Tag: Deadline News

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.

The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether the five major networks violated antitrust laws when they suspended participation in the White House TV pool in protest of Donald Trump‘s ban on CNN.

Emily Covington, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, said in a statement, “Members of the television press pool have boycotted covering White House events. Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act. The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws.” The New York Times first reported on the investigation.

After Trump announced his ban on CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House grounds on Sept. 18, CNN also was restricted from the TV pool. As part of a long-running arrangement, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and Fox News rotate pool duty providing technical, video and reporting coverage of the president, with feeds then distributed to other networks and news organizations. The pool is necessary because of the space limitations of areas of the White House, like the Oval Office, or on Air Force One.

After the CNN freeze out, the other members of the TV pool jointly announced on Sept. 21 that they would refrain from their rotation turn, a move made to protest the White House effort to block the news network.

“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting,” the five networks said in a statement at the time.

The suspension lasted for about four days, but it came during the White House visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The suspension of the TV pool meant that there was much less video coverage of major ceremonies and other events surrounding his visit. Trump later complained that CNN and MS NOW did not cover Xi’s visit, without mentioning his efforts to ban the two outlets from the White House grounds.

ABC confirmed that it has not received any notification of the investigation but it expects to. A CNN spokesperson declined to comment. Other networks in the pool did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House has continued to restrict CNN from certain assignments, including flying on Air Force One on presidential trip.

After Trump’s ban on CNN, Politico and MS NOW from White House grounds, those three media outlets sued, claiming violations of their First Amendment and due process rights. A federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order, which last until Tuesday, that has forced the White House to renew access to dozens of reporters. The judge, Timothy Kelly, is expected to rule by then on whether to grant the news outlets a preliminary injunction, something that would prevent the White House from denying access on a longer term.

The issue of access to the White House grounds is separate, yet related, to the issue of whether the administration can also freeze out members of the pool because the president does not approve of their editorial decisions. A different case, involving the Associated Press, is on appeal in the D.C. Circuit. The AP was barred from the White House pool because its style guidance did not adhere to Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that the investigation “appears to be a pretext for seeking records from the networks about how they are covering daily White House events during a media ban the president himself put in place. The decisions news organizations make about coverage are protected by the First Amendment, and summoning antitrust authority, on top of the retaliatory actions the White House has already taken to bar certain outlets, is another and even more brazen attempt to try to intimidate journalists.”

The administration has been rebuffed in the federal courts in another effort to seek materials from media organizations as part of an antitrust investigation. Last year, a federal judge barred the Federal Trade Commission from issuing a civil investigative demand to Media Matters for America, the progressive watchdog group, as part of an antitrust investigation of an advertiser boycott of Elon Musk’s X.

Media Matters later said that a settlement with the FTC required that the agency forgo issuing such a civil investigation demand. They also said that the “agreement — and the decisions Media Matters won in the district court and the court of appeals — offers a roadmap for other newsgathering and nonprofit organizations facing, or at risk of, government retaliation.” Three advertising holding companies, WPP, Dentsu and Publicis, also reached a settlement with the FTC.

UPDATED, with Trump comment: The Pentagon announcement that it plans to livestream the execution of the Fort Hood shooter in December has generated an outcry from public officials and religious figures, including the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

None of the networks have yet to comment publicly on whether they would air such an event, and there is substantial doubt that they would do so. It undoubtedly would get news coverage surrounding the stream of the execution, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made clear he wants to be public.

On Friday, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr was asked on CNBC if the execution is “something you would allow on broadcast if they wanted to.”

“Ultimately we’re going to defer to Secretary Hegseth and his decisions on how to move forward with this,” Carr said.

A Pentagon spokesperson said that the Dec. 3 execution of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan would be live streamed and that “details will follow.” Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring dozens of others in shooting rampage at the Fort Hood military base in 2009.

A livestream falls outside of the FCC’s regulatory power, but the Pentagon feed is something that, absent restrictions, broadcasters could pick up. The FCC’s obscenity, indecency and profanity guidelines do not directly address executions, but under his tenure, Carr has launched investigations of networks on the grounds that they may not be meeting their public interest obligations. FCC guidance earlier this year emphasized, among other things, that stations must air programming that is “responsive to the needs of their local communities.”

“My understanding is it’s not on broadcast TV, so I don’t think there’s a role for the FCC one way or the other there,” Carr said on CNBC. “But I trust Secretary Hegseth. I mean, he’s implementing the laws and regulations that are relevant to the Department of War, and I think he’s doing a great job, and I trust that he’s making the right call on these issues.”

The execution by firing squad is planned for 1 p.m. on that day and will take place at Fort Hood, Hegseth said.

“It hasn’t been since World War II that we have done that, and I kind of like the mentality that we had in World War II,” Hegseth told Real America’s Voice, a pro-Trump network, in an interview this week.

“We will make sure that people are able to watch it, that it is public, because people need to understand there are serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said.

Asked by a reporter whether he approved the livestream plan, President Donald Trump said, “Absolutely.”

There has been a tradition of state executions allowing a handful of journalists to witness executions, including in Texas, but with a prohibition on photos and video. It’s possible that Hasan’s legal team will try to block those plans as well.

The announcement was condemned by some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the plans for a livestream “a barbaric promotion of a culture of death” and said that it “must be reconsidered.”

“The public execution even of one who has done grave harm will only further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people,” Coakley said.

Networks have been cautious about any airing of a public death, issuing viewer advisories or having general policies against airing the moment of death. YouTube also has a policy prohibiting “violent or gory content intended to shock or disgust viewers,” but has exceptions for educational, documentary, scientific or artistic content, “including content that is in the public interest.” A YouTube spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

Another issue will be in how children will be restricted from a livestream. The U.S. Army Corrections System guidelines on military executions does not allow anyone under 18 to be a witness to such an event.

There have been cases of media outlets seeking permission to record or film executions. In 1991, KQED-TV sued for access to the execution of Robert Alton Harris, but a federal judge ruled that effort, siding with prison officials’ concerns over the impact on inmates, per the Los Angeles Times.

Brett McGurk‘s new book Brink: Inside the Race to Free the October 7th Hostages offers an insider account of the diplomatic rollercoaster to secure a ceasefire and hostage release in the war in Gaza.

The book, published this week, also offers a glimpse at White House messaging about the conflict, including two figures the president turned to in delivering a key speech: Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg.

McGurk, who served as deputy assistant for national security affairs to Biden, wrote of the scene as they prepared the president for his address on May 31, 2024. While Katzenberg and Spielberg’s role have been reported before, McGurk gave a first-hand account in the room, for a speech focused on a proposal to end the fighting and to secure a release of the hostages.

By that point, the Gaza conflict had created divisions within the Democratic coalition, protests at college campuses and presidential appearances and concerns over its impact on the November elections. There was pressure from the campaign for the president to make an address on the crisis, per McGurk.

McGurk wrote of the rehearsal, “In the Map Room, Biden peered at two screens behind me. ‘Jeffrey, Steven, welcome,’ he said. I turned around to see Jeffery Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg on Zoom. They greeted Biden warmly, Spielberg saying this was the speech they wanted to hear.

“It was a reminder that while I saw this speech as a policy address with a functional aim, it had a political purpose, too,” McGurk wrote.

He added, “The speech was timed for Friday night in Israel, when much of the country shuts down, allowing time for us to shape its reception there and around the world. Notably, we did not inform Netanyahu that we were making the speech until shortly before Biden delivered it, as we knew the address would lock Netanyahu into the terms of the deal now on the table.

“Biden said he was ready.

“Katzenberg advised, ‘Remember, slow Joe, let the audience hear every word.’

“Biden smiled, ‘Slow Joe? Don’t let Jill hear that.’

“He read through the draft, pausing at times to ask questions about the text, which we addressed with rewrites.”

McGurk wrote that he found Biden “fully engaged, leaning forward on the podium.”

He wrote, “The moguls told him he looked strong, and he did. There was no sign of the Biden we’d all see on a debate stage with Trump only four weeks later.”

The latter was a reference to Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump. What followed were weeks of calls on Biden to drop out, coming from some elected Democrats and prominent donors, until he exited the race on July 19. Katzenberg had played a prominent role as a top adviser to Biden’s re-election campaign.

While the Biden speech focused on a peace proposal, as it turned out, it would take until the next year, a week before Trump returned to office, for a ceasefire agreement to be reached.

Brett McGurk‘s new book Brink: Inside the Race to Free the October 7th Hostages offers an insider account of the diplomatic rollercoaster to secure a ceasefire and hostage release in the war in Gaza.

The book, published this week, also offers a glimpse at White House messaging about the conflict, including two figures the president turned to in delivering a key speech: Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg.

McGurk, who served as deputy assistant for national security affairs to Biden, wrote of the scene as they prepared the president for his address on May 31, 2024. While Katzenberg and Spielberg’s role have been reported before, McGurk gave a first-hand account in the room, for a speech focused on a proposal to end the fighting and to secure a release of the hostages.

By that point, the Gaza conflict had created divisions within the Democratic coalition, protests at college campuses and presidential appearances and concerns over its impact on the November elections. There was pressure from the campaign for the president to make an address on the crisis, per McGurk.

McGurk wrote of the rehearsal, “In the Map Room, Biden peered at two screens behind me. ‘Jeffrey, Steven, welcome,’ he said. I turned around to see Jeffery Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg on Zoom. They greeted Biden warmly, Spielberg saying this was the speech they wanted to hear.

“It was a reminder that while I saw this speech as a policy address with a functional aim, it had a political purpose, too,” McGurk wrote.

He added, “The speech was timed for Friday night in Israel, when much of the country shuts down, allowing time for us to shape its reception there and around the world. Notably, we did not inform Netanyahu that we were making the speech until shortly before Biden delivered it, as we knew the address would lock Netanyahu into the terms of the deal now on the table.

“Biden said he was ready.

“Katzenberg advised, ‘Remember, slow Joe, let the audience hear every word.’

“Biden smiled, ‘Slow Joe? Don’t let Jill hear that.’

“He read through the draft, pausing at times to ask questions about the text, which we addressed with rewrites.”

McGurk wrote that he found Biden “fully engaged, leaning forward on the podium.”

He wrote, “The moguls told him he looked strong, and he did. There was no sign of the Biden we’d all see on a debate stage with Trump only four weeks later.”

The latter was a reference to Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump. What followed were weeks of calls on Biden to drop out, coming from some elected Democrats and prominent donors, until he exited the race on July 19. Katzenberg had played a prominent role as a top adviser to Biden’s re-election campaign.

While the Biden speech focused on a peace proposal, as it turned out, it would take until the next year, a week before Trump returned to office, for a ceasefire agreement to be reached.