Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

CNN Barred from White House Along with MS NOW & Politico; CNN, MS NOW & Politico to Sue Trump Administration Over Access. Aired 6- 6:30a ET

Aired September 21, 2026 - 06:00   ET

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

[06:00:10]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish, and here is where we begin.

CNN crews denied access to the White House following the president's ban over the weekend, along with MS NOW and Politico, specifically. Reporters from all three publications were turned away Saturday morning, including CNN's Betsy Klein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETSY KLEIN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So, I walk in, I tap my badge, and it beeps a couple of different times. It turns red, blue and green, and it didn't accept my PIN number.

The Secret Service agent in the guard house, with whom I have been friendly in the past, asked to see my badge, and I handed it over to him. He told me that it had been deactivated.

I asked him if he could provide an explanation as to why it had been deactivated. He said he had no further information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, we're turning now to Brian Stelter. He's CNN's chief media analyst.

Good morning, Brian. I know this has been busy news all this week. First, I want to start with what you are hearing from the White House Press Association.

Obviously, there's been a lot of back and forth over the last few years with Trump, but what are they saying now?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, simply that this violates the First Amendment, that this ban, of all of the steps Trump has taken to pressure the press, of all the steps he has taken to intimidate the press, this might be the most egregious.

And that's why the White House Correspondents Association has very strongly denounced this and stood with CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. It's why all the leading press freedom groups in the United States have come together to say this is unconstitutional.

It's why some of CNN and MS NOW and Politico's main rivals have also come out with statements supporting these three targeted news organizations.

So, over the weekend, Audie, media lawyers were working overtime. There is a lawsuit that's being prepared, and we're going to have more information about that very shortly.

CORNISH: Yes.

STELTER: But more broadly, what we are seeing is this pressure campaign from the White House that is reaching unprecedented levels.

And you mentioned that newest development about the pool. I think we should explain that to viewers, because it happened very late last night and into the early morning hours, and we actually don't know how it's going to transpire today.

Normally, CNN would be showing up later today to be the pool reporter for all the TV networks in the country, not just at the White House today, but also for the president's trip to New York, for the U.N. General Assembly this afternoon.

There will be no TV pool coverage, though, because CNN has been kept out of the White House. And I actually expect later today, Audie, to hear from all the other major networks in some form of comment or statement or something.

Because quite frankly, this is a problem not just for CNN, not just for MS NOW, but for ABC and NBC and CBS and FOX News.

And even more broadly, it's a problem for all the local TV stations that rely on coverage of the White House. It's a problem for "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post."

CORNISH: So, Brian, can I jump in for one second?

STELTER: Yes.

CORNISH: I want to help people understand. This is not just about where we're allowed to stand. For instance, I've been a pool reporter for the A.P., NPR, and you are the person because everyone can't fit in a certain space. Sometimes there's one person. Tag, you're it, and you share your notes. Or in this case, your video.

So, are you saying there won't be any pool reporter whatsoever or just these three organizations aren't allowed to do it?

STELTER: There will be other pool members, for example, from a print publication, from radio. There will be other members in the pool today, but there will not be that TV pool representative.

CORNISH: Got it.

STELTER: And that's significant, because the TV pool plays an outsized and unique role. The TV pool is the one that has the camera operator, that has the technician. That is basically the primary way the president gets on camera all around the world.

And -- and we know President Trump likes being on camera.

CORNISH: Yes.

STELTER: So, that's why a lot of these commentators over the weekend were saying that this might backfire on the president.

So, yes, we should be clear. There will be other reporters traveling with Trump to New York today. There will be other reporters that can ask him questions. In some cases, it's very pro-Trump, MAGA media figures who have been welcomed in by the White House. Those are the ones that shout -- shout softballs to the president that tend to make him feel really good, but don't actually get us any information as a country.

So, there will be some of those reporters. But locking out the TV pool has serious implications, because -- I thought Weijia Jiang said it well over the weekend, former Correspondents Association president.

[06:05:10]

She said America does not have state TV. There shouldn't be state TV in America, right?

CORNISH: Yes.

STELTER: That's separate, independent news outlets that run --

CORNISH: Just so people understand what you're saying --

STELTER: -- the cameras, not the White House.

CORNISH: You essentially have -- there's some alternatives here, which is they start putting out their own video, edited any way that they want.

But this is different from the first term, right, where basically they had the typical and maybe atypically more adversarial relationship with the press; to actually filling the room with organizations they deem more fair to them.

How has that looked? Has that meant other networks? Has that meant blogs? What do we mean when we say they've sort of altered the -- the sort of pool of people that they're talking to?

STELTER: And it has made a big difference in the past 18 months or so. You know, in the past 18 months or so, the Trump White House has welcomed in figures from relatively small, relatively obscure streaming sites, blogs, online networks.

These are figures oftentimes not coming from journalism backgrounds, but from political advocacy backgrounds. And I tend to have a view, you know, the more voices the merrier, the

more points of view the merrier. The problem, though, in these Q&A settings, is that you get a few figures who are propagandists right next to real veteran reporters who want to get answers for the American people.

So, you might have a reporter saying something derogatory about Democrats to make the president laugh when you have reporters from CNN and "The New York Times" who actually want to ask accountability questions.

So, that has made a big difference in the past 18 months. And one of my concerns today, Audie, is that as Trump tries to ban news outlets, he's going to reshape the reporters around him, so that they're mostly just propagandists, and there aren't real reporters at all. That's the real danger, I think --

CORNISH: Yes.

STELTER: -- that's broader than CNN today as this goes on.

CORNISH: Yes. And to that point, right now, we're learning this news: that CNN is going to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration. This happened, of course, after our reporters were denied access to the White House.

So, just now, releasing a joint statement along with MS NOW and Politico, who were also banned. And it says this: quote, "This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes. Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalist credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism, free from government interference."

So, we've got here Katelyn Polantz. She is our crime and justice correspondent. You're going to help us understand the legal part of this, especially because at one point they tried to get rid of reporters at the Pentagon.

It is not unusual, right, for this White House to all of a sudden say, you're revoked, you're revoked, you're revoked. What is different about what they're doing? And can you talk to us about this legal response?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, this will be a major lawsuit from the moment that it hits the clerk's office and gets a judge in the D.C. District Court.

we are learning that the outlets are suing all together. It is CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, all filing this First Amendment lawsuit and telling the government that they're asking for emergency intervention, that a judge should be stepping in immediately to restore the credentials and access to the White House.

CORNISH: Because, as we described Betsy Klein goes, she tries to do her badge, and you hear the beep beep of "you're not coming in."

POLANTZ: That's right.

CORNISH: So, this is now.

POLANTZ: And that happened exactly the same for an MS NOW reporter, correspondent, as well as a Politico correspondent, both who tried to go to the White House, as well, on Saturday.

Now, this case -- you mentioned, the Pentagon. That was a little bit of a different situation.

CORNISH: Just for people to remember, at one point when Pete Hegseth came in, he said, Look, you guys shouldn't have offices here. Get your boxes and go.

And I'm under the impression they got their boxes and got to come back after going to a court.

POLANTZ: Yes. And that was also a situation where they removed everybody and changed the rules for everybody at the Pentagon.

This is very, very different, because this is a case that is going to be about two things. Did the White House give CNN, MS NOW, and Politico proper notice that they would be having some sort of issue with their press credentials in advance?

And also, are they being discriminated against? Is this happening just because of the free speech that is being exercised by these journalists?

There is something that Donald Trump said on Friday that he was responding to, quote, unquote, "negative stories" by the outlets. That's the sort of thing that courts have repeatedly said you can't revoke someone's press credentials just because you don't like them.

CORNISH: Well, then let me ask you about this. We heard this over the weekend. The administration basically talking about what they think their reasoning is. Let me see if we have that tape for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE WALTZ, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: The president is absolutely within his rights to limit journalists to government facilities, particularly when, in his opinion, they're not behaving as good-faith journalists. And that's just not his opinion. That's the Supreme Court's opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. That's U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz. He said two things there of interest to me. One, the right to limit journalists to government facilities, right? That there's some power there, he's implying.

And two, referencing a Supreme Court opinion. POLANTZ: A fascinating Supreme Court opinion that I'm not sure has

much direct bearing on this, but we will wait to see what a judge would say, of course.

That Supreme Court case he's talking about, it is about someone who wanted to be able to go into Cuba in 1965, and their passport was not being validated by the federal government.

CORNISH: The State Department. Yes.

POLANTZ: Right. And there was a passport law that the Supreme Court ruling actually turned on, saying that you wouldn't necessarily be entitled, if you just want to go and see Cuba, in the same way a journalist would want to witness things in the United States.

But that's a very different case than the case law that's on the books here already. The Pentagon, that is a case. But let's set that aside.

The case here that controls, especially in Washington, D.C., it's a case from 1977. A journalist named Robert Sherrill. At the time, he worked for a publication called "The Nation."

He had his press credentials to the White House revoked by the Secret Service, and the courts made law at that time that said, you can't do that without due process, and you can't do that just because you don't want one person to have access.

That case law has been upheld over and over again, especially in the courts in Washington, D.C. We saw it in a case where Jim Acosta's credentials were revoked when he was working for CNN. And we also saw it in a very important case when Brian Karem, the "Playboy Magazine" correspondent, lost his press credentials. They both were restored: Acosta's and Karem's.

CORNISH: Yes. OK.

So, I want to bring back Brian Stelter, because he's reading through the lawsuit. You give me some good legal information here.

So, Brian, when you look at the approach by the organizations, which, you know, typically are competitors, help us understand what they're laying out in the lawsuit.

STELTER: Well, CNN, MS NOW, Politico, they're moving quickly, right? Filing first thing Monday morning, trying to show irreparable harm.

Reading from the lawsuit here, "Since plaintiffs' White House access was suddenly terminated on September 18, they have been suffering serious, irreparable harm. They have already lost opportunities to perform their constitutionally-protected newsgathering and reporting functions at the White House, impairing their ability to speak and publish as members of the press. And they lose more such opportunities every day that the ban remains in effect."

So that gives you a sense of the tone, the tenor of this lawsuit. Look, this is such a strange situation, because we're talking about it

here on one of the affected networks. But, Audie, I think you know this. I know this. We'd be covering this the same way if it was happening to NPR, or "The New York Times," or CBS, or "The L.A. Times."

Because the reality is, President Trump said publicly on Friday that he might add more names to his list of banned news outlets.

So many of the statements the president made on Friday are going to be used against him now by the lawyers in this action. This is ultimately not about the three targeted news outlets at all. It is about the wider American press corps and about the public's right to know.

This lawsuit is very simple in this language, because Trump's outrageousness speaks for itself. The unconstitutionality of this action speaks for itself.

But we're going to continue to go through this lawsuit here. Read through some of the details.

One more note, by the way, for viewers who might remember eight years ago, because Katelyn was mentioning the Acosta case in 2018 when Jim Acosta's press pass was revoked by Trump.

CNN went to court within a matter of days in that case, as well. And the same outside counsel, Ted Boutrous, who represented CNN in court, he is back this time.

Boutrous is a famed First Amendment attorney. Katelyn and I were talking to him yesterday. He was flying from L.A. to D.C. to get ready for this case today.

So, CNN basically calling up one of the top First Amendment lawyers in the country as outside counsel. Politico, MS NOW also leaning on Boutrous for what's going to come in the coming hours and days.

CORNISH: OK. That's Brian Stelter, CNN chief media analyst, and Katelyn Polantz. Thank you so much for being here. We're obviously going to follow up on this.

We're reporting right now on the White House ban of reporters at CNN and Politico and MS NOW.

So, for the president, is this an attempt to change the subject in a big way?

Plus, the Republican Party's midterm blitz. They're pouring millions into ads during NFL and college football games. So, is that going to help them win back male voters? Group thought -- group chat's going to have thoughts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:19:20] CORNISH: So, this morning, we continue to follow this breaking news. CNN suing the Trump administration after crews were denied access to the White House following the president's ban.

CNN has actually released a joint statement along with MS NOW and Politico, who were also banned. And it says, in part, "Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism, free from government interference."

Now, the headlines haven't been in the president's favor as of late, from the Supreme Court rejecting his effort to limit mail-in ballots, to the Fed raising interest rates despite the president's best efforts.

And, of course, the Kennedy Center -- the Kennedy Center name change and the proposed demolition firestorm that has followed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: This would be like taking a wrecking ball to the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial, or the Jefferson Memorial. And I don't think the courts are going to allow that to happen, as I -- as surely they're not going to allow CNN and the other news organizations to be banned from the White House.

So, he is creating fake news in order to keep us or distract us from talking about the news that is really, really hurting him and his party as these midterm elections approach.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining me now in the group chat, Sara Fischer, CNN senior media analyst and senior media reporter at Axios; and Melik Abdul, Republican strategist; and Jerusalem Demsas, founder and editor of "The Argument."

Before I come to you, Sara, I want to come over to my alternate media over here. OK? So, you're a good example of someone who is working outside of the system. Does it make a difference?

JERUSALEM DEMSAS, CO-FOUNDER, "THE ARGUMENT": I think that the big problem here is that Trump has repeatedly shown himself to be uninterested in maintaining the specific norms of protecting the press, right?

Like, and every single administration has these interactions with press that are negative. They push back on negative coverage or unfair coverage. You've seen this in administration after administration at the local, state, whatever level.

But the difference is that what you see with Trump is a repeated obsession with -- with how things look at the -- at the cost of the issues that most people want to be focused on.

Right now, Americans are really worried about the cost of living. And they see the president time and again, obsessed with his military arch, angry about headlines about the Kennedy Center, trying to do beautification projects in D.C.

And to me, what -- what matters here is that the American people don't want their president focused on this.

CORNISH: Yes. Just to follow up on your point, right now, the -- the most recent polling from "The New York Times"/Siena poll asked directly likely voters, "Do you think Donald Trump is generally focused on the right issues or the wrong issues?"

And to Jerusalem's point, right now, people are saying 61 percent -- 61 percent of the people polled are saying the wrong issues.

MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's the economy. And we know that this is the same case in every single election cycle.

I'll -- I'll do all of the obligatory stuff. There were 400 or so journalists during the Biden administration that lost their credentials. Barack Obama tried to block FOX news from doing X, Y, Z. Yes, whatever. OK, so that's what Republicans say publicly.

CORNISH: And as a fact check, 400 reporters weren't having their credentials revoked. They did not reapply.

ABDUL: They just didn't reapply.

CORNISH: Which is different. As somebody who has failed to reapply multiple times, I can tell you, I did not see it as a violent action against me.

ABDUL: So, I'll get that -- those talking points out of the way --

CORNISH: Yes.

ABDUL: -- for my Republicans on this side.

But if you talk to Republicans behind closed doors, everyone acknowledges that this is a problem. And you ask, well, why can't you say that on television? We know why. Because this is just not what these platforms are for. You go on television. You're supposed to defend --

CORNISH: Actually, you're definitely for this. Get up and tell the truth.

ABDUL: Well, that's -- well, the thing is --

CORNISH: That's what I'm here for.

ABDUL: -- is that it typically doesn't happen, whether you're a Democrat or Republican. You come on these platforms, you're supposed to defend your side.

CORNISH: Got it. ABDUL: The reasons that Republicans aren't talking about this honestly, publicly, is because, for one, they're concerned about what Donald Trump is going to say about it. They're concerned about access. They're concerned about social media influencers. They're concerned about that access to power.

And so, you get on television, and you double down on things that you know, otherwise, if the shoe were on the other foot, you would not be able to defend.

So, what Donald Trump is doing here, because he does not like the type of coverage that's coming from these outlets, he's decided, much like with the Kennedy Center, I can't put my name on it. I'm going to shut it down.

And if you talk to Republicans behind closed doors, what you're hearing is that this type of petulance, this type of thing, this performative thing that the president does, it is truly exhausting.

CORNISH: Petulance. Petulance is exhausting. OK, Sara.

SARA FISCHER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA ANALYST: Yes.

CORNISH: You -- now you jump in with what's going on in media world.

FISCHER: All right, so Republicans over the past few months have actually become a little bit more vocal when they feel as though the administration has gone too far on press freedoms.

The best example of this is Senator Ted Cruz, who's been coming out and saying, Look, what the FCC is doing to unilaterally target ABC is not great, because when the shoe's on the other foot, to your point, we don't want to be the ones that are targeted.

And so, I don't know that the Republican sort of stamina for always backing the president is going to extend here.

My other big-picture thought on this politically is that, for the president, he's dealing with so many lawsuits as they pertain to the media. This is not a concern or a fear of his getting sued, especially.

It's not like this is some civil case where there's going to be some sort of awarded financial penalty. That's not how this works.

What's likely going to happen is these outlets are going to ask the judge for an injunction. And they're going to hope that the judge sort of temporarily says, you've got to go back while we litigate this.

And then the precedent, as Katelyn Polantz was saying, largely favors them. So, it's likely that this gets overturned, and President Trump has to bring them back.

[06:25:03]

But that process, Audie, could actually take a long time. The A.P. sued the White House over access last year, last spring.

CORNISH: When they used the term Gulf of Mexico.

FISCHER: Yes. And the White House said, all right, reporters are not allowed into the Oval Office, and you're not allowed to Air Force One. That lawsuit is still ongoing more than a year later.

CORNISH: So, is it a kind of weaponization? Like, is the journey the destination?

FISCHER: Absolutely, yes.

CORNISH: Getting people drawn into lawsuits is the point.

FISCHER: Yes.

CORNISH: Not the outcome of the lawsuit?

FISCHER: Correct. The outcome doesn't matter. By the time this gets fully litigated through, there's a possibility that Trump will be out of office by that time.

CORNISH: Right.

FISCHER: What the -- what the key is, is that he's distracting the press from talking about the midterms. And there's very little consequence of him doing it.

Like I said, it's not like President Trump is going to be facing, you know, so many million dollars of personal penalties from this.

CORNISH: Yes. But can I put one thing out there? Getting the -- when the Pentagon attempted to send everyone home out of the offices, it did not stop the public from understanding they did not like the Iran War. They did not like how it was executed.

We still know that there was a bombing that ended up on a school on the first day. There are so many things we know. Injuries. The fact that there's been all kinds of military installations that have been damaged. We still know a lot.

And one of the things I don't understand about this White House is believing that they can how -- somehow stop any news by picking and choosing winners and losers.

FISCHER: I don't think that's actually what they're trying to do. I think what they're trying to do is create an environment in which the press feels concerned and nervous around doing some of their best reporting. And part of creating that environment are these little antics.

I don't think that they actually believe they're going to quash every little bit of bad coverage. I do think with the Pentagon, they think limited access will actually harm them. I think with the White House, we all know you don't need to be inside the White House to get access to the leakiest White House of all time. But I think what they're trying to do is create a pressure campaign that makes you scared. And for big outlets, Audie, MS --

CORNISH: I was about to say, if you're small, and you can't handle a lawsuit, then you're going to get nervous.

FISCHER: If you're small, you can't afford those legal costs. Exactly. That is the point of this.

ABDUL: It is the effort to stifle speech.

FISCHER: Yes, yes.

ABDUL: That's what it is.

CORNISH: OK, well, we're going to talk more today about whether or not that will work.

In the meantime, the president is actually holding a summit on a different issue with China's Xi Jinping. That's just days away. And it's going to be about A.I.

We're going to talk about what the global A.I. leadership agenda is going to look like.

Plus, you've got police clashing with protesters after an ICE shooting, this time in Texas. What we've learned about what happened in the moments just before it happened.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:00]