Tag: Deadline News

Gavin Newsom and Mark Ruffalo haven’t patched things up since David Ellison’s contentious mega-bucks Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery merger was approved and completed earlier this month. The deep rift between the once pals could end up haunting the outgoing California governor as Newsom ponders a much-anticipated bid for the White House in 2028.

“Ruffalo has a gained lot of sway with (Democratic) party activists fighting the Ellisons,” a Hollywood political operative tells Deadline Wednesday as the Task actor launched another missive against the potential candidate. “Targeting Newsom as a billionaire friendly candidate will hurt him with the base, make him (look) out of touch.”

A week after the Ellison and Ynon Kreiz-run Skydance officially became one of the town’s biggest players, the increasingly influential Ruffalo took to social media today to lambaste the proudly centrist Newsom.

Bristling at the term-limited Governor’s resistance to the popular Proposition 40, the so-called billionaire tax that is on next month’s ballot, the Marvel vet wrote: “Once again. Just like the Paramount Merger Gavin Newsom does what he always does. Sells out the working class people for the billionaires again and again. Not only that but endorses a bill that will make it impossible to tax the wealthy at all.”

Once again. Just like the Paramount Merger Gavin Newsom does what he always does. Sells out the working class people for the billionaires again and again. Not only that but endorses a bill that will make it impossible to tax the wealthy at all.https://t.co/YCLE9ZrYnJ

— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) October 14, 2026

As well as being against the progressive-backed Prop 40, Newsom came out recently for Proposition 42. Also on the midterms ballot, the measure backed by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and a group of other anti-Prop 40 California tycoons aims to “ban any new state tax” on personal property. On the chance Prop 40 passes, Prop 42 also effectively neuters the other measure by preventing any new retroactive tax, as 40 does.

The stance has seen Newsom, who warns the passage of Prop 40 could see an exodus of the super rich from California, mocked and dismissed by fellow Democrats.

In a video that went viral online, high-profile progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) insisted pleasing deep-pocketed donors and tech lords was “the only reason” Newsom was against Prop 40. “You can’t be anti-Trump and then do the bidding of Trump donors,” Khanna said, taking a swipe at Newsom’s attention- getting trolling of the former Apprentice host.

“Mamdani has shown us, Trump’s return, the wars …things have changed,” an industry insider who has been a long-time donor to Democrats nationally and regionally asserts with a name drop of the Democratic Socialists of America NYC Mayor. “The Clinton playbook of 1992 won’t work in 2028. Democrats have been radicalized. They want real change, like Republicans in 2016.”

Newsom has not formally unveiled if he is running for President, saying he will make a decision after the midterms. However, from his Trump bashing, trips to key primary states and attempts to make sure Kamala Harris doesn’t enter the race, the governor has made it pretty clear what’s next for him.

The Governor’s office did not respond today to Deadline’s request for comment on Ruffalo’s remarks.

Ruffalo raged against the Para-WBD merger over the last year, and was one of the loudest voices up to final days before a settlement was reached in state Attorneys General antitrust suit against the Ellisons.

After the settlement was made public, Rufallo called the Trump approved merger a “bad deal for this country.” In the process, Ruffalo accused of being antisemitic in response by some, and defended by other A-listers. Still, in one of the surest signs of how transactional the industry is, the Emmy winner will be back on the now Skydance-owned HBO in 2027 for a second season of the acclaimed crime drama Task.

UPDATED, with additional comment: A federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, granting the three outlets a preliminary injunction that ensures access for the foreseeable future.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote in his opinion that the news outlets “are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.”

Kelly did caution that “no one should interpret the court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.” But when it came to the blanket ban on the three outlets, the judge was unpersuaded by the government’s justifications.

RELATED: New White House Press Secretary Debuts With A Very Short Briefing, Some Breaking News And Lots Of Praise For Donald Trump

Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from access to White House grounds, complaining that they were “‘reporting’ fake news.” A day later, the outlets’ reporters who tried to enter the security checkpoint found their hard passes deactivated.

The news organizations sued, and Kelly issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s ban, something that forced the White House to restore the hard passes to dozens of reporters and other staffers. That TRO expired on Tuesday; the preliminary injunction means that the White House cannot enforce Trump’s ban in the long term, either until a trial or an appeal. The news outlets had warned that the White House was likely to reimpose the ban absent further court intervention.

In defending the ban, the government cited national security reasons, although DOJ attorneys also argued that the news organizations did not meet “minimum requirements of professionalism.” While the DOJ pointed to stories published or aired that had to do with national security, they also cited as an example an MS NOW report that Trump aides considered an option of adding the president’s name to Ford’s Theatre. Trump angrily denied it in a Truth Social post.

In his 26-page opinion, Kelly cited D.C. Circuit precedents in that reporters had a right to due process before their hard passes were revoked.

“To put it mildly, [the news outlets] likely did not receive notice either of the conduct that would subject them to revocation of their hard passes, or of the magnitude of the revocation sanction itself,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that some of the stories flagged by the White House were published earlier this year and written by reporters who later had their hard passes renewed. Then came Trump’s ban, and those credentials were revoked. They included a CNN report from January 2026 on the top secret bunker being built beneath the East Wing, and an MS NOW story that quoted an anonymous White House official who said the president underestimated Iran’s willingness to resume the war.

The White House press office sent letters to the news organizations on September 22, informing them of the reasons and their ability to contest the action but, as the judge noted, that was four days after the ban was implemented.

The judge also sided with the news outlets’ in their claims that Trump was engaging in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

He wrote, “President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before. After explaining that he excluded plaintiffs from the White House because they ‘purposely write negative news . . . to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,’ President Trump remarked that he is prepared to take ‘the ban . . . as far as you can,’ but that he would ‘love it’ if they ‘could straighten themselves out.’”

The judge added, “The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue. And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

He also dismissed the government’s national security argument. He noted that there was “no evidence in the record” that Trump made the decision to revoke the passes for those reasons “from the get go. ” He added that Trump has not at any time “directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision.”

The judge explained that because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House press area is a “non public forum,” the government cannot limit access based on someone’s viewpoint.

The judge wrote that “it is likely that plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased—in other words, it was ‘an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view.’”

The judge also ruled that the news outlets should put up a nominal bond of $1.00 as the case moves forward.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney representing the news outlets, said in a statement, “When the president issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.”

Boutrous added, “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”

Mark Thompson, chairman and editor in chief of CNN, appeared on the network on Wednesday, calling the ruling “a vote of confidence in free speech and our right, not really so much for ourselves, but on behalf of the public, everywhere.” He vowed not to back down, saying, “We will fight this one to the end.”

The network also unveiled a new spot featuring network personalities and the line, “Freedom of the press is not optional.”

A White House official said that the administration intends to appeal.

The official said, “The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office. The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy. They’re completely capable of reporting from directly outside. We intend to appeal this misguided decision.”

The judge’s order restricts the White House from revoking hard pass credentials, but does not specifically address whether the president can bar members of the media from participation in the pool, which routinely gets access to the Oval Office.

UPDATED, with additional comment: A federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, granting the three outlets a preliminary injunction that ensures access for the foreseeable future.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote in his opinion that the news outlets “are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.”

Kelly did caution that “no one should interpret the court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.” But when it came to the blanket ban on the three outlets, the judge was unpersuaded by the government’s justifications.

Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from access to White House grounds, complaining that they were “‘reporting’ fake news.”. A day later, their reporters who tried to enter the security checkpoint found their hard passes deactivated.

The news outlets sued, and Kelly issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s restriction on the outlets, something that forced the White House to restore the hard passes to dozens of reporters and other staffers. That TRO expired on Tuesday; the preliminary injunction means that the White House cannot enforce Trump’s ban in the long term, either until a trial or an appeal. The news outlets warned that the White House was likely to reimpose the ban absent further court intervention.

In defending the ban, the government cited national security reasons, although DOJ attorneys also argued that the news organizations did not meet “minimum requirements of professionalism.” While the DOJ pointed to stories published or aired that had to do with national security, they also cited as an example an MS NOW report that Trump aides considered an option of adding the president’s name to Ford’s Theatre. Trump later denied it.

In his 26-page opinion, Kelly cited D.C. Circuit precedents in that reporters had a right to due process before their hard pass is revoked.

“To put it mildly, [the news outlets] likely did not receive notice either of the conduct that would subject them to revocation of their hard passes, or of the magnitude of the revocation sanction itself,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that some of the stories flagged by the White House were published earlier this year and written by reporters who later had their hard passes renewed. Then came Trump’s ban, and they were revoked. They included a CNN report from January 2026 on the top secret bunker being built beneath the East Wing, and an MS NOW story that quoted an anonymous White House official who said the president underestimated Iran’s willingness to resume the war.

The White House press office sent letters to the news organizations on September 22, informing them of the reasons and their ability to contest the action, but that was four days after the ban was implemented.

The judge also sided with the news outlets’ in their claims that Trump was engaging in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

“President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before. After explaining that he excluded Plaintiffs from the White House because they ‘purposely write negative news . . . to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,’ President Trump remarked that he is prepared to take ‘the ban . . . as far as you can,’ but that he would “love it” if they “could straighten themselves out.”

The judge added, “The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue. And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

He also dismissed the government’s national security argument. He noted that there was “no evidence in the record” that he made the decision to revoke the passes for those reasons “from the get go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision.”

The judge explained that because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House press area is a “non public forum,” the government cannot limit access based on someone’s viewpoint.

The judge wrote that “it is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased—in other words, it was ‘an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view.’”

The judge also ruled that the news outlets should put up a nominal bond of $1.00 as the case moves forward.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney representing the news outlets, said in a statement, “When the president issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.”

Boutrous added, “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

UPDATED, with additional comment: A federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, granting the three outlets a preliminary injunction that ensures access for the foreseeable future.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote in his opinion that the news outlets “are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.”

Kelly did caution that “no one should interpret the court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.” But when it came to the blanket ban on the three outlets, the judge was unpersuaded by the government’s justifications.

Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from access to White House grounds, complaining that they were “‘reporting’ fake news.”. A day later, their reporters who tried to enter the security checkpoint found their hard passes deactivated.

The news outlets sued, and Kelly issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s restriction on the outlets, something that forced the White House to restore the hard passes to dozens of reporters and other staffers. That TRO expired on Tuesday; the preliminary injunction means that the White House cannot enforce Trump’s ban in the long term, either until a trial or an appeal. The news outlets warned that the White House was likely to reimpose the ban absent further court intervention.

In defending the ban, the government cited national security reasons, although DOJ attorneys also argued that the news organizations did not meet “minimum requirements of professionalism.” While the DOJ pointed to stories published or aired that had to do with national security, they also cited as an example an MS NOW report that Trump aides considered an option of adding the president’s name to Ford’s Theatre. Trump later denied it.

In his 26-page opinion, Kelly cited D.C. Circuit precedents in that reporters had a right to due process before their hard pass is revoked.

“To put it mildly, [the news outlets] likely did not receive notice either of the conduct that would subject them to revocation of their hard passes, or of the magnitude of the revocation sanction itself,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that some of the stories flagged by the White House were published earlier this year and written by reporters who later had their hard passes renewed. Then came Trump’s ban, and they were revoked. They included a CNN report from January 2026 on the top secret bunker being built beneath the East Wing, and an MS NOW story that quoted an anonymous White House official who said the president underestimated Iran’s willingness to resume the war.

The White House press office sent letters to the news organizations on September 22, informing them of the reasons and their ability to contest the action, but that was four days after the ban was implemented.

The judge also sided with the news outlets’ in their claims that Trump was engaging in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

“President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before. After explaining that he excluded Plaintiffs from the White House because they ‘purposely write negative news . . . to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,’ President Trump remarked that he is prepared to take ‘the ban . . . as far as you can,’ but that he would “love it” if they “could straighten themselves out.”

The judge added, “The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue. And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

He also dismissed the government’s national security argument. He noted that there was “no evidence in the record” that he made the decision to revoke the passes for those reasons “from the get go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision.”

The judge explained that because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House press area is a “non public forum,” the government cannot limit access based on someone’s viewpoint.

The judge wrote that “it is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased—in other words, it was ‘an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view.’”

The judge also ruled that the news outlets should put up a nominal bond of $1.00 as the case moves forward.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney representing the news outlets, said in a statement, “When the president issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.”

Boutrous added, “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kimberly Guilfoyle, the former Fox News host who became a high-profile figure in Donald Trump‘s orbit, resigned as U.S. ambassador to Greece following a bombshell Wall Street Journal report over alleged ethical misconduct.

Guilfoyle confirmed her exit in a post on X, shortly after the new White House press secretary, Katie Zacharia, told reporters that the administration had asked her to resign.

“While my time as Ambassador may be coming to an end, my commitment to President Trump, the America First movement, and the country I love will never end,” Guilfoyle wrote.

She also called the ethics allegations “false,” and wrote that she intended to “vigorously defend my name, my reputation, and my integrity. I have dedicated my professional life to fighting for justice, standing up for what is right, and defending the values that make America exceptional. I will not allow false accusations to define my decades of public service.”

The Journal reported last week on the contents of message exchanges between Guilfoyle and Eric Deters, a Trump donor. Deters provided text messages to the media, including one where she asked him to wire $100,000 directly to American Express to pay off a bill. Deters was seeking Guilfoyle’s help in accessing administration officials.

Trump told reporters that Guilfoyle “went to Greece. She was doing a good job, but we didn’t like what we were reading.”

Guilfoyle is the former fiance of Donald Trump Jr., but the engagement ended before Trump started his second term.

“She wasn’t a member of my family. She, I guess, dated my son a long time ago,” the president told reporters.

In 2020, Guilfoyle led the fundraising push to draw in bundlers to the Trump campaign, and even had a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention that year. She had previously had a well-established TV career, serving as co-host of Fox News’ The Five. She also is the former wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The White House’s demand for her resignation dominated the headlines coming out of the first press briefing held by Trump’s new press secretary, Katie Zacharia. Appearing before reporters for the first time in the crowded briefing room, Zacharia spoke and answered questions for 14 minutes before ending the session. She told reporters that Trump would answer questions later, which he did as he set out on a three-day campaign swing.

UPDATED, with additional comment: A federal judge prohibited the Trump administration from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, granting the three outlets a preliminary injunction that ensures access for the foreseeable future.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, wrote in his opinion that the news outlets “are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.”

Kelly did caution that “no one should interpret the court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.” But when it came to the blanket ban on the three outlets, the judge was unpersuaded by the government’s justifications.

Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he was barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from access to White House grounds, complaining that they were “‘reporting’ fake news.”. A day later, their reporters who tried to enter the security checkpoint found their hard passes deactivated.

The news outlets sued, and Kelly issued a temporary restraining order halting Trump’s restriction on the outlets, something that forced the White House to restore the hard passes to dozens of reporters and other staffers. That TRO expired on Tuesday; the preliminary injunction means that the White House cannot enforce Trump’s ban in the long term, either until a trial or an appeal. The news outlets warned that the White House was likely to reimpose the ban absent further court intervention.

In defending the ban, the government cited national security reasons, although DOJ attorneys also argued that the news organizations did not meet “minimum requirements of professionalism.” While the DOJ pointed to stories published or aired that had to do with national security, they also cited as an example an MS NOW report that Trump aides considered an option of adding the president’s name to Ford’s Theatre. Trump later denied it.

In his 26-page opinion, Kelly cited D.C. Circuit precedents in that reporters had a right to due process before their hard pass is revoked.

“To put it mildly, [the news outlets] likely did not receive notice either of the conduct that would subject them to revocation of their hard passes, or of the magnitude of the revocation sanction itself,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that some of the stories flagged by the White House were published earlier this year and written by reporters who later had their hard passes renewed. Then came Trump’s ban, and they were revoked. They included a CNN report from January 2026 on the top secret bunker being built beneath the East Wing, and an MS NOW story that quoted an anonymous White House official who said the president underestimated Iran’s willingness to resume the war.

The White House press office sent letters to the news organizations on September 22, informing them of the reasons and their ability to contest the action, but that was four days after the ban was implemented.

The judge also sided with the news outlets’ in their claims that Trump was engaging in retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

“President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before. After explaining that he excluded Plaintiffs from the White House because they ‘purposely write negative news . . . to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,’ President Trump remarked that he is prepared to take ‘the ban . . . as far as you can,’ but that he would “love it” if they “could straighten themselves out.”

The judge added, “The record is clear that President Trump made the decision at issue. And his announcement of the ban and later remarks explaining the reason for it make this a straightforward conclusion: President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him.”

He also dismissed the government’s national security argument. He noted that there was “no evidence in the record” that he made the decision to revoke the passes for those reasons “from the get go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision.”

The judge explained that because the D.C. Circuit has held that the White House press area is a “non public forum,” the government cannot limit access based on someone’s viewpoint.

The judge wrote that “it is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased—in other words, it was ‘an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view.’”

The judge also ruled that the news outlets should put up a nominal bond of $1.00 as the case moves forward.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the lead attorney representing the news outlets, said in a statement, “When the president issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the President has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.”

Boutrous added, “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The court was right to enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the free press’ for the foreseeable future.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ABC‘s legal team told a federal judge on Monday that because the FCC ordered that it submit its station licenses for early renewal rather than a host of less-drastic options, the agency only underscored “their retaliatory motive.”

The network has asked a federal judge to halt the license review proceedings, arguing that it is a punitive action for First Amendment protected speech from the news division, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel and other content disfavored by Donald Trump.

When the FCC moved to an early renewal proceeding in April, it said that the unusual move was due to the lack of sufficient response by the network as part of an investigation into its diversity, equity and inclusion practices, which have been a target of the administration.

After a two-hour hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan asked the FCC to submit an additional filing outlining the other options that were available to compel the network to comply with document requests.

In its filing on Friday, the FCC, represented by the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., said that the early renewal order was the “best tool for the task before the agency.”

The agency acknowledged that other options were available, including issuing administrative subpoenas, imposing monetary penalties and holding hearings.

“Asking whether the Commission might have chosen a different tool to combat Plaintiffs’ failure to provide complete responses in the anti-discrimination investigation does not address the operative question in this case: whether the agency lawfully elected to call for early renewal,” the government’s attorney argued in the filing.

Tools like administrative subpoenas and monetary penalties would require DOJ enforcement, the government attorney stated, while the agency launched an early renewal proceeding that included a public comment period.

In a filing on Monday, ABC’s legal team wrote, “Defendants’ own admissions leave no doubt as to why—Defendants sought to inflict maximal coercive pressure on the media company whose speech the Administration sought to curb, while deliberately evading judicial review.”

“Defendants’ excuses for not using a less intrusive tool to address the supposed discovery deficiency only underscore their retaliatory motive.”

The FCC has claimed that the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction, not the district court, but that would likely require that the network wait until a decision was made on the license renewals. But Beth Wilkinson, who represented the network at last week’s hearing, warned that such a delay has the effect of chilling the network’s speech.

The network is seeking a preliminary injunction, but the judge has not said when she would issue a ruling.