CNN among several news outlets barred by Trump from White House coverage

First Amendment advocates rallied on Sunday around CNN, MS NOW and Politico after President Donald Trump barred the three outlets from White House facilities, while one of Trump's own appointees defended the move.

All three outlets are preparing legal action, and many legal experts expect them to prevail, Brian Stelter reports for CNN.

Mike Waltz, Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, argued on CNN's “State of the Union” that the president was within his rights to limit journalists' access to government facilities when he judges them not to be acting in good faith, citing the 1965 Supreme Court ruling Zemel v Rusk, which held that the right to publish does not carry an unrestrained right to gather information.

Legal experts note the current dispute instead centres on “viewpoint discrimination”, since Trump has been explicit that his objection is to coverage he considers negative – a basis courts have repeatedly found unconstitutional.

Trump said on Friday that something was wrong with a country that allowed journalists to write “purposely negative stories”, and that while outlets were free to write them, he did not have to let them into what he called “the people's house”.

National Press Club president Mark Schoeff Jr said the First Amendment does not allow government to pick and choose which journalists may do their jobs; courts have similarly held that once the White House opens facilities to the press generally, it cannot then exclude specific outlets based on viewpoint, a principle a Trump-appointed judge affirmed last year during a brief ban on the Associated Press.

Congressional Republicans largely avoided the legal question on Sunday’s talk shows in favour of political arguments, with Senator Steve Scalise noting Trump’s often lengthy press Q&As, though the current ban does bar the three outlets from asking questions at all. Democrats were more direct in their criticism, with Maryland Governor Wes Moore saying the president appeared to have a real problem with the Constitution.

Press freedom groups said they expected legal filings seeking an injunction or a temporary restraining order as early as Monday morning, while the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression warned the ban could set a precedent for censorship under future administrations.

Rival outlets not directly affected showed notable solidarity: the Washington Post called the ban “a clear form of intimidation to silence coverage”, while Fox News devoted airtime to the story, and the White House Correspondents’ Association said the move violated the First Amendment.