❌

Normal view

After that disastrous debut, Katie Zacharia is already history

16 October 2026 at 15:24

Donald Trump’s new White House “pep secretary,” Katie Zacharia, introduced herself to America in the Brady Briefing Room this week, to anticipated criticism from Democrats and some unexpected criticism from Republicans.  

At first, the press pool acted like that was just business as usual. It didn’t last long. As of Friday afternoon, multiple news reports indicate that Trump has already seen enough, and has asked Zacharia to step down from her role at the White House after just five days on the job.

According to a post on X by reporter Aaron Rupar, Trump told the press corps he had said to Zacharia that “she was treated very, very unfairly by the news. Let’s call it the fake news. I said, ‘Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this.’ We’re talking about doing something. I want her to have a good life. She’s being brutalized by the media.” 

In all likelihood, that will end one of the shortest tenures of any Trump White House official, only about half the length of the notorious Anthony Scaramucci during Trump’s first term.

Maybe Zacharia was just unlucky. After all, she made her debut on Oct. 13. She showed up 15 minutes late. She spent the next eight minutes telling us how great Trump was. She took questions from just three people. She was gone 15 minutes later. In her praise of Trump, Zacharia sounded like former press secretary Sean Spicer talking about Trump’s inaugural crowds nearly a decade ago as she made dubious claims about the number of attendees at the president’s recent campaign rallies in high school gymnasiums and small arenas. 

“Attendance is at record highs as enthusiastic, hard-working Americans are lining up and packing arenas to support President Trump,” she said with a straight face. Yep. The lies have already begun. Don’t act surprised. 

When she finally took questions, only Breitbart (which lavished her with praise for allowing them in the building), Fox News and the Daily Mail got to ask questions. She dropped one legitimate piece of news: The president had asked for Kimberly Guilfoyle’s resignation as U.S. ambassador to Greece, based on her evident corruption and widely reported misbehavior, which even Trump didn’t try to defend. The punchline to that incident came a short time later as Trump was departing the White House, when he barely acknowledged Guilfoyle’s existence: Kimberly? Kimberly who? 

A handful of defenders noted that the new press secretary had only a day to get ready for her debut. “Katie Zacharia had less than 24 hours to prepare for her inaugural briefing, as she juggled a cross-country move, and only received briefing materials this morning,” the Wall Street Journal reported. OK, so who forced her to go on stage, and why? 

She could have taken all the time she needed. It’s not like we were getting press briefings every day anyway, and Trump always says he’s his own best press secretary. So there was no pressure from the press, although more reporters than usual showed up to be part of Zacharia’s inaugural standup routine.  

Zacharia didn’t take the time to get to know us, and as a result we once again got a low-grade sideshow at the White House. Don’t expect anything more, and don’t expect the press to push back.

I’ve worked with incoming press secretaries at all levels, from City Hall to the White House. The best of them took the time to study policy briefings, meet department heads and the most active beat reporters before holding their first briefing. By doing that, they avoided being criticized for a lack of preparation and having to look for names on an index card. They also got a feel for the issues and questions they needed to address. Getting to know someone is the key to any long-term relationship, whether professional or personal.

That sort of protocol has long since been forgotten and abandoned, at least at the White House. Today we can’t get into the upper press area of the West Wing to talk with the press secretary. She didn’t take the time to get to know us, and as a result we once again got a low-grade sideshow. Don’t expect anything more, and don’t expect the press to push back. The White House Correspondents’ Association is in “go along to get along” mode. It’s cringeworthy to watch and heartbreaking to endure.

There was no reason to expect much of Zacharia’s first staged appearance, and that’s why no one should be surprised to see her draw as much criticism for her attire and demeanor as for the content of the information she provided. She appeared nervous, at one point calling her husband “my president.” She giggled at herself for that: “That’s a good one.”  That was self-deprecating, which I appreciate. As for her attire, it was professional, but not something I would wear. As for being nervous, that’s to be expected. But again, why did she feel the need to brief us on her first day in the office?

She called on Trump-friendly media exclusively, and then excused herself, saying she had to travel to Alaska with the president, who’s hoping to shore up support for incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan, one of many struggling Republicans this fall. 

Mind you, if Zacharia had arrived on time, she could have doubled her time with us. Why start late and then cut it short? If she knew she was going to leave with Trump, there was no reason to soil her laundry doing a shortened briefing. Either show up on time or do it upon your return, after you get settled. Nobody would have said anything about that — and nobody would care if they did. That might have given the president another excuse to belittle the press.

I know some Republican lawmakers and even some reporters who believe that Trump set up Zacharia for failure by ordering her first appearance. That certainly isn’t beyond Trump. He’s the best when it comes to lowering expectations.

Those expectations at the moment are so low as to defy measurement. 

Just this week Trump has announced his pleasure with a DHS investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar’s immigration papers, a deal to import diesel fuel from Russia, and possible new air strikes on Iran, while Vice President JD Vance made a weird homophobic joke about Texas Senate candidate James Talarico and Speaker Mike Johnson claimed to have no idea why gas prices are spiking. Meanwhile, Trump blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for not ending a war that began with Russia’s invasion of his country.

Of course, none of these issues were brought up in the new pep secretary’s very short briefing, the strangest of those issues being the bizarre deal made with Russia. In an attempt to lower prices at the pump, which have spiked because of the war Trump started, the president now says he’s ready to buy diesel from Vladimir Putin’s government.

In essence, Trump has agreed to pay an enemy government that is helping those trying to kill Americans in a war that’s entirely his doing. All to eradicate a supposed threat that he claimed he had “obliterated” a year earlier.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, Russia is backing Iran in its war with the U.S., reportedly providing intelligence on U.S. bases to the Iranian military. In essence, Trump agreed to pay an enemy government that is helping those trying to kill Americans in a war that’s entirely his doing. And all this to eradicate a supposed threat that Trump had claimed didn’t exist at all because he “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year earlier.

Come to think of it, a two-hour briefing on just that subject wouldn’t have been enough to explain that insanity. How do you tell the press that we’re paying our enemies to attack us?

Even so, that wasn’t the peak of insanity this week. 

A few days earlier, a judge in Virginia ruled that the Trump administration had misled the public with a long list of false accusations about Mary Comans, the former chief financial officer of FEMA. 

“Armed only with false statements, high-ranking government officials undertook a premeditated campaign to impugn the personal and professional integrity of Ms. Comans, a non-partisan, career public servant,” U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick said. “Their intent was to disseminate false and derogatory information about Ms. Comans as widely as possible.”

Comans was accused of money laundering, willfully violating a presidential executive order, undermining public safety and misspending federal funds. As the judge found, none of that was ultimately true. He added that “high-ranking” government officials accused her of such things while “knowing they were false.”

Dealing with that insanity might also require a two-hour press briefing. 

Finally, there’s the matter of the lawsuit filed by CNN, MSNOW and Politico against the Trump administration. Judge Timothy Kelly ruled Tuesday night that the temporary restraining order preventing Trump from banning those outlets from the White House would remain in force while their lawsuit proceeded. 

Trump had also engaged in “unlawful viewpoint discrimination” by banning those reporters, Kelly said. The president also apparently never gave those news organizations any meaningful list of standards they had to comply with or risk losing their press passes. Trump’s actions, the judge said, “likely did not … come close to satisfying Karem.” 

Yes, that’s me. He was referring to the Karem v. Trump case in 2019, when I beat the administration in court on three occasions and got my press credentials back. And the judge is right, by the way: Trump’s actions don’t satisfy me. But unpacking my own victory over Trump would be a tough task for the best press secretary. So would dealing with any of this week’s issues, let alone dealing with a president who seems to have reached peak insanity, especially for a brand new press secretary who just moved to town with questionable credentials.


Want more sharp takes on politics?
Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only by Amanda Marcotte, also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.


To be completely fair, Trump threw Zacharia to the dogs with no prep time, no knowledge of the issues she would have to handle and no readiness to handle even the straightforward questions about her own legal background. (She graduated from law school but is not a licensed attorney in any state.)

Zacharia read a bunch of lies off a written statement, smiled at us and got out of there. It now seems possible that her first day briefing the White House press will also be her best day, as well as her last day. The aforementioned Anthony Scaramucci publicly mused that she may not last as long as he did at the White House (which was 11 days). I’ve heard some reporters saying they won’t even bother to learn how to spell her name. 

But what we saw in the briefing room this week was far more troubling than one woman falling on her face. It was a panicky president approaching peak insanity throwing a scapegoat on stage in an effort to deflect attention from his ruthless and corrupt conduct. True to form, the press corps took the bait, and seemed more interested in what Zacharia was wearing and whether she’d exaggerated her qualifications than in the important issues facing this country as a result of the president’s insanity.

I have plenty of empathy for anyone working in the Trump White House, but no sympathy for anyone who willingly joins the lunacy, particularly at this late date. 

The midterm elections are at hand. Trump is criminally negligent and mentally unwell. Anyone who goes to work for him now is just asking for trouble.

Just ask Katie Zacharia. If you can find her. 

The post After that disastrous debut, Katie Zacharia is already history appeared first on Salon.com.

Some are Using Trump’s Healthcare Checks to Support Charities — and Dem Candidates

12 October 2026 at 16:49

President Donald Trump has been sending checks to millions of Americans ahead of the midterms, seemingly in an effort to encourage voters to forget Republicans’ recent destructive actions making healthcare harder to access and afford.

Trump’s “Camp Donald” grift is designed to outlast his presidency

10 October 2026 at 12:30

The American presidency is one of the most stressful jobs there is. Presidents famously age during their terms, often starting off looking hale and hearty and, by the time they’re finished, appearing tired, more lined and a whole lot grayer than when they started. So it’s understandable they would need to recharge by getting away from Washington from time to time. 

Donald Trump has made a habit of this, regularly jetting to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, and his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, for extended periods of time in lieu of Camp David, the famous presidential getaway nestled in Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains. Now, according to a recent report by the Washington Post, he is seeking to create a permanent official presidential retreat in Florida at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

This would be an unprecedented move, even though it isn’t unusual for presidents to crave time away from Washington. According to the White House Historical Association, many of the early presidents left the White House in the summer because they believed that the white fog that formed on the nearby marshes was a deadly white gas; they wanted to get away for their health. In fact, James K. Polk is the only president to have stayed in the White House for each of the three summers he was president, and since he died shortly after leaving office, his fate was attributed at the time to those white gases.

Presidents, of course, have to keep working wherever they are. Some have wanted to escape Washington’s notorious humid summers, while others longed to flee the cold and create a “winter White House” in warmer climes. Harry Truman reportedly liked his Key West winter home so much that he called it the “Little White House” and spent 175 days of his presidency there. Richard Nixon was also fond of Florida, but he also frequently jetted back to his native California, as did Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush spent as much time as possible at the West Texas ranch he bought just before assuming the presidency. 

The first official presidential retreat was the Old Soldiers Home, which was commandeered by President James Buchanan as a summer getaway since its location in leafy Northwest Washington was cooler and quieter than the White House. It was subsequently used by Abraham Lincoln and his family, and he was said to have written the Emancipation Proclamation there. Some subsequent presidents enjoyed the retreat as well, but it was soon out of fashion as they began to travel further afield for their vacations. 


Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.


From 1880 until 1977, when President Jimmy Carter sold off the last one, there was always a presidential yacht for the chief executive to unwind on and entertain guests, but there wasn’t another official presidential retreat until 1942, when President Franklin Roosevelt visited a Works Progress Administration project in Maryland called Camp Hi-Catoctin and selected it as the location for a future presidential retreat he dubbed Shangri-La. Roosevelt used the property to relax, but he also saw it as a perfect place for high-level diplomacy. His successor, Harry Truman, made it a permanent federal facility and then, after he took office in 1953, Dwight Eisenhower renamed it Camp David in honor of his young grandson. Since then, the property has been the site of many meetings with foreign leaders, including the diplomatic negotiations hosted in 1978 by Carter between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin that culminated in the Camp David Accords. 

Its location — just a 30-minute helicopter ride but many spiritual miles away from the White House — makes it a convenient spot for important domestic matters to be dealt with outside the bustle of the White House. Richard Nixon famously fired his trusted aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman at Camp David in 1973, while 12 years earlier John F. Kennedy received counsel there from Eisenhower after the Bay of Pigs disaster. 

While some presidents have clearly enjoyed Camp David more than others, Trump has made no secret of his deep dislike of it. He has used it only rarely, and the one time he has been known to propose having any high-level talks there was in 2019 when he inexplicably invited Taliban leadership to join him there just days before the anniversary of Sept. 11, a meeting which was mercifully cancelled after the group killed an American in a car bomb attack in Kabul. 

Even on his official trips, if he’s unable to return home Trump will sleep at one of his own hotels, a move that is always profitable for him personally since the government pays for much of the huge entourage trailing the president.

Trump only wants to visit his own properties. According to the independent watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), as of June the president has spent 37% of his second term at his own properties, with Mar-a-Lago receiving the most visits. Even on his official trips, if he’s unable to return home Trump will sleep at one of his own hotels, a move that is always profitable for him personally since the government pays for much of the huge entourage trailing the president. In fact, one of the perks Trump has given himself is that his various winter and summer retreats are also his commercial properties, and his visits not only promote the properties, they also provide opportunities for paying customers to have access to the president. His behavior has become so commonplace that few even remark anymore that the president lives a good part of the time at clubs with members who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend time in his presence. 

The grift will apparently continue even after he leaves office. Trump recently announced that his proposed presidential library in Miami will double as a hotel, making it yet another profit center for the family. (He is also being sued by various interested parties who are upset that he was given the valuable land, worth a reported $330 million, for only $10 by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, with the understanding it would be used for a nonprofit organization.) Now he has big, unprecedented plans for the new Camp David.

According to the Washington Post, “a parcel” of his West Palm beach golf resort will “be designated a permanent, official sanctuary for foreign leaders and future U.S. presidents, designed to host international summits and house presidents when they take vacations in Florida.” Trump’s generosity is such that he also plans to throw in complimentary members for presidents. It’s obvious that there is a lot of money to be made, which will be accompanied by ongoing access to him and his family. If foreign dignitaries were there to meet with the president and take in some golf, you can imagine that Trump would be at the club next door waiting to hold court. As Rick Reilly, author of “Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump,” told the Post, “I suppose he wants to make a power play with these people and show them who is the king of America.”

Trump claims there would be no cost to the government, since he plans to pay for the housing himself. But as we’ve seen with the rapidly increasing costs to American taxpayers for his ballroom money pit at the White House, that’s unlikely to be the case. Taxpayers will almost certainly be on the hook for many millions, if only for the enhanced security that would be necessary. After all, this is the golf course where a would-be assassin was caught last year hiding in the bushes.

Trump leases the land for the golf course from Palm Beach County, which is seriously considering his proposal. If it is approved, the only course of action for the administration that follows Trump is to offload it — just as the federal government did with Mar-a-Lago after the socialite Marjorie Merriweather Post left it to the government when she died in 1973 to serve as a winter White House. Eight years later, citing exorbitant annual maintenance costs, the government returned the property to the Post Foundation, which put it for sale in 1985 before it was bought by Trump.

No name has been chosen for the property. But I don’t think there’s any mystery about what it’s going to be, do you?

The post Trump’s “Camp Donald” grift is designed to outlast his presidency appeared first on Salon.com.

Meet Katie Zacharia, Trump’s new White House press secretary

9 October 2026 at 23:48

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, 28, the youngest person to hold the role, served as one of the biggest and most controversial mouthpieces for President Donald Trump, describing Democrats as “terrorists,” making “your mom” jokes and organizing a White House “media offender” list. In August, Leavitt announced her resignation, saying she wanted to focus on her family. In May, Leavitt took time off from work for the birth of her daughter. She also has a two-year-old son. 

Rumors swirled around her departure that it was due to Trump’s ruse of switching planes on the way home from a NATO summit in Turkey in July, with the president reportedly hiding in a catering truck and taking a different plane, Air Force C-32A, instead of the former Air Force One, like he claimed on social media. Those Trump brought with him included the president’s aides, like Natalie Harp, who fawns over Trump with love letters, body man Walt Nauta and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

On the might’ve-gotten-blown-up decoy plane were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the White House press pool and others. Leavitt announced her resignation only a few days after The Washington Post and The New York Times reported on Trump’s disappearing act. 

However, there’s no evidence she was even on the trip. Yet it doesn’t seem like Leavitt is going to be a full-time stay-at-home mom or trad wife either, as it was announced in early October that she will join Fox News next month as an on-air contributor. For nearly two months, it has been unclear who would replace Leavitt at the White House, but perhaps unsurprisingly, it turns out to be another Fox News and Newsmax favorite.


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


On Friday, Trump announced his new pick for White House press secretary, Katie Zacharia, a 42-year-old conservative commentator and public relations liaison who frequently appears on Fox. Trump made the announcement on his website Truth Social, saying “She has an unblemished record of support, and has been a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning. She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA! I am confident that Katie will deliver strong results for our country as the next White House Press Secretary, as she has the respect of, and will work fantastically with, the media, the American People, and my administration.”

Zacharia will now be at the center of Trump’s administration as it navigates record low approval ratings, record high energy prices and entrenchment in the Iran war all before the November midterms. CNN reported the president sought Leavitt’s counsel before making a final decision and offering Zacharia the position. She is married to film producer Tyler Zacharia and they have four children. Zacharia’s most recent job was as a communications advisor for Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns Truth Social. Before that, Zacharia worked as a deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security for Public Affairs, starting in February 2026, but resigned just weeks later in March. 

She was allegedly ousted from DHS over her close ties to Corey Lewandowski, chief of staff to then Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who were alleged to be having a romantic affair together. Mocked as “Concentration Camp Barbie,” Noem saw the high-profile sieges of American cities she ordered attract negative media attention, especially when two protesters, Renée Good and Alex Pretti, were killed by federal ICE officers in Minneapolis. Noem was summoned before Congress over those scandals and others, including her alleged misuse of government funds on television advertisements and private luxury jets. She was later fired by Trump, reassigned as “special envoy” for the Shield of the Americas, and replaced by Markwayne Mullin, who currently heads DHS. Noem filed for divorce in late September.

The post Meet Katie Zacharia, Trump’s new White House press secretary appeared first on Salon.com.

Trump Mails Americans Checks Ahead of Midterms, Seeking to Compensate for What His Party Did to Healthcare

9 October 2026 at 00:07

President Donald Trump has in recent weeks unveiled multiple schemes to send checks to millions of Americans, adding letters explaining that funds are meant to help with healthcare costs. The move — unveiled weeks ahead of the midterm election — suggests an effort to encourage voters to forget Republicans’ recent destructive actions making healthcare harder to access and afford, experts told TPM.

Several experts also described at least one of the two check-mailing schemes as based on a “legally dubious” interpretation of how the executive branch may use the pool of funding it’s tapping into.  

Trump Rages, Rages Against the Dying of the Light

7 October 2026 at 21:18

This is the weekly, free edition of The Backchannel. If you’d like to receive the free edition of The Backchannel in your inbox, you can subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s manic building and naming spree has been a core feature of his second term in office. And that’s saying something. Because if nothing else, you can’t say Trump hasn’t been active. There are wars, blowing up the international trade regime, the on-going attempted authoritarian takeover of the state, the bust-out rush to wrest as much money out of the presidency as he can, his significant role energizing the AI boom (and possible bust). But with all these things, the building and naming spree stands out, especially in 2026. I focus on this today. I return to this today because of news that Trump wants to turn his West Palm Beach golf club into a new Camp David, a permanent presidential retreat.

The details here are important. If Trump had some secluded property he wanted to donate to the federal government for this purpose, there might be some logic, though it’s hard to imagine Democrats wouldn’t put it up for sale at their first opportunity. What he wants to do is different. His plan is to donate a parcel of land at the private club for the Florida Camp David. So it’s really that future presidents would have there own private bungalow at Trump International Golf Club in Palm Beach. As an additional, rather comical, sweetener the club’s legal counsel, who is presenting the idea to Palm Beach County officials, says that future presidents will even be offered comped memberships to the club.

Susan Collins Voted to Confirm Russ Vought. Is She Having Second Thoughts?

6 October 2026 at 12:16

In recent weeks, as the Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has floated novel ways to steamroll Congress, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has been making some noise. When Vought reportedly floated a plan to subject NIH grants to review by a committee of political appointees who would ensure they were not “woke,” Collins warned that the White House would be violating the law. Then, on Sep. 25, shortly after the Trump White House sent Congress their illegal pocket rescission notification — a plan to impound congressionally appropriated funds by letting the clock run out on the fiscal year — Collins took to social media and posted a scathing statement.

Russ Vought Insists He Has a Neat Trick to Override Congress. It’s More ‘a Confession,’ Experts Say

1 October 2026 at 16:49

Following a failed bid by Senate Democrats to block it, President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought have, once again, run roughshod over Congress’ power of the purse.

Ron Johnson Greenlights White House Plot to Seize Congress’ Power of the Purse

30 September 2026 at 20:44

Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) attempt to pass a bill blocking the $810 million “pocket rescission” the Trump White House sent over to Congress last week failed Wednesday evening.

The untold origins of Trump’s plan to sharply restrict mail-in voting

29 September 2026 at 12:00

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump restricting voting by mail in ways that could have thrown the upcoming midterms into chaos. But the White House originally had far more disruptive plans, ProPublica has learned. 

According to several people knowledgeable about the discussions, the administration initially floated an idea that would have virtually shut down mail voting: requiring all ballots to be delivered exclusively through certified mail. The proposal — which would have required voters to be home and sign for delivery of their ballots — was ultimately abandoned, after vehement Postal Service objections that it would have been impossible to execute. 

Even after the idea fizzled, Postal Service officials were cut out of crucial conversations as the Trump administration moved forward with what became the final executive order, two people familiar with the matter said. Issued in March, its contents came as a shock even to the Postal Service’s lawyers.

Trump’s order would have forced postal workers to serve as gatekeepers, deciding which ballots would be delivered and which wouldn’t. Beyond that, it would have inexplicably handed authority over the plan’s execution to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has no formal oversight over the Postal Service. 

Inside the Postal Service, which is overseen by a bipartisan Board of Governors, deliberations on whether to comply with the order stretched on for weeks. Some board members found it alarming but feared Trump would respond to a direct challenge by trying to fire them, sources familiar with their concerns told ProPublica. Instead, they remained silent, counting on the courts to block the measure. 

“The board was being careful how or when it took action, knowing that it might be its last action,” one source said. 

ProPublica previously detailed postal officials’ deep concerns with the Trump order. Now our reporting reveals how the order came to be and who was involved in crafting it, as well as the extent to which the White House tried to dictate how mail-in ballots would be processed.

The White House team leading the mail-in voting discussions included J. Brian Sikma, a special presidential assistant who has been involved in other administration election initiatives,

including identifying noncitizen voters for prosecution and seeking to ban voting machines. (Sikma didn’t respond to a request for comment.)


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


The commerce secretary, Lutnick, served in “an advisory and coordination capacity” in drafting the order, a department spokesperson confirmed to ProPublica.

“President Trump values Secretary Lutnick’s advice on many matters,” the spokesperson said.

In an emailed statement, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis denied the administration had interfered improperly with the Postal Service, an independent agency whose governance structure is specifically designed to protect it from political influence. She said the executive order “added important safeguards to vote-by-mail. These were commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and to ensure only Americans vote in American elections.” 

Bis also rejected the idea that the certified-mail proposal was “unworkable,” saying this played no part in the administration’s decision “to go in another direction.”

A Postal Service spokesperson declined to comment on the agency’s internal deliberations about the executive order and said it was the Board of Governors’ policy not to discuss them.

He referred ProPublica to an earlier statement by Postmaster General David Steiner that said: “Postal employees take great pride in their responsibility to support the democratic process. We will continue to approach that responsibility with the care, professionalism, and dedication that voters and election officials expect from the United States Postal Service.”

In an interview, Jonathan Smith, president of the American Postal Workers Union, called the Trump administration’s push to revamp mail voting problematic and baseless. 

“The ultimate goal was to create chaos and doubt in the vote-by-mail process,” he said. “You’re creating a rule to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.” 


The White House first reached out to the Postal Service in the fall of 2025, saying the administration wanted to explore how to improve mail voting. 

Trump has long claimed without evidence that mail voting is riddled with fraud, though he frequently votes by mail himself. He’s said the process is “inherently corrupt” and contributed to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.

Postal Service leaders responded to the administration’s late 2025 overture with recommendations they had been making to local election officials for years. Nearly a third of all ballots in the 2022 and 2024 elections were cast through the mail. Mostly, independent audits showed, the system worked reliably. But at times, ballots got lost or delayed. 

Officials with the Postal Service had long wanted election offices to use standardized ballot envelopes with scannable barcodes, logos and other features that would make it easier to separate election mail from other first-class mail. In 2024, a bipartisan bill to turn those recommendations into requirements stalled in the Senate.

When Trump retook the Oval Office, it soon became obvious the White House had other ideas, including requiring ballots to be sent by certified mail.

Doing this could, in theory, erase some security concerns, but local governments would have to pay a higher fee to send each envelope and postal workers would have to conduct millions of identity checks, crippling timely delivery. 

“It was just, for many reasons, a terrible idea,” one top Postal Service official said.

The White House backed down, but when the final order was unveiled, postal officials said they were surprised to see it demanded that they implement the envelope changes and ballot-tracking measures they’d recommended in time for the midterms.

The directive also required states to provide the Postal Service with lists of eligible mail voters, which workers would then try to match with ballots before sending them out. Designing a new ballot-tracking system would normally take about a year, postal officials said.

They were particularly concerned with the order’s requirement that Postal Service workers reject ballots for an array of reasons, ranging from outdated voter information to unscannable bar codes. All mail ballots from a state could be rejected if the state refused to provide its voter list. 

“That’s not what we do,” a former official involved with the discussions said. “We deliver mail. We don’t decide what goes and what doesn’t.”

Postal Service officials were taken aback that the final order put Lutnick in charge of coordinating with other agencies and the postmaster general in “effectuating all relevant aspects of the implementation.”

Lutnick’s involvement came after Trump had discussed putting the Postal Service under the Commerce Department. At Lutnick’s February 2025 swearing-in, Trump said he thought Lutnick’s “great business instinct” was just what the Postal Service needed. (The postal board fought back, and Trump’s idea of merging the agency into the Commerce Department is apparently no longer on the table.)

Almost immediately after the executive order became public, four separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states led by Democrats and political and civil rights groups. Democratic members of Congress and postal union leaders urged the Postal Service and its Board of Governors, which had long defended the agency’s independence, to resist. A June 2026 Supreme Court decision allowing Trump to remove leaders of many agencies long considered independent gave the governors pause, however.

Steiner, appointed at Trump’s behest in mid-2025, directed Postal Service leaders to prepare to implement the order. In public statements, he defended the measure and said he would leave it for the courts to decide. At his direction, postal officials began establishing procedures to comply with Trump’s order. 

As they started to craft rules, career postal officials, concerned about voter privacy and disenfranchising legitimate voters, attempted to do as little as they could to comply, three people knowledgeable about their deliberations said. They looked for ways to protect workers from having to step out of their traditional lanes.

For example, they proposed having states turn over their voter lists but not requiring Postal Service workers to use them to decide which ballots to send out. When the Postal Service’s lawyer took the idea to the White House counsel, however, it was rebuffed as “not enough,” the former official said.

The White House team made clear that if even one ballot envelope in a batch mailing didn’t match the state list, the entire mailing should be rejected and election officials should be notified. “That means if four addresses don’t align in a mailing of one million, 999,996 other people don’t get their ballot tomorrow,” the former official said.

As ProPublica has reported, staffers found these issues highly troubling. A whistleblower complaint released in August warned that the system designed to carry out the executive order was rushed into being, untested and error-prone. 

The final rule — 95 pages spelling out how the agency would carry out Trump’s order — was issued on Aug. 21, less than a month before the first mail ballots were due to go out.

It left many questions unanswered: How would lists of voters be kept updated? How would the Postal Service ensure local officials were able to upload voter information to the agency’s new portal? How could postal officials approve the new ballot envelope designs required by nearly 10,000 voting jurisdictions in just weeks? 

“This was going to be a disaster,” the former postal official said.

The Sept. 14 Supreme Court ruling provided a reprieve, but Smith, the postal union president, criticized agency leadership for not stepping in more forcefully. Counting on the courts to halt the order, said Smith, was “a dangerous calculation, and showed a clear lack of courage and integrity.”

The post The untold origins of Trump’s plan to sharply restrict mail-in voting appeared first on Salon.com.

Pro-Trump “love me” ads paid for by taxpayers

25 September 2026 at 21:35

A new political ad airing this week features clips of President Donald Trump pledging to defeat “communism, socialism and Marxism in America,” and promising “America will never be a communist country.” It cuts to flashing text reading the “largest tax cuts in history” and “reigniting American manufacturing” while a choir repeatedly sings “love me” in the background. The sample is from JMSN’s song “Love Me,” who said on X that he did not authorize license of the song. The UFC’s Dana White chimes in, saying Trump “is the toughest, most resilient person that I’ve ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves.”

The 30-second spot seems like any other campaign ad, designed to use emotion to sway voters, but it turns out that taxpayers actually paid for the whole thing, which may not be legal. That’s sparked considerable controversy on Capitol Hill, with both Republicans and Democrats criticizing the ads. The cost of the ad is $430,000 and is running across multiple network TV channels across the country, though the Associated Press reports “The actual amount spent could be significantly more, depending on whether networks classified the ad as a political ad.”


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is not running for reelection, called the ad “inappropriate” and compared it to messaging from former right-wing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

“This may be felony criminal theft and conversion of government property for political campaign purposes,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said on X. “It is a Hatch Act violation for any government employees who worked on it or used government resources to make it. It is blatantly unethical under numerous federal ethics provisions proscribing the use of government resources for political campaigns.”

As a result, Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group, filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Office and Office of Special Counsel, alleging “The TV ad boosting the image and character of Donald Trump as well as reiterating Trump’s campaign rhetoric, paid for by taxpayer dollars, and produced and distributed by Trump’s White House staff, appears to be a clear violation of the laws prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for propaganda purpose as well as a violation of the Hatch Act.” Public Citizen also noted that they have filed a dozen Hatch Act complaints with OSC over the past year, all of which have been ignored by the agency.

The White House defended the ad and said it is “educational and unapologetically patriotic,” according to AP.

The White House is currently airing this video as an ad during commercial breaks on Fox News.

It looks and sounds like a political spot and includes a disclaimer stating that it is paid for by the U.S. government.

The soundtrack: as images of Trump flash across the screen,… pic.twitter.com/TloS7I9O55

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) September 24, 2026

The post Pro-Trump “love me” ads paid for by taxpayers appeared first on Salon.com.

Years before his CNN and Politico ban, Trump yanked my press pass

25 September 2026 at 15:10

Early morning chaos reigned at the White House on Thursday.

In the pre-dawn hours, federal District Court Judge Timothy Kelly granted CNN, Politico and MS NOW a temporary restraining order allowing them to regain access to the White House after Donald Trump had unceremoniously yanked their press passes last Friday.

But the Secret Service and White House officials initially refused access to those reporters as the work day began, even as Trump allowed entry to Chinese state media, telling them they were friendlier than the independent Washington press corps.

Sitting In evident defiance of a court order, (he never stands for anything, unless it’s to bow to an authoritarian leader) Trump appeared ready to risk an acute constitutional crisis.

By noon he had backed down. 

So by my count that leaves First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous, who represented the news organizations, 5–0 when pitching against Donald Trump. That’s one hell of a legacy.

If I leave a legacy, I hope it’s for something as well done. 

I imagine Donald Trump wishes the same thing. But I don’t think the president and I agree on the meaning of “well done.” That’s just the way he likes his burgers.

Trump is mired in the muck of his own making — enraged that he can’t get his way, so scared of the midterm elections that he had his supporters take an oath to “cheat like hell” and so ignorant of history that he seems condemned to repeat all its worst parts.

A source of mine from the George W. Bush administration, reflecting on Trump, told me this week, “People? They ain’t no damn good. You can’t trust ’em and can’t love ’em. No good deed goes unpunished.”

“Quoting Mellencamp?” I replied. “Lighten up, brother.” 

I understand the epic frustration Trump causes and inflicts. Some of us have been documenting his dictatorial, disruptive, divisive, dangerous and delusional escapades for more than a decade. This past week, I was forced to relive an experience covering Trump to which, until now, only one other person on the planet could relate. 

On Wednesday, Judge Kelly held a half-hour hearing on CNN, Politico and MS NOW’s request for a temporary restraining order against Trump’s snatch-and-grab of their press passes. To me, this was a case of déjà-vu all over again. Or as my longtime White House colleague Jim Acosta told me on his show Wednesday afternoon, “It ain’t over til it’s over.” Jim and I had a particular reason to trade Yogi Berra quips; we empathize with the reporters’ plight. We’re the only two reporters who’ve been through this before.

It was unnerving to hear the judge, the plaintiff and the defense attorney mention “Karem v. Trump” about three dozen times. I tried to remember that in this particular case, having my name mentioned in court was a good thing.

Of course, this time there was a new Trumpian twist on the narrative. On Friday, Trump simply said he didn’t like those media companies and resented their negative coverage, and then shooed the reporters away with a wave of his hand. By Monday, after Boutrous filed suit, Trump’s lawyers were making the ridiculous claim that the aforementioned media outlets were compromising national security. 

He’s used that all-purpose catchphrase before to try to get his way with the big, beautiful ballroom and his proposed massive arch. Excuse me? Why would we need snipers on the George Washington Memorial Parkway? Or drones? Or a massive arsenal of weapons and ammunition? OK, Dr. Strangelove, what’s next?

Trump based his national security claim on the actions of a handful of reporters who don’t even hold White House passes, along with one who does. He claimed that a few routine stories — some of them five months old — had somehow compromised national security. The funny thing is that until he made that claim in court, he’d never even cleared his throat on those stories. And the one reporter who holds White House credentials? She recently got them renewed after the stories were published.

Geez, is it possible that Trump was just making stuff up? Judge Kelly’s hearing was a particularly acute memory for Acosta, since Kelly was the judge in his case too.  For me it was unnerving to hear the judge, the plaintiff and the defense attorney mention “Karem v. Trump” about three dozen times in their arguments. My ears were burning, but I tried to remember that in this particular case, having my name mentioned in court was a good thing. Nobody was standing by with handcuffs. Kelly ended the hearing by promising a decision as soon as possible, and issued a 14-day restraining order in a matter of hours.

Too bad I didn’t draw Kelly in my case. Not that I didn’t like its outcome, since U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras and later a federal appeals court ruled that the loss of my press credentials violated due process, setting that as the precedent for all future cases in the D.C. Circuit. It’s just that I was without my press pass for nearly three weeks. Kelly worked more quickly.

Trump of course isn’t fond of Kelly. When he found out who was handling the current case, the president weighed in on Truth Social, calling Kelly “totally disloyal” and “not a particularly fair judge.”

Naturally it was Trump who appointed Kelly to the bench.

I ran afoul of Trump on July 11, 2019, during a meeting in Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden, before Trump turned it into a tawdry Miami Beach patio reminiscent of cheap hotels from the 1960s. Trump hosted an event for his favorite media influencers. They sat in seats in the Rose Garden. The rest of us stood, as usual, behind a rope line. 

Trump made a few perfunctory statements and turned to leave. I was about 10 feet away and asked him if he would stay and take a few questions. Someone who was sitting down turned and literally hissed at me: “He’s already talked to the real press.”

I chuckled and said, in my best Rodney Dangerfield voice, “Ooh, here’s a group eager for demonic possession.” That got a few laughs, but when I reviewed the tape later I was disappointed with myself. I usually do a much better Rodney impression. Ask anyone.  

Sebastian Gorka, a Trump underling who speaks like one of those beings who don’t rise until after sunset, approached me from the far side of the Rose Garden after that. He was wearing an ill-fitting suit and resembled the kid who peaked in eighth grade because he was big for his age and could grow a beard. Gorka went on to later infamy selling fish oil in commercials. He’s now back working for Trump, who hires only the best people.

He came at me stomping and yelling: I wasn’t a reporter, Gorka said, I was a punk. I replied that we could either talk here in the Rose Garden or go outside and talk all day. Nothing happened. When the ruckus, of which we were only a part, died down, we found ourselves standing nearly shoulder to shoulder as we left and went our separate ways. Without the cameras on, everything was different.

(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka argues with reporter Brian Karem in the Rose Garden, July 11, 2019.

More than a month passed, and nothing more happened. Then, on Aug.16, 2019, Trump gathered at the rope line for a “chopper talk” session before leaving the White House on Marine One. He answered two of my questions, calling me “Playboy” (my previous longtime employer) as often as he called me “fake news.” I left that afternoon and two hours later, while at dinner with my wife, I got a call from my editor. My credentials had been suspended because I had been rude, crude, unruly and socially unacceptable in my earlier encounter with Gorka. Trump apparently wasn’t upset that on that particular day I had asked him if he was delusional. 

When we got to court, the Trump attorneys said that if they couldn’t throw me out of the White House for what I’d done, then how could they keep reporters from mooning the first lady. They didn’t mention mooning other reporters. Would that compromise national security? No? I guess directly mooning the president might qualify.

Judge Contreras said in his judgment, “This event was also one where jocular insults had been flying from all directions.There is no indication in the record that other offenders were reprimanded or even told to stop.”

As Kelly said from the beginning of the Wednesday hearing, the decision in Karem v. Trump affirmed and fleshed out due process, and he had to apply it as precedent, meaning the government was screwed from the outset. The reasons for pulling my pass were ridiculous, but the importance of the decision cannot be forgotten. 

I’d like to personally thank Donald Trump: By going after media organizations this time around instead of individual reporters, as you did with me and Acosta, you finally got the press to work together again — though I’m quite sure that wasn’t your intention.

While it is a privilege to get a White House press pass, that’s not the point. It cannot be confiscated without a well-defined cause. “No official can deprive Plaintiffs of those interests on a whim — with no notice, no process, and no warning — as the President did here,” Boutrous argued. Accordingly, the loss of those credentials and the “White House access” that accompanies them without due process is unconstitutional. 

I’d like to personally thank Donald Trump for his actions. By going after media organizations this time around instead of individual reporters, as you did with me and Acosta, you finally got the press to work together again — though I’m quite sure that wasn’t your intention. Still, it warms the cockles of my heart to see pool reporters finally refusing to cover the president until and unless he stops acting like an ass.

Had the press worked together so diligently when Acosta and I had our passes confiscated, or when Trump took over assigning reporters to the press pool, or when the AP ran afoul of the president over the “Gulf of America,” or when he kicked reporters out of the upper press area, then we might have avoided the latest dust-up. The only way to stand up to a bully is to push back and defend our rights. I applaud everyone who is now in the fight. As Bruce Willis put it in “Die Hard,” “Welcome to the party, pal.” I’m just pointing out that the party was sparsely populated before you got here. 


Want more sharp takes on politics?
Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only by Amanda Marcotte, also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.


Maybe Karem v. Trump is all the legacy I will ever get. Beating Trump three times in court? I will claim it. I leave it to history to judge its importance to the First Amendment. 

I’d prefer my legacy to be my family. That, plus a five-minute black-and-white short film of a man and a woman meeting, dancing to Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five” and then walking away from each other. But you can’t have everything. I’m not picky. I’m just listening to jazz.

Ted Boutrous’ legacy will be his historic defense of free speech and due process by defeating the hackish clowns from Trump’s Justice Department who tried to peddle lies a fool could pry apart. He’s beaten Trump three times representing me, once more defending Acosta and now he’s won again.Trump will leave an unparalleled legacy of the attempted destruction of the U.S. Constitution. He too will be long remembered – though not for anything good. 

Wednesday’s decision by Judge Kelly shows that the power in the White House remains with “We the people.” Trump is just a hired hand, a temp employee whose stewardship of the republic has failed miserably. 

We’d better not forget that, because remembering and acting on it should be everyone’s shared legacy.

 

The post Years before his CNN and Politico ban, Trump yanked my press pass appeared first on Salon.com.

Trump folds as White house press returns

24 September 2026 at 23:44

President Donald Trump’s war with the press hit a temporary stalemate Thursday as a federal judge restored White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico for two weeks. Last Friday, the president banned the three outlets, calling them “fake news,” as their journalists reported being blocked from accessing the White House. 

In response, CNN, MS Now and Politico sued, and the Trump administration launched “Trump TV,” which is essentially a livestream of speeches and other reruns that apparently almost no one is even watching. During this week’s U.N. General Assembly, before giving a speech in which Trump mulled the annihilation of Iran, the president snarled at a reporter for asking him a question.

“You should not be here,” Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “You should not be here covering me. You said you weren’t going to cover me.” Collins later said on air, “We never said we were never going to cover the president.”

Trump didn’t follow due process in the ban, according to U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, who ordered the administration to restore their access as the case is litigated. Reporters from all three outlets thus began reporting at the White House again, but the move has raised questions of whether Trump could try again, this time following due process.

Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told NPR “The White House facility doesn’t need to let journalists in … But once it does … it cannot exclude journalists or news organizations because it doesn’t like what they report.”


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


“Certainly, the trajectory has been in the direction of more restraints on press access than less,” Rottman added. “I think the public can easily wrap their head around the danger of the leader of the country retaliating against news organizations, denying them access because he doesn’t like their coverage.”

Trump did not mention the judge’s ruling but decried on Truth Social about CNN and MS Now’s “low ratings” that “have dropped considerably” and criticized their coverage of his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping this week. 

“Trump blocking access is bad, but what’s so annoying about Big Media folks’ self-righteous indignation is that the White House and Congress routinely deny credentials to smaller independent outlets and Big Media folks say nothing and show no solidarity,” David Sirota, a journalist and former senior advisor to Bernie Sander’s 2020 presidential campaign, said in a post on X. “They don’t actually care about the press freedom principles they are pretending to care about here. They care about their own access, their own business models, and virtue signaling to their own elite class of media.”

The post Trump folds as White house press returns appeared first on Salon.com.

When presidents ban journalists, the First Amendment is not the only constitutional right at stake

22 September 2026 at 12:00

The president is going after the press again.

On Sept. 19, 2026, journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were denied access to the White House after President Donald Trump revoked their credentials, citing “their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” On social media, Trump posted, “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President.”

This is not Trump’s first attempt at banning journalists from the White House. During his first term, he sought to ban CNN’s Jim Acosta by revoking his credentials following a contentious news conference about the 2018 midterm elections.

In that conflict, CNN quickly filed a lawsuit, arguing that, “If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.”

Journalism organizations also responded. The Committee to Protect Journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association and even Acosta’s peers at The Daily Caller – a right-leaning news outlet – condemned the White House ban.

A federal court granted CNN a temporary injunction – reinstating Acosta’s press pass. The Trump administration later restored Acosta’s credentials, and CNN dropped its lawsuit.

Many commentators and members of the press have called Trump’s latest ban on the three news organizations a violation of the First Amendment.

White House Correspondents’ Association President Jacqui Heinrich said on X, “Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment.”

Even George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who staunchly supports Republicans and frequently criticizes the press, said on X that the ban “would be an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.”

As Turley and many others have argued over the weekend, Trump’s ban is almost certainly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Media law professor Frank LoMonte argued in 2018, “The First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom to speak and publish without government interference.”

But they may be missing a crucial point. In fact, there’s more than one constitutional right involved in such a case. The judge who restored Acosta’s press pass in 2018 primarily based his ruling on the reporter’s Fifth Amendment rights to due process, not on the First Amendment.


Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.


And in my view as a constitutional law professor, it is less clear whether the press has a constitutional right of access to the White House even though past presidents have honored and respected the press’s access to the executive branch.

While several Supreme Court cases, such as Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, unequivocally provide the press with a right of access to criminal trials, there is no Supreme Court precedent that specifically provides a clear constitutional right of access to the White House.

Make that two constitutional rights

In one case from 1977, Sherrill v. Knight, Robert Sherrill, the Washington correspondent for The Nation, was – after holding press passes over several years – denied a press pass because the Secret Service advised he should not be given one. The Secret Service refused to disclose their justification.

Sherrill sued, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Secret Service cannot deny a White House press pass absent “narrow and specific standards by which applications are to be judged.”

The court required the White House to provide the press with “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for (them) to respond to these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial (of a press pass).”

In the court’s view, these requirements – notice and an opportunity to rebut the bases for the denial of a press pass – are protected by two constitutional guarantees working together, the press protections in the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s protections from arbitrary deprivations of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

In other words, before the federal government can deprive an individual of their life, liberty or property, the federal government must provide that individual with due process, whose purpose is widely accepted as preventing “arbitrary governmental actions.”

Due process is key

There are a number of Supreme Court decisions that could be key in the current journalists’ lawsuit, which was filed on Sept. 21, 2026.

Among them is Mathews v. Eldridge from 1976, in which the Supreme Court stated that due process is flexible depending on the extent of the liberty or property interest at stake. But in general, the justices said, due process requires the government to provide notice to the individual and an opportunity for the individual to present their case before the deprivation occurs.

In Sherrill v. Knight from 1977, the court ruled that the denial of a press pass implicated a First Amendment liberty interest. That interest, the court wrote, “undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment.”

This nuance – the First and Fifth Amendment working in tandem – is what most commentators and critics are missing in their response to the recent ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico. In fact, these outlets collectively lead with their claim that the Trump administration violated their Fifth Amendment right to due process in their lawsuit to block Trump’s ban.

“Even if attending a White House event is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, that doesn’t mean the government is free to take it away as punishment,” LoMonte argued in 2018.

Based on public reporting, it is clear that the Trump administration did not provide CNN, MS NOW or Politico with clear written notice stating the reasons for the revocation of their press passes. It certainly did not provide the outlets with an opportunity to rebut Trump’s unsupported claim that they report “FICTION and LIES.”

The same Trump-appointed judge who decided the CNN Acosta case has been assigned to the latest press ban case. So, if the CNN Acosta case is any indication, I expect the federal judge to promptly, but temporarily, reinstate the news outlets’ press passes while Trump tries to argue that his actions are constitutional, which in my view, they are not.

Wayne Unger, Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post When presidents ban journalists, the First Amendment is not the only constitutional right at stake appeared first on Salon.com.

News Organizations Band Together in White House Boycott

21 September 2026 at 23:58

Trump Manages to Silence Himself

The news outlets that make up the TV pool that covers the White House and the president’s schedule joined together on Monday to announce that they would not be “designated as pool coverage of the president” until further notice after President Trump banned CNN from the White House.

“This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President,” Fox News Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton, who is also the chair of the TV pool, wrote in a memo to journalists in the White House press corps. The memo was obtained by the Washington Post and others on Monday.

“There will be no replacement pool put in place. All other pool coverage will continue as normal, including Congress, VIPs, and selected events in Washington and around the country,” it said.

The news comes after President Trump announced last week that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were banned from the White House — and journalists from those outlets were turned away from the White House grounds. Lawyers for the banned news outlets and individual journalists filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C. on Monday, alleging violations of the news organizations’ First Amendment rights.

“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the three news organizations said in a statement on Monday, per CNN.

“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” they said. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The members of the TV pool news organizations announced their boycott on Monday morning as well.

“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,” ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Media and NBC News, the five cable networks that make up the rotating White House TV pool, wrote in a statement on X Monday.

The pool is a system that news outlets have been using for decades to help split the cost of having cameras follow the president’s moves on a daily basis. Per WaPo:

The assigned network records and distributes a live feed that other news outlets can use. Without a TV pooler, there will be scant video coverage of Trump unless news outlets take their own video or use feeds provided by the White House.

The Washington Post also announced it would not publish any photos of any presidential events on Monday until midnight ET.

There are legitimate concerns about the vacuum created by the news outlets’ absence — and what this White House might do to fill the void. A year ago, Trump’s White House blocked the White House Correspondents’ Association from choosing members of the White House press pool, effectively taking control over which news outlets could send reporters to cover White House events.

But for today, at least, Trump managed to silence himself. His attempt to unveil his new White House helipad was not televised live on the usual cable news channels Monday. Here’s footage from Newsmax of the event. You can’t hear him.

LMFAO — Trump is holding an event at the White House right now but there's no audio because the press pool isn't there. The Newsmax host notes that this is an example of Trump's attacks on the press "backfiring just a little bit"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-09-21T17:51:50.189Z
❌