RedState's Ward Clark argues the First Amendment does not guarantee outlets a place in the White House briefing room
Ward ClarkContributor at RedState, in a signed column
In a RedState column published at 4:25 PM EDT on September 18, contributor Ward Clark wrote that a First Amendment objection would be valid if the administration were trying to censor the outlets or stop them disseminating news, but that the First Amendment does not guarantee any outlet a spot in the White House briefing room or anywhere else.
“If the administration were trying to censor these outlets, or to prevent them from disseminating whatever news at whatever angle they care to, that may be a valid argument. But the First Amendment doesn't guarantee any news outlet a spot in the White House briefing room, or anywhere else.”
Analysis
Where this statement fits
Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?
On Friday, September 18, 2026, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that, "effective immediately, I am banning" CNN, MS NOW and Politico "from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" About an hour later, in the Oval Office, he said no particular story prompted the decision, that he does not want the outlets "in my office," and that "somebody has a right to keep them away" if outlets write false stories. The three outlets and press-freedom groups oppose the exclusion, citing constitutional protection for the press, and the White House Correspondents' Association said it "stands in defense of our colleagues at CNN, MSNOW, and POLITICO." On Saturday, September 19, MS NOW, CNN and Politico said their White House reporters were refused entry and had press passes confiscated; the White House referred questions to Trump's earlier remarks. The dispute is over whether President Trump should exclude named news organizations from White House access over what they report.
Source and context
Analysis
About this source
Signed column by a RedState contributor.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The column ran at 4:25 PM EDT on September 18, while Trump's Oval Office event was under way; Clark added the Oval Office video as he finished writing.
After the quotation
The column says legal challenges are likely, and also says that reporters covering White House briefings should convey facts rather than spin.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Clark argues the exclusion is not censorship and not a First Amendment violation, says Trump "may have a point" about the outlets, and draws an "object lesson" about briefing-room reporting. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, because he disputes the framing of the exclusion as censorship. That loses because the column goes on to endorse the exclusion's rationale rather than only contesting a label.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- CNN, MS NOW, Politico
More from this case
Read the full caseBoutrous distinguishes pool-size limits from retaliation for reporting
“It’s retaliation for speech. That violates the First Amendment.”Read statement
White House says no journalist has a right to Oval Office or Air Force One access
The White House
“No person and no journalist has a constitutional right to access to the President's Oval Office, Air Force One, or other sensitive and private facilities.”Read statement
Schiff says White House press exclusions also harm the public
“When a reporter is denied access to the White House, it isn't just that news organization that suffers. The American people rely on a free press to know what their government is up to, and whether it is acting wisely and lawfully.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- RedState's Ward Clark argues the First Amendment does not guarantee outlets a place in the White House briefing room
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/1138-in-a-redstate-column-published-at-4-25
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "RedState's Ward Clark argues the First Amendment does not guarantee outlets a place in the White House briefing room". First published: 2026-09-19. Last updated: 2026-09-22. https://disputeindex.com/events/1138-in-a-redstate-column-published-at-4-25