Sperry says reported facts suggest retaliation disguised as antitrust enforcement
Ben SperryLawyer and policy scholar, writing a signed USA Today opinion column
Sperry argues that the government should not use investigation costs and document demands to shape coverage. He acknowledges that news outlets must obey antitrust law.
“The public, and courts if necessary, should recognize this investigation for what the reported facts suggest: an attempt to disguise retaliation against the press as antitrust enforcement. Protecting freedom of speech requires more than stopping outright censorship. It also requires preventing officials from using regulatory harassment to shape public debate.”
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
Sperry distinguishes unlawful commercial agreements from a joint editorial protest and argues that the reported investigation suggests retaliation.
Before the quotation
Sperry distinguishes protected political expression from unlawful commercial coordination.
After the quotation
He bases his conclusion on reported circumstances; the column is not a court finding.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The matter under scrutiny includes the inquiry into the broadcasters' pool protest. Sperry condemns what he views as regulatory retaliation.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseCarrera warns that the inquiry can deter press protests before any judgment
“Según su portavoz, los boicots colectivos entre competidores pueden infringir la ley. Es una tesis que algún tribunal tendrá que examinar, y no es este el lugar para resolverla. Pero el mensaje no necesita sentencia para producir efecto. La próxima redacción que se plantee no cubrir un acto en protesta por el trato dado a otra sabrá que antes debe calcular cuánto cuesta contestar a un requerimiento del Departamento de Justicia.”Read statement
Freedom of the Press Foundation calls the antitrust inquiry pressure on coverage
Freedom of the Press Foundation
“Now that Trump’s ban on @CNN, @MSNow, and @Politico has backfired, his DOJ is trying to weaponize antitrust law to pressure major networks to cover his every move. This is yet another way the administration is trying to chill speech.”Read statement
White House counsel demands that Politico retract three stories about Susie Wiles
The White House
“freedom of the press is not a professional exemption from accountability. I therefore demand that Politico immediately correct or retract these publications, issue a prominent and public apology to the President of the United States and to Ms. Wiles, and remove the false reporting from your digital archives.”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
- Sperry says reported facts suggest retaliation disguised as antitrust enforcement
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6745-sperry-argues-that-the-government-should-not-use
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Sperry says reported facts suggest retaliation disguised as antitrust enforcement". First published: 2026-10-25. Last updated: 2026-10-25. https://disputeindex.com/events/6745-sperry-argues-that-the-government-should-not-use