Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Police Investigate Deaths of Two OLE Miss Students; CNN, MS NOW, Politico in Court Seeking to Lift White House Ban; AI Leaders Address United Nations Security Council. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired September 23, 2026 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

ISABEL ROSALES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Substance was a contributing factor to their deaths at this time. Here's how some students are reacting to the news on campus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There being just the wide amount of like substance use, you know, on campus and even abuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We didn't think to come back to like such sad news of losing two classmates. We have so much life ahead of us and, you know, college is supposed to be where we grow and like gain new experiences, it's not supposed to be where our lives end.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSALES: Now the students have not been identified. Oxford Police Department has not put out any details as to their age or their gender. The autopsies, according to our local CNN affiliate, WAPT, is in the process of being scheduled and hopefully that will give us a lot more details as to what happened to these students, including the toxicology report -- Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Yes, hopefully we'll get those families some answers. Isabel Rosales, thank you so much for that.

Any minute now, the Justice Department is set to defend the White House ban on CNN and other media outlets in court. We're tracking the latest as that hearing gets underway in just moments.

[15:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We have breaking news. A federal judge, a Trump appointee, has just started to hear CNN, MS NOW, and Politico's lawsuit against the Trump administration. The news organization's suing over the president banning their access to the White House.

Yesterday, the Justice Department filed its response to the lawsuit.

SANCHEZ: DOJ says the ban was due to some of the outlet's stories threatening national security. We should point out that's not what we heard from President Trump himself who suggested that it was negative coverage that led to this ban. In response, the news organization says the ban is, quote, punishment for past reporting as the White House tries to, quote, coerce more favorable coverage, end quote.

Joining us now to discuss, CNN correspondent Katelyn Polantz, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter, and former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou. First to you, Caitlin, what are you expecting from today's hearing?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris and Brianna, we're already hearing Timothy Kelly on the bench. I'm listening live on a public line to this hearing as it begins. The arguments haven't yet formally started but Judge Kelly, he's laying out a couple things right now that he does want to hear both sides and give them ample time to present their arguments.

That'll very likely be quite similarly to what both sides have argued already on paper. We heard previously, earlier this week when this lawsuit was filed from lawyers for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico arguing that there are massive First Amendment concerns with the way the White House has gone about this and their decision to revoke these press passes based on what they published, based on the fact that Donald Trump doesn't like stories that have been written about them and that Donald Trump, the President, and the White House don't seem to trust these outlets anymore after years and years of them covering the presidency.

There is also likely to be extensive arguments from the Justice Department's side. They would follow the arguments of the media organizations. The lawyer there is very likely to stick with what they wrote late last night in a brief to Judge Kelly arguing that the concern here from the White House is of national security, that they believe that these outlets can't be trusted and that even though reporters with CNN, MS NOW, and Politico who don't hold hard passes have written stories the White House doesn't like, those people have still lost their access to the White House.

The outlets on the whole have lost their access to the White House. The one thing I will also note that Judge Kelly has already said in this hearing is he's acknowledged he can only do so much. There is law that has existed, case law that's existed for 50 years that says the White House can't revoke press passes of journalists abruptly and without a formal process.

The constitutional protection of due process in the 5th Amendment. So that is something Judge Kelly is already saying at the top. He can only do so much.

He's a district judge. He can't rewrite the law. He has to stick within what the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court have said previously. In 2009 there was another case, Brian Karem, the Playboy Magazine correspondent. He also underlined that law at the D.C. Circuit. The Federal Court of Appeals here in Washington, D.C. reiterated that the White House can't just revoke a press credential without due process. In that case and in others, including one before Judge Kelly in 2018, the White House press passes have been restored and pretty quickly. Back to you.

KEILAR: All right, Katelyn, we will let you continue to monitor this hearing. It is literally, it just started minutes ago.

Brendan, let's talk a little bit about the legal arguments here. How strong is this argument that the outlets are making this concept of viewpoint discrimination?

BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: You know, they have a strong viewpoint discrimination and retaliation argument. The idea being that the president revoked these credentials not because they were unqualified journalists, but because he disagreed with what they were saying.

[15:40:00]

And you know, the DOJ is in a tough position because their argument is being undermined by their purported client, the president, saying that this was not for national security purposes but for sort of quote- unquote fake news purposes.

You know, I actually think the easiest way to get the media organizations back in the White House without having to dip into these really complicated First Amendment issues, however, is, as you just heard, really not on First Amendment grounds but on due process grounds. So the idea being that these people's press credentials were revoked without a fair hearing, a fair opportunity to be heard to protect those credentials.

You know, the case law there is enormously strong and in favor of the news outlets. I think it's going to be really hard for DOJ to argue around that. And I think if you look at their brief from last night, I suspect that they're trying to figure out a way to retreat here or to claim a partial victory.

Say, winning not, you know, complete bar from the White House but instead maybe a bar from the Oval Office, from the residents, from a few parts of the White House grounds. I think that's the most that they can hope for right now.

SANCHEZ: President Trump has acknowledged he does not think that the judge is likely to rule in the administration's favor here. Brian, over to you. Ted Boutrous, the attorney for these media outlets, has begun his arguments in front of Judge Kelly.

You've also learned that the White House sent formal letters to CNN and the other two outlets last night. Can you walk us through what they say?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Right, these letters seem to be an attempt to set up a post hoc justification for these bans. These letters were written, drafted yesterday. Apparently, they were sent to the news outlets late last night.

That's more than three days after President Trump announced his ban. And these letters lay out excuses for why these journalists are being banned. Citing national security, as we've been saying, and listing specific articles that are apparently objectionable. One of them was a Political playbook item about the concerns that the GOP midterm convention might be a bust. Some of them had nothing to do with national security at all.

But others are about the Iran war. Important reporting about military readiness. Also about Trump's ballroom.

So a wide range of articles listed in these letters that were sent to the three news outlets. And it seems to be an attempt to get around that due process argument. To say, you're getting due process right now.

So we expect to hear that from the government lawyers in a couple of minutes. But as you said, Ted Boutrous is speaking right now. Ted Boutrous is the same First Amendment lawyer who represented CNN in the Jim Acosta case in 2018.

The CNN attorneys that run this network, that work here at the CNN, they called Boutrous within a matter of minutes when Trump announced his ban last Friday. He got on a plane from LA. He's flown to Washington.

So Boutrous now helping all three of these banned news outlets at this hearing right now. And here's what Boutrous told me earlier in the week. He said, "The president's ban is a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of due process."

So it's likely that's the kind of thing Boutrous is saying in court right now. And if you don't mind, I'll explain to viewers why we're not able to see this live. Unfortunately, there are no cameras allowed in federal court.

That's why we weren't able to see any of the January 6th trials of defendants. We're not able to see all sorts of trials because there are no cameras in federal court. Gosh, I wish that would change someday.

But the judges say they have good reasons for it. In this case, we do have a phone line. We're able to listen in live into the proceedings.

So that's how we're able to give you some of the play-by-play of who's speaking and what's happening. But right now, Boutrous presenting the CNN, MS, Politico arguments. And one more note here as we talk about this, we have seen unprecedented solidarity from other news outlets in the last three days or so.

Earlier today, about 50 different American news outlets signed a friend-of-the-court brief. Everyone from the Associated Press to Fox News signing on to a legal letter supporting these banned news outlets because, look, all of them know they might be next.

KEILAR: And Brendan, this idea, this national security risk argument, does that hold water?

BALLOU: No, I really don't think it does. You know, it really wouldn't, even if it did have credibility in fact, and as Brian was just saying, these really do seem like after-the-fact justifications here. Even if there was a valid factual basis, it wouldn't really solve the due process problem that you've got here.

What the administration is trying to say now is that, well, you guys are getting the process. The problem is the harm has already happened. CNN, MS NOW, they can't do their work.

So in the language of lawyers, they're already experiencing what's called an irreparable harm, a harm that you can't get back with money. And so I think it's going to be really tough for DOJ to argue that that's not the case or that the quote-unquote irreparable harm that the government is experiencing outweighs what the media is.

KEILAR: Brendan Ballou --

STELTER: And that's what Boutrous is saying right now.

[15:45:00]

Boutrous right now in court is saying, these are exactly the kinds of things that prove irreparable harm, that this is happening on a daily basis, an hourly basis actually, and the TV pool is not functioning, we're not getting these images of the president. So right now Boutrous is laying out those arguments in court as we speak.

KEILAR: Yes, we'll keep watching. Brian, Brendan, thanks to both of you. And stay with us, we'll have much more on this legal battle between the Trump administration and the media, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: A significant moment at the U.N. to catch you up on. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and the head of Anthropic Dario Amodei just spoke in front of the U.N. Security Council.

[15:50:00]

KEILAR: Yes, this appearance is happening just weeks after multiple employees from both companies warned that without proper guardrails, artificial intelligence could wipe out humanity within the next 10 years.

CNN AI correspondent Hadas Gold is with us. She's been monitoring this. Hadas, what was the message from Altman and Amodei?

HADAS GOLD, CNN AI CORRESPONDENT: Well, both Altman and Amodei, who, you know, are fierce rivals, did deliver sort of similar messages calling on the members of the Security Council to come together on some sort of international common standards. They weren't calling for a global regulator, but they were calling for just coordination among all of the different countries so that they can come together to bring some sort of standards and safety to especially what we're seeing in recent weeks and months when it comes to AI capabilities. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAM ALTMAN, CEO, OPENAI: We need common standards so countries can compare evidence, verify compliance, and have a shared language and understanding about what is happening. We need accurate and speedy incident reporting, classification and reporting protocols, so the world can learn from failures before they become catastrophes. And we need secure channels among governments, critical infrastructure operators and technical experts to share emerging vulnerabilities and new threats.

DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: I believe that this is the most important global security issue facing the world today. For all the differences of the people in this room, we must put aside those differences in order to confront this global opportunity and global threat that is being presented to us at the same time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLD: And Amodei also said that one of the things that the different countries should immediately start doing is agree to narrow agreements on things like a ban on using AI for biological weapons, evaluation and verification systems where different countries could verify each other's commitments, as well as global standards for testing AI and a notification, a global notification system about when things go wrong in these tests.

So for the open AI, Hugging Face situation, there would be global standards and there would be sort of a global system for notifying everybody. But what really struck me during Sam Altman's speech at the U.N. Security Council was the fact that he was specifically talking about how these standards should be shared amongst democratic countries. That brings to question what does that mean for a country like China?

Would they be included in these sorts of global standards, global agreements? That answer may partly be -- or that question may be answered tomorrow when a lot of these same tech leaders that were speaking at the U.N. are also going to be at the White House for the Chinese state visit and the state dinner. There has been some talk about having, you know, a meeting on the sidelines with the Trump administration to talk about standards, at least within the United States.

But obviously the idea of a China-U.S. agreement on AI has been floated around a lot. We'll see if anything comes out of that this week -- guys.

SANCHEZ: Hadas Gold, thank you so much for the update.

We're continuing to monitor the breaking news. Right now there's a critical hearing regarding President Trump's ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. We have a live update right after this.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KEILAR: Back to our breaking news now. A federal judge hearing CNN, MS NOW and Politico's lawsuit against the Trump administration. The news organizations are suing over the president banning their access to the White House.

We have CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter back. Brian, what's the latest from the courtroom?

STELTER: The lead counsel for CNN, MS and Politico, Ted Boutrous. He's a famed First Amendment lawyer. He's still speaking in court, making arguments to Judge Timothy Kelly.

Boutrous is saying to the judge that the president himself, President Trump, is the main witness in this case, given the president's comments, given what the president has repeatedly said about his supposed reasons for the ban. Essentially, the Justice Department now making national security claims, but the president wasn't doing that last Friday when he ridiculed negative coverage and derided fake news and announced the ban.

Boutrous saying in court, quote, "This is a clear retaliation case. The president himself said that these bans were as a result of reporting."

So he's making the argument that there should be a focus here, not just on the Fifth Amendment grounds, but we talked earlier about how this is a due process case, as well as a free speech case. And Boutrous is saying, yes, the due process concerns are real, but he's urging the judge to focus on the First Amendment issues.

He's saying that if the judge only rules in favor of the news outlets on the Fifth Amendment, basically saying that they were banned too suddenly without any chance to challenge it, then, quote, the shenanigans will continue. In other words, Boutrous arguing that the president will keep coming up with other ways to ban news outlets unless the judge issues a ruling and a halt to this behavior on First Amendment grounds. And Boris, Brianna, that's why this is a very important First Amendment test in the U.S. that is much bigger than any of these individual news outlets. We would be on the air right now talking about this if it involved, you know, Axios or Reuters or NBC or ABC. Because right now, this is about a much broader principle that's at stake. These news outlets did not sue because they're trying to fight President Trump.

These news outlets sued because they are trying to defend their First Amendment rights.

KEILAR: And Brian, what else are we expecting here from this hearing? How long could this go?

STELTER: So after Boutrous wraps up, then we're going to hear from the Trump Justice Department attorneys who have been assigned to this case. I have some sympathy for them because this is quite a challenge, an uphill battle for them. They've had to come up with these national security arguments and some other arguments that they've laid out in this overnight message. We will see how they fare. This will probably go on for another half hour or so. The judge could rule immediately, or he could wait until tomorrow or later in the week.

SANCHEZ: Brian Stelter, thank you so much for the update. We'll continue to stay on top of these developments as "THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.

END