White House Correspondents' Association calls for immediate restoration of the barred outlets' access
Association representing the White House press corps, in a statement signed by president Jacqui Heinrich
“Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment. The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future. The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably. That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting. The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues' access.”
Source and context
Original post
About this source
The association's own post after reporters for the three named outlets were denied entry and had credentials deactivated or confiscated. The statement is signed by WHCA president Jacqui Heinrich.
Before the quotation
A day after Trump announced the ban, reporters for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied entry and had credentials deactivated or confiscated.
After the quotation
The statement asks the administration to restore access and identifies the broader precedent the association says the exclusion would create.
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 association directly rejects the White House's enforced exclusion of the three outlets, calls it a First Amendment violation, and asks the administration to reverse it.
- 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 case“To me this is a straightforward violation of the First Amendment.”Read statement
“We are firmly on the slope of authoritarianism. This is it.”Read statement
“the president continues to use the Constitution like it is a suggestion box simply because he does not like the coverage. And so I would just hope that this administration would spend a little bit of time reading, instead of just talking.”Read statement