US President Donald Trump has said he is “immediately” banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, Hiru News reported, citing the BBC.
In a post on Truth Social on Friday, Trump said the outlets “constantly write or report fiction or lies” about his administration. He gave no examples, and the post did not identify any specific story or reporting that prompted the decision.
“Media outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report fiction and lies when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration or the United States of America. Other news outlets to follow,” the post said.
Trump later called it a “very simple ban” but did not explain how it would work. It is not clear whether staff of the three outlets would be physically barred from the White House grounds.
The ban was not in force hours later
The most concrete detail in the reporting is that nothing appeared to have changed on the ground.
Reporters from both Politico and CNN were still on the White House grounds shortly after the announcement, and a CNN crew was travelling with Vice-President JD Vance to and from an event in Iowa.
Asked about it later in the Oval Office, Trump said there was “no reason” for the announcement landing on a Friday afternoon. “It’s really just cumulative stories over the last few years,” he said. “You get sick of it.” He added that there “may be others to join them”, without naming any, and acknowledged legal challenges may follow: “I think it’s good to point it out, whether it survives or doesn’t.”
The outlets respond
CNN called a potential ban illegal and said it “stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting.”
“We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”
Politico said it “will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones” and would “vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them.”
MS NOW, formerly MSNBC, declined to comment.
White House Correspondents Association president Jacqui Heinrich — who works for Fox News — said the association stands in defence of colleagues “being singled out for doing their jobs.”
“This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office.”
NewsFirst, reporting the same announcement, noted that free speech experts say the move conflicts with the First Amendment’s protections for a free press, and that legal challenges are near certain.
This follows a pattern
The announcement is the latest in a series of moves against the White House press corps since Trump returned to office in January 2025.
In February, the White House took control of the press pool with access to the president — an arrangement the White House Correspondents Association had managed for more than a century. The same month, the administration barred Associated Press reporters and photographers from limited-access spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One over the agency’s continued use of “Gulf of Mexico” rather than “Gulf of America.” The AP sued, and that case remains ongoing.
In his first term, Trump banned CNN correspondent Jim Acosta from the White House; his credentials were restored after CNN sued.
Over the same period the administration has brought conservative bloggers, influencers and other outlets into the press room, arguing this provides a wider range of perspectives.
A note on the sourcing
Both Sri Lankan outlets are relaying international wire and broadcast copy rather than reporting independently — Hiru’s account follows the BBC’s. Two outlets carrying the story is not two independent verifications of it.
Not reported
Neither account says when the ban is supposed to take effect, what mechanism would enforce it, or whether press credentials have actually been revoked. Neither says whether the three outlets’ hard passes remain valid, nor whether any legal action had been filed at the time of writing.
