Good points. However, "stupid,” “loaded," “gaslighting,” and “jerks” are viewpoints and press restrictions based on viewpoints are prohibited. While you see stupidity others see stress testing. There’s always been adversarial, confrontational reporters like Jim Acosta, Sam Donaldson and Dan Rather. They’re protected.
An invitation is involved for Oval Office and Air Force One access because the courts view them as presidential spaces. Not so for the White House press briefing room, the UN General Assembly, and other non-presidential spaces.
The protection in the constitution does not cover anything you are saying. There has become a habit for the judiciary to make new laws and that is not the opinion of the current supreme court.
I enjoy and respect your newsletter, agree with your POV most of the time, but not on this one. While it is true that the White House briefing room is not a public forum (that’s across the street in Lafayette Square), it is a key source of information for public oversight of our government. Sherrill v. Knight held that the White House cannot deny press passes based on viewpoint; i.e., it cannot suppress the opposition. Sherrill is about viewpoint, not due process. MS NOW is an oppositional viewpoint and a non-trivial one with about 45% of the viewership of Fox News. A few years ago conservatives got frustrated when liberals said “my truth,” as conservatives generally feel that truth and viewpoint are different things. Now the converse holds: “fake news” is a viewpoint and a protected one. For more see https://jonathanturley.org/2026/09/20/fake-news-or-viewpoint-discrimination-can-the-president-ban-disfavored-media/
The only real reason to be in the room is to ask questions. If the press is asking stupid, loaded questions for performance and just to be rude, why do they need a seat there? What benefit are they giving? Why does CNN get a seat and the Boston Globe doesn’t? Another kind of privilege. None of this is about freedom of speech; it’s about the press thinking that they can say whatever they want to someone and get invited to be there. What if you invited someone to your house and they were rude to you or accused you of things? Would you invite them to come again? This freedom-of-speech complaint from the press is just them gaslighting the public. They have complete freedom to write; they just shouldn't be jerks and expect to get invited there. If this gets brought up to the Supreme Court, they are going to lose. Nobody has done that before, but Trump will. Then it will become a law for another 50 years, like roe vs wade.
Good points. However, "stupid,” “loaded," “gaslighting,” and “jerks” are viewpoints and press restrictions based on viewpoints are prohibited. While you see stupidity others see stress testing. There’s always been adversarial, confrontational reporters like Jim Acosta, Sam Donaldson and Dan Rather. They’re protected.
An invitation is involved for Oval Office and Air Force One access because the courts view them as presidential spaces. Not so for the White House press briefing room, the UN General Assembly, and other non-presidential spaces.
The protection in the constitution does not cover anything you are saying. There has become a habit for the judiciary to make new laws and that is not the opinion of the current supreme court.
I enjoy and respect your newsletter, agree with your POV most of the time, but not on this one. While it is true that the White House briefing room is not a public forum (that’s across the street in Lafayette Square), it is a key source of information for public oversight of our government. Sherrill v. Knight held that the White House cannot deny press passes based on viewpoint; i.e., it cannot suppress the opposition. Sherrill is about viewpoint, not due process. MS NOW is an oppositional viewpoint and a non-trivial one with about 45% of the viewership of Fox News. A few years ago conservatives got frustrated when liberals said “my truth,” as conservatives generally feel that truth and viewpoint are different things. Now the converse holds: “fake news” is a viewpoint and a protected one. For more see https://jonathanturley.org/2026/09/20/fake-news-or-viewpoint-discrimination-can-the-president-ban-disfavored-media/
The only real reason to be in the room is to ask questions. If the press is asking stupid, loaded questions for performance and just to be rude, why do they need a seat there? What benefit are they giving? Why does CNN get a seat and the Boston Globe doesn’t? Another kind of privilege. None of this is about freedom of speech; it’s about the press thinking that they can say whatever they want to someone and get invited to be there. What if you invited someone to your house and they were rude to you or accused you of things? Would you invite them to come again? This freedom-of-speech complaint from the press is just them gaslighting the public. They have complete freedom to write; they just shouldn't be jerks and expect to get invited there. If this gets brought up to the Supreme Court, they are going to lose. Nobody has done that before, but Trump will. Then it will become a law for another 50 years, like roe vs wade.