Tag: Deadline News

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

Leading in polls in the Los Angeles mayor’s race, Nithya Raman went on a charm offensive Thursday with the film and TV industry, and Paramount‘s CEO David Ellison in particular.

“To David Ellison, to his co-CEO, I don’t just want those dollars that you’ve committed to productions to be spent in America — I want them to be spent in Los Angeles,” the two-term councilmember said today at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, which is taking place in her Hollywood district. Raman said that though she was opposed to $111 billion merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, now that the deal has been approved she has no interest in “relitigating this into eternity.”

As has been the case many times in the past, the home of Hollywood has some unlikely bedfellows when it comes to the bottom line. It is unknown whether Raman has directly reached out to Paramount brass since U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín signed off Tuesday on the antitrust settlement between the Ellison-run company and a dozen state attorneys general. Paramount reps did not respond to Deadline’s request for comment on any communication between the councilmember and the CEO.

In full campaign mode, Raman emphasized during today’s panel interview that she will be a “relentless advocate” for uncapping the state’s current $750 million a year film and TV tax incentive program as a further move to get production back to California and L.A. With a room full of execs before her, the spouse of TV comedy scribe Vali Chandrasekaran also reiterated she would “ensure that we had a film office in the mayor’s office that was liaising with other jurisdictions, that was making it as simple to shoot here as possible, as low cost to shoot here as possible, and that work would be established almost immediately.”

To that, with production significantly on the decline over the past six years and more than 50,000 jobs lost, Raman followed the headlines as Ellison and his newly minted co-CEO Ynon Kreiz prepare to meld the two iconic Hollywood companies.

“If I get to be mayor, I want to work with you and ensure and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure that every single one of those shoots are happening here in Los Angeles,” the candidate said, addressing Ellison and Kreiz directly in absentia. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that happens.”

Although Raman leads incumbent Mayor Karen Bass by double digits in many polls, the fact is one-third of voters in the City of Angels remain undecided just more than a month before the election. To that, the candidate has to win over a portion of those who voted for ex-The Hills regular Spencer Pratt in the three-way primary earlier this year — and she had a pitch.

“To every voter who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary who is disappointed that he’s not in this general election, I want to speak directly to you,” Raman said of the Donald Trump ally. “I want to speak directly to them, and to say that I share your frustration with City Hall, and I will work with every molecule of my being to ensure that this city is working for you.”

Among his various post-primary endeavors, former Palisades resident Pratt has been instrumental, by all bipartisan accounts, in the crafting of federal film and TV tax incentive legislation — a bill Raman has said she also supports.

Leaning into her own outsider status, even with years on the L.A. City Council, Raman added, again addressing Pratt voters: “The frustrations that Angelinos have with the direction of our city is warranted. We have, under this mayor’s leadership, we have moved in the wrong direction and and away from actually delivering the kinds of services that we were able to deliver just a few years ago because of fiscal mismanagement under her leadership.”

“So, to those Pratt voters, I just want to say to you, I will do better for you,” she said.

Fox News again handily topped the September and third quarter ratings, although as its viewership was down versus the same periods in 2025.

MS NOW saw gains in the most recent figures, and CNN also showed uptick in September and in certain dayparts for the quarter.

In primetime in September, Fox News averaged 1.72 million viewers, down 32% from the same month in 2025. MS NOW averaged 839,000, up 3.6% from a year earlier. CNN posted 539,000, down 0.7% from 2025. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 156,000 viewers, down 44.3% from a year earlier, compared to 90,000 for CNN, up 3.4%, and 79,000 for MS NOW, up 16.2%.

In total day in September, Fox News averaged 1.11 million, down 31.1% from 2025. MS NOW averaged 544,000, up 6.7%, and CNN posted 373,000, down 7%. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 106,000, down 40.8%, compared to CNN with 53,000, down 14.5%, and MS NOW with 52,000, up 15.6%.

In the third quarter primetime, Fox News averaged 2.06 million viewers, down 17% from a year earlier, compared to 930,000 for MS NOW, up 16%, and 607,000 for CNN, up 12.8%. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 183,000 viewers, down 24.7%, compared to CNN with 101,000, up 16.1%, and MS NOW with 84,000, up 27.3%.

In third quarter total day, Fox News averaged 1.32 million, down 15.8% versus 2025, compared to MS NOW with 592,000, up 20.3%, and CNN with 426,000, up 7.6%. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 120,000, down 24.5%, compared to CNN with 61,000, flat, and MS NOW with 56,000, up 36.6%.

Fox News’ The Five was the top cable news show in September, averaging 2.79 million viewers, followed by Jesse Watters Primetime with 2.4 million, Gutfeld! with 2.12 million, Hannity with 2.06 million and Special Report with Bret Baier with 2.04 million.

In the 25-54 demo, The Five was tops with 273,000, followed by Gutfeld! with 214,000, Jesse Watters Primetime with 212,000, Hannity with 204,000 and MS NOW’s The Rachel Maddow Show with 186,000.

Each network touted certain aspects of the figures. Fox News said that they were on track to have its highest rated midterm year ever. MS NOW promoted double digit viewership increases.

Among other networks, NewsNation said that its primetime viewership was up 12% in primetime in the third quarter and 8% in adults 25-54. NewsNation averaged 120,000 viewers in primetime during the third quarter, and 13,000 in the demo.

Newsmax averaged 185,000 in primetime for the quarter and 9,000 in the demo.

MS NOW’s top rated show in September was The Rachel Maddow Show, averaging 1.79 million viewers. CNN’s top show was NewsNight, averaging 610,000, and NewsNation’s was Cuomo, averaging 167,000. Newsmax’s top show was Rob Schmitt Tonight, averaging 305,000.

UPDATED, with White House comment: CNN, MS NOW and Politico are warning that the Trump administration will reimpose a “complete ban” on their access to the White House without a judge issuing a preliminary injunction.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order, forcing the White House to restore access to the White House to the outlets as he more fully considers the legal arguments. The TRO lasts for 14 days.

In a filing in federal court on Monday, attorneys for the three news outlets argued that the Trump White House actions since then “leave little doubt that it will immediately reinstitute a complete ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico if allowed the opportunity.”

The outlets’ legal team, led by Theodore Boutrous Jr., pointed to the White House’s restriction on CNN from access to State Dinner arrivals on Thursday evening. The network then was barred from serving as TV pooler on Air Force One on Trump’s trip to Tennessee on Saturday, with no replacement stepping in, and leaving a dearth of TV images from the trip.

“Because the ban is an unlawful assault on the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms and will inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs and the public if not restrained, this Court should preliminarily enjoin its enforcement pending the resolution of this case,” the news outlets’ attorneys wrote.

Kelly cited a lack of due process by the White House when it pulled dozens of credentials of reporters from the three outlets. While the Trump DOJ has cited standards of “professionalism and decorum” and national security concerns, the media outlets’ legal team called that reasoning that “pretextual” and “post hoc,” as well as vague.

In the latest brief, CNN, MS NOW and Politico also again cited violations of the First Amendment. They noted that Trump has explained the ban by blaming their coverage as “Purposely … negative,” among other things.

“His statements also make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from newsgathering and reporting that the President might view as negative,” the news outlets’ legal team wrote. “And his administration has continued to retaliate against Plaintiffs even after the temporary restraining order, only underscoring that Defendants’ motive is to punish and chill journalism they dislike.”

The outlets are asking the judge to prohibit the Trump team from pulling hard pass credentials, or to ensure the reporters of the White House access they had before Sept. 18. In contrast to a TRO, a preliminary injunction would sideline Trump’s ban until a trial is held, or if an appeals court rules otherwise.

Trump initially banned the three outlets on Sept. 18. When the judge granted a TRO last early Thursday, it meant that the White House had to restore hard passes, with reporters not gaining reentry until around noon that day.

The issue of whether the White House can also restrict CNN from the pool is a slightly different, but related issue. It’s also one at the center of another case, involving the Associated Press after it was banned from the pool and other White House events. That case is currently on appeal.

That said, in the latest brief, the three outlets cited the White House’s continued prohibitions on CNN as an example of White House retaliation over protected speech.

For much of last week, there was no TV network pool, meaning that there was little video coverage of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the White House. The four other networks in the pool — CBS News, ABC News, Fox News and NBC News — initially suspended their participation in protest of the exclusion of CNN. The networks resumed the TV pool coverage this week, but it will be put to the test again on Thursday, when CNN is assigned to that duty.

“Every day, critically important news is breaking at the White House, and the ban will substantially interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to cover it,” the outlets brief stated. “The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations—which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based, independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable.”

The DOJ’s brief in response is due by Friday. A White House official said in a statement, “President Trump is the most accessible President in history — holding open press events, regular gaggles and interviews, taking questions nearly every day, and speaking directly to the American people through social media. But if a reporter walks into an interview with their headline and narrative already decided, why do they need to be in the room? They can write their garbage from anywhere. Even after outlets were given access to the White House, they declined to cover various events proving this isn’t about access. It’s performative and dishonest.”

Boutrous said in a statement, “The president and his administration have continued to make clear that this ban has only one purpose: to punish reporting he doesn’t like. That’s retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple.” He said that with the pending expiration of the TRO, “it is critical to ensure that the White House continues to be prevented from implementing this unconstitutional ban on the free press.”

The White House has been hit with a cease-and-desist letter from a musician whose song was featured in a promotional ad featuring Donald Trump that was paid for using tax dollars rather than campaign funds.

An attorney for JMSN, whose real name is Christian Berishaj, fired off a cease-and-desist letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on Monday, objecting to the use of his song “Love Me” in the ad, known as “The Country He Loves.” The ad was one of a series of spots that have run on TV in the past week, with the White House claiming they are public service announcements yet Democrats and even some Republicans contending that they are campaign propaganda.

The letter alleges that the song was used without proper clearances and claims violation of federal copyright law. Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Action wrote in the letter that “JMSN does not want to be viewed as directly or indirectly affiliated with the President or his Administration. As he said in his Instagram post denouncing the Advertisement, he ‘would never authorize [his] music to be used for ANY political agenda or campaign.’ Thus, the use of the Song in this context, as part of an overtly partisan, political advertisement, is particularly damaging, as it could cause others to call into question JMSN’s artistic independence and integrity.”

A White House spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Yashar Ali first reported on the cease-and-desist letter.

The ads contain messages that they are “paid for by the U.S. government.” Per NBC News, AdImpact estimates that $1.7 million has been spent to run the spots.