Blue Press Journal

Tag: Politico

  • MS NOW Reporter Barred From White House, Joins CNN and Politico in Access Dispute

    Washington, D.C., Sept. 24 — A federal judge’s order to restore White House press credentials for three news outlets has been ignored, as MSNBC correspondent  Laura Barron‑Lopez was denied entry on Thursday, mirroring recent turn‑aways of CNN and Politico journalists.

    Update: 10:20am est.

    A reporter for the online outlet MS NOW was turned away from the White House press entrance on Thursday, bringing the media outlet into a growing dispute over access that already includes correspondents from CNN and Politico.

    Laura Barron‑Lopez, a senior reporter for the news outlet, said she arrived at the Press Briefing building, swiped her badge at the security checkpoint and watched the indicator turn red before being stopped by a uniformed security guard.

    “I got as far as the press pass security hut, swiped my badge, and the light started flashing red,” Barron‑Lopez told reporters after the incident. “The guard told me I could not proceed and escorted me off the premises.”

    Her experience mirrors that of a CNN reporter and a Politico correspondent, both of whom were denied entry his morning under the same circumstances.

    MS NOW, CNN and Politico have scheduled a joint press conference for Thursday afternoon to discuss the broader implications of the White House’s security procedures on media freedom.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • POLITICO, CNN Sue After Trump Revokes White House Press Access

    The Trump administration wants a court order letting the executive branch decide who receives White House press credentials, and it is challenging a long-standing legal precedent that protects journalists covering the West Wing.

    Headline reads “POLITICO, CNN Sue After Trump Revokes White House Press Access”; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia hearing with legal counsel for CNN, POLITICO editor-in-chief, and legal counsel for POLITICO.

    In a brief filed late Tuesday, the Justice Department said barring POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW from the White House complex was justified by how those outlets had reported on sensitive information.

    The administration told the courts that the president believed the plaintiffs had failed basic journalistic standards by revealing classified details and national security matters.

    Responding to an emergency injunction from the three media companies seeking immediate restoration of access, the government brief cited articles from each outlet about the conflict with Iran, US military reserve levels and a leak investigation into FBI Director Kash Patel. It also objected to POLITICO’s release of a Secret Service document originally given to Senate Republicans to help build a new presidential ballroom.

    The DOJ brief also included copies of letters supposedly sent to the organisations that day explaining the credential revocations and setting a Friday deadline for a response.

    But the documents had no signatures or letterhead and never explicitly said any cited example in the articles contained classified information. Several examples were also largely unrelated to national security; the letter to POLITICO objected to an article about internal tensions at a Texas Republican convention.

    Government attorneys conceded the retroactive letters do not meet the standard set by Sherrill v. Knight, a 49-year-old D.C. Circuit ruling holding that the state cannot arbitrarily exclude specific news organisations from White House press facilities based on its perceived coverage.

    Instead, the Justice Department is formally asking the courts to overturn the Sherrill precedent, dismantling the legal framework that ensures equal press access. The administration instead wants wider use of a different ruling from last year suggesting the president has discretion to restrict entry to high-security parts of the White House grounds, such as the Oval Office.

    POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW sued on Monday, arguing that revoking their press passes violates the First Amendment. They have also asked for a temporary restraining order forcing the administration to restore their credentials while the case is heard.

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by Trump, has set a hearing for Wednesday afternoon.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Trump’s White House Press Ban Represents a Threat to the First Amendment and the Country Essay

    In an effort to continue his campaign of banning mainstream news sources, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he would ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. According to Trump, these news outlets were spreading “FAKE NEWS” for criticizing him, and he warned that more news organizations would be banned for speaking “critical” of his administration.

    Framed text beginning “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” and labeled “AMENDMENT I 1791.”

    At his daily press conference on Friday, Trump complained about the outlets being “very one-sided” and accused them of writing negatively about him and his administration. He also claimed that they do not reflect the opinion of the American people, who, according to him, have suffered due to his military actions against Iran. However, when Reuters reminded him that freedom of the press was a protected right and that the White House could not prevent them from asking questions, Trump reacted with disdain, stating, “Oh, thank you for reminding me.” When asked whether he was trying to intimidate the press, Trump responded, “No, I don’t like dishonest press. I think you are all horrible people.”

    In effect, what Trump was trying to do is interfere with the right of the American people to obtain reliable information about their president and his actions, which is a direct threat to the First Amendment.

    CNN strongly pushed back, claiming that “we have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government.” Mark Schoeff, Jr., president of the National Press Club, expressed similar sentiments, stating that “[b]anning news organizations from the White House based on the administration’s disapproval of their coverage is a clear attempt to control which voices are allowed to witness and report on the exercise of presidential power.”

    A free press is one of the pillars of any democratic society, and by threatening it, Donald Trump is threatening the very foundation of the US political system.

  • From Motorcade Trunk to White House Confidante: The Rising Influence of Natalie Harp

    by Winston Wendell

    Remarks by Senator Jon Ossoff (D‑Ga.) that President Trump “travels with Natalie” has rekindled interest in the relationship between the president and his 35-year-old aide Natalie Harp. Known as the “human printer” for providing printouts of positive online stories about Donald Trump while he was in transit, Ms. Harp was once again in the news for an alleged altercation over her travel arrangements following the president’s recent court appearance in New York City.

    According to a CNN report from October 24, 2023, Ms. Harp was brought to New York City to brief Trump in the days leading up to his court appearance. The news outlet reported that when the President’s motorcade arrived at the destination, the staff told Ms. Harp that there were no available seats for her in the front of the vehicle. Nevertheless, Ms. Harp insisted that she would only return with Mr. Trump because she had previously been requested by the President to accompany him to the courtroom. Following a “screaming match” with the President’s staff, Ms. Harp climbed into the trunk of one of the SUVs and arrived in New York City. In addition, CNN reported that it had received a photograph of Ms. Harp in the trunk of the vehicle, which has since been shared on several news websites.

    The alleged incident in the trunk of the SUV is the latest development in the ongoing controversy surrounding Ms. Harp’s relationship with Mr. Trump. In September 2023, Politico reported that Ms. Harp has served as the President’s “gatekeeper,” providing him with printouts of online articles containing information that the president may find of interest. According to Politico , since her hiring, Natalie Harp has been responsible for screening news feeds and choosing which news items to print out for the President based on their perceived relevance. Similarly, The New York Times , in its March 2024 article about Trump’s staff, noted that Harp has been a “near-constant presence” at both the president’s rallies and court proceedings.

    Although the White House did not respond directly to the allegations regarding the trunk incident, former Trump officials told Reuters that the president sometimes engaged in “unorthodox” behavior with his staff. According to the news outlet, the President’s staff members are generally willing to comply with his requests due to his status as a national leader.

    Senator Ossoff’s remarks were made during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 15, 2024. Following his comments, several representatives laughed and discussed the extent to which staff members are permitted to travel with the President. However, as this story continues to gain traction in the national news, it is likely to raise additional questions about the potential risks and dangers facing Trump’s staff. From this standpoint, the “trunk controversy” may have significant implications for the White House.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Trump Administration and DOJ Stall Refunds After Supreme Court Nullifies Emergency Tariffs – Businesses Rush to Court

    Donald Trump peeking through the wooden doors of Courtroom A in a brightly lit hallway.

    BLUE PRESS JOURNAL – The Supreme Court’s decisive ruling that nullified President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs ignited a frantic legal scramble. Hundreds of companies—from a New York wine importer to shipping giant FedEx—are now filing lawsuits to reclaim duties they allege were unlawfully collected. The fight has split into two competing jurisdictional tracks, while the Trump administration and the Department of Justice (DOJ) deliberately drag their feet.

    Two Front‑Line Challengers
    VOS Selections, a New York wine and spirits importer represented by the Liberty Justice Center, is pressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for an immediate mandate so lower courts can begin processing refunds. The importer previously secured a verbal guarantee from the administration that any successful claim would be reimbursed promptly. In contrast, AGS Company Automotive Solutions of Michigan, the lead docket in a consolidated case, is demanding a hearing to lift a December‑23 judicial stay, arguing that each day of delay deepens the prejudice to plaintiffs.

    DOJ’s 90‑Day Freeze: A Stalling Tactic
    Despite early assurances, the DOJ now argues for a 90‑day freeze to let “political branches consider options,” labeling rapid refunds as “ill‑conceived.”  President Trump, meanwhile, has suggested the process could take years and has urged the Supreme Court to rehear the case—a rarity not seen in nearly seven decades (Reuters).  Such postponements appear designed to protect the administration’s political capital rather than remedy wronged businesses.

    Political Backlash and Legislative Action
    Democratic governors from Illinois, New York, Maryland and California have issued invoices demanding billions in refunds for their residents.  Senators Ed Markey, Ron Wyden and Jeanne  Shaheen have introduced legislation compelling U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue full refunds with interest within 180 days, prioritizing small‑business owners (Politico).

    A Call for Uniform, Court‑Supervised Relief
    The Liberty Justice Center warns that a “900‑case pileup” will overwhelm the courts if each company pursues separate suits. Yet the administration’s resistance to an expedited, uniform process leaves businesses in limbo, facing mounting legal costs and uncertain timelines.

    Bottom line: The Trump administration’s deliberate delays and the DOJ’s procedural roadblocks betray a disregard for fiscal justice, forcing American businesses to fight a protracted legal battle for money they are rightfully owed.