Knight Institute's Jameel Jaffer says the ban would be "doubly unconstitutional" if it removes outlets from the press pool
Free-speech litigation and advocacy institute, in a press statement by executive director Jameel Jaffer
“The First Amendment prohibits the president from punishing journalists because he doesn’t like their coverage, just as it prohibits him from punishing universities because he doesn’t like the courses they offer, or from punishing law firms because he doesn’t like the clients they represent. With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now. If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints.”
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
The institute's own press statement, read in full on knightcolumbia.org.
Before the quotation
The institute published the statement on September 18, the day of Trump's post.
After the quotation
The statement describes the press pool only as a condition of its second argument: "If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool."
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The case's fixed reference point is President Trump's announcement on September 18, 2026 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are banned from the White House because of their coverage, as reaffirmed in the Oval Office that afternoon. The Knight Institute rejects the exclusion, saying punishing journalists for coverage is barred by the First Amendment. The closest competing label is mixed_or_conditional, because the "doubly unconstitutional" argument begins "If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool". That loses because the condition only adds a second ground; the first sentence is an unconditional rejection.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Donald Trump
Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full caseMS NOW
“MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”Read statement
The White House
“The White House declined to comment further Saturday, referring NBC News to Trump’s previous comments.”Read statement
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
“When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary.”Read statement