge said in a separate order that she would decide in “due course” on whether to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the Writers Guild of America to block the merger. The WGA said it also reached a settlement with Paramount to end its litigation.

Coming right up against a deadline set by a federal judge, the Justice Department tonight defended Donald Trump‘s ban on CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House grounds. The response comes despite an outcry across media outlets that the restriction is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

Leaning onto a Wednesday hearing on a temporary restraining order, the administration argued for Trump and top White House aides in its opposition filing that the “President’s actions are lawful under the First Amendment.”

Adding to that, and sidestepping Trump’s previous quip that there was no particular reason for the ban the Department of Justice is now claiming that CNN, MS Now and Politico have “engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security” over stories on the construction of Trump’s much criticized ballroom. Swiping at past rulings on White House access, the DOJ is also maintaining that “While the D.C. Circuit has held that some areas of the White House grounds constitute a nonpublic that decision is wrong and should be overruled.”

After Trump banned the three outlets on Friday, CNN, Politico and MS NOW jointly sued the president and top staffers, claiming violations of the First and Fifth amendments.

“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,” their lawsuit stated.

Late Tuesday, the DOJ laid out POTUS’ POV.

“The White House is the home and workplace for the Nation’s Commander-in-Chief,” the 19-page document from Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate and others at the DOJ states. “Plaintiffs CNN, MSNOW, and Politico have long been granted privileged access to White House grounds. But the President concluded that they have failed to maintain basic minimum “standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including” by ‘publishing sensitive or classified information.’”

Snapping at UN credentialed CNN reporters while in NYC today, Trump has found himself out of the usual spotlight.

Shortly after the filing on Monday, the five major TV networks that make up the White House TV pool said that they were suspending coverage in solidarity, leaving a void in video of Trump at the White House and other events. The pool is made up of CNN, NBC News, ABC News., CBS News and Fox News. Other outlets, like The New York Times, have protested the ban in other ways, like withholding their use of images from the White House.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday afternoon on the outlets’ motion for the TRO. Trump has already signaled that he expects the judge to rule in the networks’ favor and plans an appeal. Even though he appointed the judge in his first term, Kelly sided with then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after the network sued the Trump administration for revoking his hard pass in 2018.

The three outlets’ legal team, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., bolstered their case earlier on Tuesday when they noted a new D.C. Circuit decision on access to the steps of the Capitol. The judges ruled that the eastern steps of the Capitol were a “nonpublic forum” but speech regulations had to be “viewpoint neutral.”

Trump has complained about the three outlets’ coverage of him, telling reporters, “There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories.”