Ban by any other name: How the White House is still freezing critical outlets CNN, MS NOW and Politico have escalated their lawsuit against Trump's press restrictions at the White House, and the updated complaint paints a clear picture: It's not about security or logistics, but about punishing outlets whose coverage the president doesn't like. The three offices went back to court citing "persistent and point-of-view discrimination," arguing that the administration violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The new filing focuses on the White House's interference with the press pool — the roving group of journalists who cover the president in close quarters, including Air Force One and the Oval Office — and asks the court to make its earlier order permanent. After a federal judge ordered their credentials restored, the White House complied on paper but continued to find ways to keep them out of the important rooms. CNN has been banned from Air Force One on all six occasions it was scheduled to serve as the designated television partner since the ban was announced in September. Politico has twice been barred from out-of-town pool assignments, and MS NOW has not participated in the secondary TV pool since the ban began. The outlet's attorney, Ted Botero, sent a letter demanding the administration abandon its exclusionary policy; The White House did not respond. The amended complaint asks the court to declare the presidents' ban illegal and issue a permanent injunction, arguing that once the White House opens up those spaces to select journalists, it can't exclude others just because it doesn't like their coverage. A ban that loses in court but survives through silent, partial exclusion is still a ban. Every blocked seat on Air Force One and every empty chair in the Oval Office send the same message to newsrooms—cover the president favorably, or don't cover him at all. The phrase don't miss it.

Ban by any other name: How the White House is still freezing critical outlets CNN, MS NOW and Politico have escalated their lawsuit against Trump's press restrictions at the White House, and the updated complaint paints a clear picture: It's not about security or logistics, but about punishing outlets whose coverage the president doesn't like. The three offices went back to court citing "persistent and point-of-view discrimination," arguing that the administration violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The new filing focuses on the White House's interference with the press pool — the roving group of journalists who cover the president in close quarters, including Air Force One and the Oval Office — and asks the court to make its earlier order permanent. After a federal judge ordered their credentials restored, the White House complied on paper but continued to find ways to keep them out of the important rooms. CNN has been banned from Air Force One on all six occasions it was scheduled to serve as the designated television partner since the ban was announced in September. Politico has twice been barred from out-of-town pool assignments, and MS NOW has not participated in the secondary TV pool since the ban began. The outlet's attorney, Ted Botero, sent a letter demanding the administration abandon its exclusionary policy; The White House did not respond. The amended complaint asks the court to declare the presidents' ban illegal and issue a permanent injunction, arguing that once the White House opens up those spaces to select journalists, it can't exclude others just because it doesn't like their coverage. A ban that loses in court but survives through silent, partial exclusion is still a ban. Every blocked seat on Air Force One and every empty chair in the Oval Office send the same message to newsrooms—cover the president favorably, or don't cover him at all. The phrase don't miss it.