Todd Blanche defends White House media ban as court order restores reporters’ access

Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the White House’s exclusion of CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Sunday, saying access to the building is ‘a privilege and not a right.’ His comments came after a federal judge ordered the administration to restore the outlets’ credentials temporarily, leaving the wider dispute over press access unresolved.

Asked on ABC News’s This Week what the First Amendment meant for reporters seeking access to the White House, Blanche said the press was free to report what it wanted. ‘But when it comes to the White House, it is the people’s house,’ he said. ‘It is a privilege and not a right to be there.’ ABC identifies its published transcript of the September 27 interview as a rush version that may contain minor errors.

What Blanche said about the ban

Blanche said President Donald Trump was ‘sick and tired’ of what he considered inaccurate reporting by the three outlets. That description was the administration’s allegation, not an established finding about their coverage. When pressed for a specific example, Blanche did not identify a report that demonstrated his claim, according to The Guardian’s account of the interview.

Blanche also cast alleged misinformation as a national-security concern. He argued that inaccurate reports could affect the United States’ relations with foreign partners and adversaries. The claim matters to the court dispute because the administration has cited national security as a reason for its decisions about access; whether that rationale is supported by the record is contested.

A temporary ruling, with litigation continuing

On September 24, US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico for 14 days. The Associated Press reported that Kelly found the outlets were likely to succeed on a procedural due-process claim. The order was an interim measure, not a final ruling on all the outlets’ arguments.

The outlets argued that the administration had singled them out because of their coverage and infringed their First Amendment rights, AP reported. The White House argued that the president could choose who enters the building and cited national security. Kelly found the administration’s standard for objectionable reporting too vague and said the record did not show that national-security concerns had motivated the credential revocations.

The administration’s court filing identified particular coverage it objected to, according to AP: CNN reporting on East Wing bunker construction, MS NOW reporting about an alleged leak investigation and Politico reporting on security funding for a White House ballroom. Identifying those reports in a filing did not establish that any of them were inaccurate. Blanche maintained the government’s position in the ABC interview but declined to discuss the judge’s reasoning while the case continued.

What the order means for access

The temporary order addresses entry credentials for the three outlets. The dispute over CNN’s place in the travel press pool shows that access to the White House complex and access to presidential trips are distinct practical questions. The Guardian reported that journalists were allowed back into the executive complex after the order, while CNN said its journalists were prevented from joining the Air Force One pool on Saturday.

The ruling followed the original decision to bar the outlets from the White House on September 19. It also followed a brief suspension of television pool feeds by other outlets in solidarity with them, The Guardian reported. The court’s intervention changed the immediate position on credentials, but the reported Air Force One decision showed why the scope of access remained a live issue.

For readers following the case, the confirmed position is limited: Kelly ordered a 14-day restoration of credentials, Blanche defended the administration’s approach on September 27, and litigation was still under way. The available reports do not establish uninterrupted access for every reporter or resolve what will happen when the temporary order expires. The earlier ruling is covered in NewsJaws’s report on the judge’s temporary reversal of the ban.