Two Utah Republican lawmakers are pushing back against President Donald Trump’s decision to bar three media outlets from the White House, as congressional criticism mounts alongside a federal lawsuit and a broader press pool blackout involving major television networks.
White House Media Ban and President Donald Trump
The restriction on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico began over the weekend, touching off a swift constitutional battle and a rare act of solidarity across the American news media. White House officials justified the ban by pointing to what they termed years of false reporting. President Donald Trump defended the move in a social media statement on Monday, declaring it instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America
and asserting that It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!
Utah Lawmakers React to the White House Press Ban
Sen. John Curtis and Rep. Blake Moore
KSL reached out to all six members of Utah’s congressional delegation and the governor for comment on the media ban. Spokespersons for Gov. Spencer Cox, Sen. Mike Lee and Reps. Burgess Owens and Mike Kennedy did not immediately respond, while Rep. Celeste Maloy’s office declined to comment.
However, two members of the state’s congressional delegation voiced direct opposition to the administration’s actions. Sen. John Curtis criticized the decision, stating, I don't think you'd see restricting the press in any handbooks on leading the free world.
Representative Blake Moore, who holds a high position in GOP House leadership, also voiced disagreement through his office. A spokesperson for Moore stated that the congressman does not agree with this recent decision and believes that, unless they are committing slander or libel, all media should have access to the White House.
Legal Challenge and Press Pool Blackout
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico Lawsuit
The targeted news organizations responded quickly to the exclusion. CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed a lawsuit Monday arguing that the ban unlawfully targeted the content of their coverage in violation of the First Amendment. The legal filing contends that the president barred the outlets as retaliation for past news coverage because he deemed it 'negative' and chilling future reporting about him and his administration's policies and actions.
The complaint calls the directive a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,
stating it could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment.
The fallout quickly extended beyond the three banned organizations. CNN was also removed from its pool duties, where major news networks take turns covering the president during his day-to-day appearances and share their footage with other outlets. In response, four other major TV networks—ABC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC—said they will not cover presidential events as a pool in solidarity with CNN.
As CNN chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins pointed out regarding the blackout, When the president does anything today, there will be no TV camera with the president that is broadcasting and sharing this footage.
Additional publications, including the New York Times and Washington Post, announced they would temporarily not print or share photographs taken by pool journalists.
Legal and Academic Perspectives on the Administration’s Strategy
Ed Carter and Joel Campbell Commentary
Legal scholars and communication experts view the confrontation as an escalation in an already tense relationship between the executive branch and the press. Ed Carter, a communications professor at Brigham Young University who is also an attorney, noted that the president has had a longstanding relationship with the news media, both acrimonious and collaborative.
Carter questioned why the president is trying to ban reporters from these outlets now, suggesting, It could be to distract from political problems or unpopular policies and events,
and describing it as one in a long line of attacks on journalists that seem to be motivated by President Trump's ulterior motives.
Carter added that Trump depends on news coverage
and that his fame, his notoriety and celebrity is largely due to news coverage.
Joel Campbell, a former journalist and retired journalism professor at BYU, described the administration’s move as “rash” and “knee-jerk.” Obviously, that's offensive to the First Amendment when you decide three outlets are producing news that you find as fake, or whatever you want to call it,
Campbell told KSL, adding that such content discrimination is really offensive to the First Amendment
and seems unconstitutional, for sure.
Campbell also praised the solidarity of the other networks which decided not to cover presidential events, noting that the biggest loser in this entire debate is the public that needs independent information about the activities of the White House.