The President Versus The Mainstream Media

President Trump’s disputes with the media may seem contentious, but are no different from those of Lincoln and Democrats like FDR, LBJ, and Obama.

Janet Levy | October 2, 2026

On September 18, President Donald Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House for reporting “fake news.” The administration subsequently argued that these falsehoods jeopardized national security. Presidents have clashed with the press before, but a ban is unusual and raises serious questions about press freedom, what constitutes misuse, and whether such misuse should be penalized.

President Trump has alleged that the banned organizations spread “fictions and lies” in their coverage of the presidency. In response, the outlets filed a lawsuit to reverse the ban and regain access to the White House. Meanwhile, the Associated Press and major TV and news networks suspended coverage of the president’s activities.

Press freedom is certainly a right, but it carries immense responsibility—to report verifiable facts truthfully and without distortion. Ethical standards should require verification, accuracy, error correction, and condemnation of intentional falsehoods.

Americans have very clear views on the matter. A recent Pew Research Center study found that 73% of respondents considered press freedom “extremely or very” important. A majority supported specific government restrictions on reporting that affected national security or contained outright falsehoods. Fifty-three percent said preventing inaccurate reporting was more important than absolute press freedom, compared with 45% who said freedom of the press was paramount even if some reporting was inaccurate. Eighty-one percent said news outlets should issue public corrections for false reporting.

The important questions, though, are: What is a falsehood, and whether the First Amendment protects the proclamation of falsehoods? Our courts have taken a nuanced view. In United States v. Alvarez, decided in 2012 by the Supreme Court, the 6-3 ruling held that statements that are false per se do not automatically fall outside the purview of the........

© American Thinker