Legacy Media Implode Over Losing White House Passes While The Rest Of America Shrugs

The latest controversy over the White House removing the press credentials of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico further exposes legacy media’s delusions of their own self-importance.

Trump judge delivers 'FAKE NEWS' temporary win in battle with president



A federal judge has delivered a trio of liberal media outlets a win in their battle with the president over access to the White House grounds.

While the networks and their lawyer appear excited over the outcome, President Donald Trump has made clear this is but a battle in a war he means to win.

'Plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security.'

How it started

Trump announced Friday that he was barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House "as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS," stressing that "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."

Following the president's proclamation, White House television pool members — including Fox News — circled the wagons and agreed to end pooled coverage in protest.

Meanwhile, the three banned networks sued Trump, two of Trump's staffers, and U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran, claiming that "this ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles."

Alleging that the ban violated the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the media networks asked for the restoration of their White House hard passes and access as well as for a declaration that the ban was unconstitutional.

RELATED: Trump picked the wrong way to fight fake news

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The White House argued that:

  • the government has a "compelling interest in awarding hard passes to journalists satisfying minimum standards" and that the three networks did not meet those standards;
  • the "Plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security"; and
  • the networks are mistaken in their conclusion "that there is a special property or legal interest in access to the White House."

How it's going

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly did not buy what the White House was selling.

Early on Thursday, the Trump-appointed judge granted the liberal networks a 14-day restraining order and ordered the White House to reinstate White House hard pass press credentials to employees of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

Kelly said in his order that the plaintiffs had "shown a likelihood of success, at least on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim."

The judge noted further that "none of Defendants' arguments convince the Court that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their due process claim."

Kelly rejected the White House's argument that the ban was motivated by national security concerns, writing, "Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was 'banning' Plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs' reporting."

"Defendants offer no declarations or other support — classified or unclassified — explaining how any of the reporting they identified in their letters to Plaintiffs damaged the national security."

Trump, apparently anticipating this turn of events, noted on Monday, "As usual, we’ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown 'sources,' shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World."

Ted Boutrous, the lawyer representing the liberal outlets, said in a statement, "This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process, and the rule of law. We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action."

The White House did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Report: Abdul El-Sayed Cheered On An Oppressive Islamist Regime’s Assault On The Press

The far-left candidate for Michigan Senate attacked Trump this week for 'interfering with the freedom of the press.'

President Trump to receive Chinese President Xi Jinping on first state visit in more than a decade



President Donald Trump will greet Chinese President Xi Jinping personally when his plane lands at Joint Base Andrews for the start of his historic state visit.

The trip on Wednesday will be the first state visit for Xi in the U.S. for over a decade.

'This is a very tough ticket for me. I’ve told a lot of very good friends of mine, "You just can’t come."'

The main portion of the visit will begin Thursday at an arrival ceremony on the State Floor of the White House when Trump and first lady Melania Trump will greet Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan.

The first lady and Xi's wife will have a separate engagement from the presidents.

Later the Chinese president and his wife will be the guests of honor at a state dinner in the East Room with Trump and the first lady. Both presidents will give remarks at the dinner.

"Thousands of people would love to be at that dinner," said Trump to reporters at the White House Friday.

"This is a very tough ticket for me," he added. "I’ve told a lot of very good friends of mine, ‘you just can’t come.'"

Among those that are invited to the state dinner are Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Sundar Pichai of Google, Sam Altman of OpenAI, as well as Tim Cook formerly of Apple.

At the end of the ceremony, a B-2 Spirit bomber and four F-22 Raptors will reportedly conduct a flyover.

The Trumps will also later give Xi and his wife a tour of the National Archives.

RELATED: Trump claims 'incompetent' Minnesota responsible for cyberattacks, not Iran

Critics of the communist government in China point to China's aggressive posture in the South China Sea as one of the country's most provocative actions.

Xi's last state visit to the U.S. was in Sept. 2015 during the last term of former President Barack Obama.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

We Are All CNN: The Free Beacon Will Never Abandon Our Fellow Journalists In Their Time of Need

First they came for Matt Lauer. And we did not speak out because we'd rather not defend a liberal hack and notorious sex pest. Then they came for Jim Acosta's press badge. And we did not speak out because we'd rather not defend a sanctimonious windbag. Then they came for Jeffrey Toobin, aka "the Hardest-Working Hand in Cable News." And we did not speak out because we'd rather not defend a prolific masturbator. Then they came for Chris Matthews, Andrew Cuomo's kid brother, Brian "Humpty" Stelter, John Harwood (who?), Don Lemon, Chuck Todd, Joy Reid, and Jim Acosta (again). And we did not speak out because literally no one cared.

Then, this week, they came for our friends at CNN, Politico, and MS NOW. President Donald Trump, a former Democrat, banned them from the White House grounds because they refused to stop publishing "FICTION and LIES." Other outlets could soon be banned as well, he warned.

The post We Are All CNN: The Free Beacon Will Never Abandon Our Fellow Journalists In Their Time of Need appeared first on .

5 news outlets FIRE BACK at Trump over ban — including Fox News



Various news outlets, including Fox News, have agreed to suspend pool reporting at the White House as a way to protest the president's news ban.

On Friday, President Donald Trump accused CNN, MS NOW, and Politico of peddling fake news and banned them all from the White House.

'If they had credibility, I wouldn't be sitting here right now.'

In response, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News announced on Monday that they had suspended White House TV pool reporting.

"This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President," Fox News Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton wrote in an email obtained by Politico.

"This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties. There will be no replacement pool put in place," he added.

Fox News Media, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News also released a joint statement about the suspension.

"The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting," the group wrote.

Many noted that CNN had defended Fox News in 2009 when former President Barack Obama had limited its access. Fox News returned the favor in 2018 when Trump shut out a CNN reporter.

The president justified his ban in comments to reporters Friday.

"I don't want them in my office. I don't want them here," he said.

"The ban is because they are fake news, they cannot write the truth," he added. "If they had credibility, I wouldn't be sitting here right now."

RELATED: CNN says Trump press ban is illegal — then the Trump team THROWS DOWN fiery response

The president had also threatened to expand the ban to include other outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

In a post Monday on Truth Social, the president compared fake news to a "cancer" afflicting the country.

"It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control," he wrote. "It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The cost of living is coming for Congress



I have spent more than two decades working in politics and have been involved in roughly 50 campaigns, from local races to presidential contests. If there is one lesson I have learned, it is this: Never tell voters that what they are experiencing isn’t real.

With the midterm elections eight weeks away, too many campaigns risk making that mistake. Washington wants to talk about foreign policy, economic indicators, and political strategy. Voters are looking at receipts, and those receipts tell a different story.

Voters can forgive difficult circumstances. What they will not forgive is being told those circumstances don’t exist.

In the week ending September 7, the national average for diesel reached a record $5.97 a gallon. That matters far beyond truck stops. Farmers, contractors, freight carriers, and delivery networks all depend on diesel.

When those costs rise, they move through the supply chain. Fuel becomes part of the grocery bill, the restaurant bill, the cost of construction, shipping, and nearly everything else Americans buy. The consumer ultimately pays.

The line between foreign policy and affordability is not always clean. Wars, sanctions, and instability abroad can raise oil prices and transportation costs at home. But voters experience those events through household economics: the price on the pump, the supermarket receipt, and the balance in the checking account.

Politicians love macroeconomics. Voters live in microeconomics.

A candidate can talk about GDP, job creation, or the stock market, but those figures do not erase what a family pays for groceries, housing, insurance, and energy. The voter's checking account gets the final vote.

As much as it pains me to admit it, Democrat strategist James Carville got at least one thing right. During Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, Carville drove home a simple message: “It’s the economy, stupid.” More than three decades later, Republicans would be wise to remember the lesson.

I have seen campaigns become consumed with the issue they want voters to care about rather than the issue voters actually care about. Those are not always the same thing.

The evidence this year is hard to miss. A July Pew Research Center survey found that voters most wanted congressional candidates to discuss economic issues, especially prices and affordability. In a companion survey, 66% said they were very concerned about food and consumer-goods prices, 64% about housing costs, and 56% about gasoline prices.

RELATED: Can a $1.2 trillion giveaway become a fiscal bargain?

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Foreign policy and national security still matter. China, Russia, Iran, and America’s place in the world cannot be dismissed. No single issue will decide every race. But elections are personal, and voters usually encounter national policy through its effect on daily life.

A parent in a supermarket aisle is not conducting a geopolitical analysis while comparing grocery prices. A driver filling the family SUV is watching the numbers on the pump. Both are asking the same question: How much is this going to cost me?

They are thinking about the mortgage, electric bill, car payment, insurance, groceries, gas, child care, and credit cards. They are wondering why an income that once felt comfortable now seems barely sufficient. That is affordability, and it will decide November.

Economic frustration helped return Donald Trump to the White House. Republicans cannot assume that the issue automatically works in their favor now. They cannot tell families struggling with grocery and fuel bills that everything is fine or insist that distant events matter more than household finances.

That does not require Republicans to abandon foreign policy or the administration’s agenda. It requires candidates to acknowledge what voters are experiencing and explain what they intend to do about it. There is an enormous political difference between saying, “The economy is great,” and saying, “We’ve made progress, but prices are still too high, and here is what we’re doing next.”

RELATED: Free money wins elections — and that’s why America’s debt will keep growing

Blaze Media Illustration

Democrats should not celebrate, either. Economic frustration does not automatically translate into support for Democratic policies. Voters will judge which candidates understand their financial situation and offer credible solutions. That gives both parties an opportunity, but neither a guaranteed victory.

Campaigns succeed when candidates understand what voters are feeling. They fail when consultants persuade candidates that voters should care about something else. After roughly 50 campaigns, I have found that voters can forgive difficult circumstances. What they will not forgive is being told those circumstances don’t exist.

The question in November will not be whether Washington can produce statistics showing that parts of the economy are strong. It will be whether Americans believe they can afford their lives.

When they enter the voting booth, they will not be carrying economic charts. They will be carrying their grocery receipts.

‘Don’t be evil’ may be dead, but ‘don’t be Frankenstein’ is alive



Some still remember when Google defined itself by a simple motto: “Don’t be evil.” When Google reorganized under Alphabet in 2015, the new parent company adopted the somehow less confidence-inspiring, “Do the right thing.” Another phrase with a lower bar also made the rounds — “to organize the world’s information” — but rest assured, that was never the motto. It was simply ... uh ... the mission statement.

Anyway ...

The AI doomers’ strange brand of apocalypticism is: Let’s create an evil god so we can save the world from it.

It took until this week for some of the most powerful voices in tech policy to circle back explicitly to a prime directive: Avoid hellacious acts. For that, thank the AI doomers, whose strange brand of apocalypticism — let’s create an evil god so we can save the world from it — finally breached technology insider-dom and splashed across the political timeline.

The high-stakes soap opera has, as usual, deeper currents than the news feed can convey. But the key development is that the White House and its allies moved at warp speed to establish a few basic touchstones that take us back to the good old days of not being evil.

Trump has received most of the attention for memeing his stern-looking self above the caption “Americanism, Not Effective Altruism!” But his vice president captured the matter in a single line that’s tough to beat. “If you’re building Frankenstein,” he said, “stop!"

Note the emphasis. Trying to build an evil god — for instance, one with a statistically nonzero chance of wiping out the human race — is fortunately still considered axiomatically evil. But JD Vance’s reference underscores that trying to build a "new man," even with the best of intentions, is also evil.

According to the doomers, the best way to save the world from evils they might create is for the rest of us to give them some form of planetary governing control. Vance endorsed a more commonsense approach: The best way to spare the world from evils you’re responsible for is to ... not do them in the first place.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

The vice president may, like every one of his predecessors in living memory, carry a pronounced partisan identity. But his folksy-clever line echoes in anti-doomer rhetoric now blaring from the industry’s rooftops. Microsoft, of all places, recently published its own rulebook for what not to build. On X, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman promoted the new “Humanist AI Code of Conduct,” which insists AI “is not conscious and should not be designed to imitate consciousness. It should,” Microsoft avows, “be engineered to avoid representing as though it has feelings, subjective preferences, or intrinsic motivation.”

Microsoft also flatly states: “We reject the pursuit of legal personhood, or the idea that models might deserve welfare, or be entitled to rights.” No Frankensteins here!

Or rather, no Frankenstein’s monsters — which means no Dr. Frankensteins running amok in the lab.

At Palantir, outspoken CTO Shyam Sankar made a similar point in a 2025 interview. “I think the secularists in Silicon Valley are filling the God-shaped hole in their heart with AGI,” Sankar said.

“The people who have religion are the most skeptical” of the doomers’ build-a-god-and-save-the-world-from-it thesis — which, yes, does itself resemble an inverted religion. For “the people who are kind of transhumanists,” Sankar concluded, “it becomes what they wish were true.”

Even Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, not known for Bible-thumping, recently struck an economic note with more than a whiff of spirituality.

“If we’re not confident about the safety of the products, like all companies ... if you build a product or a service and you’re not confident in its functionality, capability, or safety, then don’t release it,” he said. "And so that’s a very obvious thing to do. You pace yourself until you are confident you’re releasing something that the market would appreciate. The market forces are already there. We don’t need any new laws. We don’t need new regulations.”

RELATED: Poll: Most think AI could do this to humanity — but don't agree on what to do about it

da-kuk/Getty Images

Translation: Hear a little voice in your head, or more likely, your heart? Whispering, “No, this product is bad”? Don’t take it to market.

Turns out, you can just not do things!

Of course, Huang’s logic is a bit deceptive. We would like to believe the market will punish bad people for taking bad things to market, but that is not always how it works. As we speak, present-day Dr. Frankensteins are transplanting human brain organoids into mice engineered to lack most of their cerebral cortex, allowing the human tissue to occupy much of the vacant space and wire into the animals’ nervous systems.

No, doctors! Bad! Evil! Don’t!

Except they are. In the end, it matters that people examine their own hearts for evil before looking elsewhere and pointing fingers. But spiritual insistence alone will not keep society on the rails. It is not enough to scowl at our mad doctors, however good their intentions, as their creations erode the boundaries around our sacred human bodies and being — supercomputers or no.

Trump Bans ‘Fake News’ CNN, MS NOW, Politico From White House

Each outlet is infamous for coverage that skews radically to the left.