Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Now: Judge Weighs White House Press Ban Case Following Hearing That Focused On DOJ's National Security Agreement. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 23, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: -- how they fare, this will probably go on for another half hour or so.
[16:00:03]
The judge could rule immediately or he could wait till tomorrow or later in the week.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Brian Stelter, thank you so much for the update. We'll continue to stay on top of these developments as THE ARENA with Kasie Hunt starts right now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, a critical hearing underway right now as CNN and other news outlets challenge President Donald Trump's order banning us from the White House.
Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. As we come on the air, an emergency hearing is underway in a case testing America's First Amendment protections. Right now, lawyers for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW are asking a federal judge to restore our access to the White House.
The Department of Justice arguing in their latest filing that the president has the right to ban any outlet he wants and claiming without providing evidence that our reporting on things like the Iran war and the president's ballroom could endanger national security.
All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA.
My political panel is standing by, but we are going to start with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz, CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter, CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, and CNN senior legal analyst Elie Hoenig.
So, Katelyn Polantz, at first to you, you have been listening to what has been unfolding in the courtroom. Can you bring us up to speed?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, the arguments are now on the side of the Justice Department in that they just began speaking. The attorney for the Justice Department, the Trump administration just began speaking. The first words out of his mouth were, it's a privilege, not a right, for journalists to be able to access the White House. But over the past 25 minutes, we have heard a couple other arguments, the very opposite arguments based on the First Amendment largely from attorney Ted Boutrous, one of the nation's premier and longtime First Amendment experts.
He's representing CNN, MS Now, and Politico in this hearing before Judge Kelly. Ted Boutrous, in his arguments, a couple quotes that I noticed early. One of the first things he said was, there, meaning the White House, are literally arguing reporters should not scrutinize national security, that that's the sin of press corps or members of the press in the White House press corps that has resulted in the White House throwing CNN, MS Now, and Politico off of the White House grounds, depriving them of the ability to do their job to report the news around the president.
The other thing that Boutros has pointed out already to Judge Tim Kelly is that he says, they're literally arguing that these shenanigans will continue. Those are the words. Shenanigans will continue by the White House.
Now, Judge Kelly, he has not asked that many probing questions just yet. We're in the beginning phase of this oral argument where one side, the press lawyer stands up, argues, and now the Justice Department will have their time.
But Judge Tim Kelly has said just a couple things that are quite notable right now as we listen to this hearing unfold and see if he does something on an emergency basis, does something quickly here. He has already pointed out that the case law is very sound here, that it's been in existence for 50 years, that White House press pass holders can't be losing their press pass without due process, and the process has to be clear. The negotiation or discussion between the White House and the news organizations also have to be clear, and his first question, too, Ted Boutrous, the media lawyer, his first significant question was about the interpretation of that law, the law that's existed since 1977.
He as a district court judge, Tim Kelly, a Trump appointee, he is bound by that circuit precedent. The Justice Department does say they want to overturn all of that case law. That is not something this judge could do today or at any time. It would have to go to a higher court at a later date for that law to change -- Kasie.
HUNT: Brian Stelter, I know you've been following along as well. What would you underscore as these proceedings are underway and what are you looking for, listening for as the Justice Department begins their argument?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Well, I've been listening to Michael Velchik, that Justice Department attorney, speak at the same time Katelyn was presenting. We'll take turns here listening to the live audio feed that because unfortunately there are no cameras in this courtroom, so all we can rely on is this phone line that we're able to hear this proceeding live.
So, Velchik now continuing on with questions from Judge Kelly, talking about these national security arguments that the DOJ is making. As a media analyst here, I read these as very weak arguments, this idea that the president is objecting to specific news stories, in some cases from many months ago. For example, there's a CNN story that the DOJ is objecting to from last January. It was written by our colleague Betsy Klein, and then her press pass was renewed over the summer. So, there are some inconsistencies here in the administration's behavior.
And Kelly is, I believe, asking about some of those. But as Katelyn said, the message here from DOJ is largely about national security, about the president's prerogative, about his ability to make these decisions. This is ultimately a battle over executive power versus what we have seen as decades of precedent, decades of precedent about media access to the White House, the ability to ask questions of the president.
And let's try to keep in mind the big picture here: No Republican or Democratic president in the past has tried a stunt like this. That's why so many news outlets are speaking The New York Times moments ago calling this illegal and unconstitutional, the same word CNN used over the weekend when this ban was first implemented, Kasie.
HUNT: Elie Honig, what would you point us to here?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Kasie, the lawyer for CNN took about 25 minutes for his oral argument. The tenor, just to sort of bring people inside the courtroom. It's calm, it's measured, it's substantive. As Katelyn Polantz said, the judge is only asking a few questions. But a moment that really jumped out to me is when the lawyer for CNN said Donald Trump is our lead witness because what Trump's lawyers have tried to argue in their brief filed in the middle of the night last night and now is that the real reason for this exclusion of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico is because of national security concerns.
However, as CNN's lawyer just pointed out, Donald Trump himself has spent the better part of the last five or six days saying the real reason is because I don't like the nature of the coverage. The coverage has been too negative. The coverage has been unfavorable.
And so, CNN's lawyer made a point of saying you have to go by what Donald Trump has actually been saying in the real world and not what the lawyers are claiming after the fact in a brief.
HUNT: Elie, can I just follow up, too? I mean, initially, of course, we were talking quite a bit about some of the law around the spaces in the White House, preexisting cases about what it meant when you opened up a space to the public and what it would mean if you discriminated against people based on their free speech and their viewpoints in those areas. Is this something that has come up, is going to be relevant here?
HONIG: Absolutely. It already has come up. And one of the arguments that CNN's lawyer made is, first of all, when you get into this game of viewpoint discrimination, of giving people differential access based on whether you like their coverage or not, that's inherently a dangerous path for the First Amendment. Now, there are very limited circumstances where a president can do that.
For example, president does not have to grant a one-on-one interview to every single media outlet. He gets to make some decisions about who he wants to do a one-on-one with and who he does not. But when you get into those more common areas, the First Amendment is even more protective.
And another point that CNN's lawyer made is we've never really seen a case quite like this before. We've seen cases of individual journalists who've been suspended, Jim Acosta, for example, or small groups of journalists, the AP, for here we're talking about Ted Boutrous, our lawyer, the CNN's lawyer, made this point. He said you're talking about three major national and international outlets. I believe he said the total number of reporters who would be directly impacted was 70.
So, we've never seen a ban of anywhere near this scope. And therefore, Boutrous argued, the First Amendment law has to apply even more forcefully here.
HUNT: Yeah.
So, Andy McCabe, can I ask you to weigh in on the national security arguments that are being made here? Because, of course, when we talk about all kinds of different legal issues here in Washington, a national security argument is one that often carries water or has special considerations if you are the commander in chief, right, if you are the president of the United States.
Do you think they hold water here?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I really don't. I mean, what you're saying generally is accurate. The federal courts are reluctant to substitute the judgment of the executive branch and the president with their own judgment on matters of national security. The courts generally stay out of the executive branch's determination of what national security requires, what constitutes a national security threat.
And so -- and let's be clear, the White House has made that a well- trodden path recently. They've used that approach in their litigation around the White House ballroom to kind of keep the courts from stopping construction on the ballroom in some of those cases. And more recently, we saw the president deploy that logic in justifying his building of a 250-foot arch.
But I think it rings hollow, particularly hollow here, because what they're claiming in a somewhat absolutist way is if we say this affects national security, the reporting affects national security, then we can ban them from the White House. That's essentially the argument. And that is not the case.
I would draw your attention to leak cases, right? We all know about prior administrations, and this administration's efforts to go after government employees who have access to classified information and who leak that information to people who don't have that sort of authorized access.
[16:10:08]
In none of those cases, certainly none that I'm familiar with, does the government go after the media entity that ultimately exposes that classified information. And that's because that is an implicit acknowledgement of the fact that the wrongdoing around that release of classified information is the fault of the person who had authorized access, who had a clearance, and who overstepped those grounds.
Here, what they're saying in their papers filed last night is essentially -- well, you published articles that were about national security type information and we don't like that. That's exactly the job of the press, right?
So, I can tell you as a former official in the government, I didn't like it when the press published things that I thought were about our national security cases, but it never occurred to me that they should be banned from the White House for doing so. It's just preposterously a violation of the First Amendment.
HUNT: Yeah, we certainly -- I mean, we've seen a few instances where the government has tried to essentially punish reporters or at least forced them to give up their sources in ways that resulted in the sources having consequences of some kind. James Rosen under the Obama administration, of course Judith Miller, if you go back even farther.
But I also think it's worth underscoring that there are always there have always been conversations between and among news organizations with the government when there sometimes are national security considerations. And sometimes, you know, news organizations will adjust their publication and decision-making based on arguments that officials make.
Katelyn Polantz, you have new information?
POLANTZ: Now, Kasie, the government's lawyer, Michael Velchik, just wrapped up his argument, and there is an astonishing focus that he has had. His point that he has tried to make to this judge is that if news outlets knowingly publish information that may be classified, that alone is a national security risk, That could put them at risk to losing their access to the White House to be able to ask questions of the president and others.
This is an extreme argument that we have not heard in any other case like this before over White House press passes. Never. It's never gotten close to this before.
I want to read some quotes from him. He says -- Michael Valchick says reporters can't have get out of jail free card when they implicate national security. He also says it is unobjectionable that the White House could put forward a policy that the publication of classified material may lead to their access being cut off.
That is an astonishing amount of argument about national security in a case that had not been about this until midnight of last night. This had been a case that was firmly about constitutional protections of due process and the First Amendment, but the Justice Department is skating past a lot of that at this time. They're saying we've given due process by allowing these news organizations to have a process with this letter arrangement over the next couple days and that the First Amendment protections are privileges, not rights.
One of the things to counter what these arguments are from the Justice Department at this time before Judge Kelly, just before the hearing, 49 news outlets, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a leading press freedom organization in this country, as well as the White House Correspondents Association, they put in an argument to the court saying that this is the sort of thing that would chill other outlets who aren't losing their press passes to not publish stories that the White House may not like.
That brief was so explicit that it looked back at the Sedition Act of 1789 that criminalized the publication of any sort of information that could be looked on as unfavorable by the government that did not last in this country for very long the Sedition Act, but that is the sort of argument that the Trump administration -- now they haven't cited that here that is something that the press has cited as a possible through line of the arguments that they're making.
But what they are arguing at this time to Judge Kelly is that this is a national security issue and the national security risk is if a news outlet publishes classified information even with reporters who are not credentialed at the White House do not have access there are not ever going to the White House are reporting on information coming from outside of the White House. That is something that the president can make a decision on and say, we don't want you here.
[16:15:02]
We don't trust you anymore. You shouldn't be able to cover the White House -- Kasie.
HUNT: Brian Stelter, the White House Correspondents Association is weighing in again?
STELTER: Yes, you know, putting its weight behind that letter that Katelyn just mentioned from about 50 news outlets and agreeing and signing on to that letter and saying that what's happening here is a really critical test. While Katelyn was speaking, Ted Boutrous has now resumed his arguments. This is now the rebuttal phase.
So, the judge, Judge Kelly, now going back to the media counsel, giving Ted Boutrous a chance to respond. And the number one first point Boutrous made out of the gate was How is this suddenly a national security matter?
Quote, Trump didn't say anything about national security back on Friday when the ban was announced. Also, Trump has not made a national security determination about the stories that have been referenced in these letters.
So, Boutrous arguing that this national security pretext is really a distraction from what is actually going on here. Boutrous also saying it's not due process when there's already been a prejudgment of the issues, quote, "clearly that's happened". He's also arguing the White House will, quote, "keep moving the ball, will keep coming up with new ways to ban news outlets unless this judge puts a stop to it."
So, some serious discussions about this national security claim that's kind of come up out of nowhere in the last 24 hours. It does seem to be a bit of a distraction from the clear First Amendment issues at stake.
HUNT: Yeah.
So, Kristen Holmes, this, of course, affects your day-to-day as a longtime hard pass holder at the White House. And I do think it's worth underscoring, while the Department of Justice suddenly wants to have this conversation on national security grounds, we heard from the president himself in the immediate aftermath of that Truth Social post. He talked to reporters on Friday in the White House.
He said, oh, the ban on the free press? and then he proceeded to talk about why.
Can you walk us through what we have heard from him to this point in terms of what that evidence may be and also what impact this has been having over the past few days?
HOLMES: So I'll start with what he talked about, then I also do want to touch on something related to the national security component of this because it's something we've actually heard from this administration in a complete reversal of what they are saying now in court.
But in terms of what he said, it was a lot of lamenting that he does not get fair coverage, that it's always negative, Joe Biden got better coverage than him. He doesn't like the outlets. He doesn't think that they do a good job. He thinks it's fake. And the list goes on and on and on.
It was a lot of complaining about the coverage overall, no mention of national security. And I do want to point out that in the past, when there have been these leak investigations into stories where they believe there was some kind of national security that was exposed, the administration has made it very clear that the investigation is into the sources that are leaking the material, not the material itself. We have asked questions about this because President Trump is not always clear on what he is saying.
And they're like, no, no, no. It's not about the reporters. It's not about the reporting. It's just about the sources leaking this kind of information. That's what we're upset about.
They are clearly now saying something completely different when they are in court as they try to use this as their argument for the ban.
HUNT: Okay. We can now report, Katelyn Polantz, that this hearing has concluded. And of course, the question was, would there be some sort of ruling today? What did we learn?
POLANTZ: Kasie, it does not appear that there has been a ruling from Judge Kelly. He would be Listening to these arguments today and very likely writing something or putting together some sort of order.
Now, remember, even though if there is not a ruling today and there has not been a ruling today, the hearing is over. That doesn't mean he may sit on this for as long as an appeals court may in a traditional case. This is an emergency request from these news organizations going before Judge Kelly.
When he handled the Jim Acosta case back in 2018, he held an emergency ruling just a couple days or held an emergency hearing, excuse me, just a couple days after something was filed very similar to what the news outlets filed here. He held arguments and then he came back the next day with the news organizations in court and told them what he had decided which was to restore Jim Acosta's press badge because he had not been given due process when the White also provoked it.
He could rule at any time now. That's where we are at this point. We really did not hear that many questions from Judge Kelly that would have tipped his hand one way or another, but he did make clear that he understands there is existing case law that blocks the White House, essentially, from being able to pull a press pass very abruptly and without notice to a news organization.
There are other questions, though, obviously, that he's going to have to address on the First Amendment and the national security argument that the Justice Department is making, Kasie.
[16:20:00]
HUNT: Yeah.
So, Elie Honig, I mean, this sort of game of read the judge is one that I'm sure you've played many times in your career. How would you look at it today?
HONIG: So, it's not surprising that the judge didn't rule from the bench on the spot, because these are complicated issues. But it's also very common for judges in this situation to take a few hours and come up with something written. He probably already had something, at least the skeleton of his piece, in place.
So, it would not at all surprise me if we get a written ruling from Judge Kelly this evening, tonight. Could be anytime. It would not surprise me if it goes over into tomorrow.
It would shock me if he doesn't rule either tonight or tomorrow because there's obviously time pressure and urgency around this issue. So, everyone needs to stay tuned and stay on their toes because this could drop at any time.
And also, to the point that Kristen Holmes was making earlier about due process, it's important to understand there are two separate arguments that CNN, MS NOW, and "Politico" are making. The first one is the First Amendment. We've talked about that.
But also, separate and apart from that, CNN is arguing not given due process. We're entitled to some process. We're entitled to some notice of what the rules are, some notice of how we can go about contesting this, some way to argue that this is unfair, some rules in place. And that was the basis on which the Jim Acosta case was won.
And so, what the judge said, the judge actually seemed quite interested in that. The judge said to CNN's lawyer basically, well, I think you have two points under due process. One is perhaps you're entitled to the process actually happening before you lose the right, before you lose access.
And second of all, the parties are entitled to know what the rules are as they head into it. You can't just make it up after the fact as has been done here. There's a new phrase that I think was coined by the Trump administration in their brief last night, which is post- deprivation process, meaning we can deprive first and then give you process later.
And the judge did have some questions about that, doesn't seem to look too fondly on that phrase.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, Elie, when you think about this, I mean, we have the big First Amendment argument, you have the due process arguments that you just walked through. Now, of course, the Department of Justice has introduced this national security argument.
If you're a judge in a case like this, right, would it not be extraordinarily significant to make a major ruling on something like the First Amendment? Does that make it more likely that we're going to look at something that's a little perhaps narrower here?
HONIG: Yeah, sometimes judges do want an easier way out, right? And that's not a knock on judges, but if you can make a ruling based on a procedural or due process ground and avoid having to grapple with the First Amendment issue, that could be an easier way to do this.
But I should note, Kasie, to that question, CNN's lawyer urged the judge to rule on both because what CNN's lawyer said is, okay, judge, if you just say there hasn't been due process here, then we're going to go back to square one. Then they're going to come up with this process. Then they're going to say, you know, you've been given this letter now. You can appeal. You can explain to us why we're wrong.
And basically, Ted Boutrous, CNN's lawyer, said that's just going to drag on and on, and they're going to make up some process, and we're not going to have a clean end to this. And that's why CNN's lawyer basically said, we're right on both. We're right on due process and on the First Amendment, and you, Judge, should rule for us on both and make a definitive ruling that won't drag on and on.
HUNT: All right. We just have this in as well, the judge, Judge Kelly, in this case, saying that he will respond as soon as he can. So that does seem to be an acknowledgement of some of the things you were talking about there, Elie. HONIG: Yeah, as soon as he can. Let's hope that's soon. But he clearly does understand that you can't let this sit for three, four days. The stakes are too high. The time pressure's too high.
And again, federal judges have a lot of resources. They have very smart clerks. He's gotten two fulsome briefs. He knows what the key cases are. You could hear the judges already well familiar with these cases.
And you want to hear the oral in case one of the lawyers is good enough to persuade you or change your mind. But again, be let's all be ready, because this opinion could come today, and if not today or tonight, then almost certainly tomorrow.
HUNT: Brian Stelter, you obviously have been covering every twist and turn of this. You understand what CNN is arguing here. How are you thinking through what the what may happen -- what may happen next here?
STELTER: Right, number one, just the reviewers have the exact quote. The judge said, I'll consider what you told me today and try to get you an answer as soon as I can. So, as you said, he's signaling this is going to be a very quick turnaround time.
What happens next? Well, you know, in the next couple of hours, the Chinese leader lands in the United States, and there will not be a TV pool camera there. Normally, NBC would be the pool crew today. They'd be set up already at Andrews waiting for that arrival ceremony. But NBC is not there because none of the major TV networks are providing pool coverage in solidarity with CNN.
So that is going to be a remarkable -- well, we're not going to see it, but it's a contrast, you know?
HUNT: Yeah.
STELTER: You're going to have Chinese state-run media there, but you're not going to have the free democratic media because we are trying to send a message, trying to make a statement about making sure that our rights are protected.
[16:25:11]
And my goodness, the contrast could not be more stark --
HUNT: Well, and Brian, let me just --
STELTER: -- between the country, China, without press freedoms. While America, right here, we are so grateful, we are so lucky to have these. We should never let a day go by where we don't think about the press freedoms we all have, the right that we all have to go down to the courthouse, the right that we all have to go protest, the right that we all have to speak out. That's exactly what's being debated right now today at the same time the Chinese leader arrives in the U.S. HUNT: Right. Well, I mean, that -- those images, of course, are some of the most prized by President Trump, his meetings with -- on the world stage, especially with people that he has professed admiration for in his way, including President Xi of China. And Kristen Holmes, one of the other pieces of this that, as I'm listening to Brian talk about what this means, is there are often, and there have been often, instances where the White House has taken its press pool abroad and there have been foreign leaders, foreign governments that have tried to say that we can't go, we can't come with the president.
And the White House has very often fought. right, to have American journalists. And I know you've covered some of that. I mean, walk us through what that can look like considering this.
HOLMES: It's going there's so many reasons why this is kind of a fascinating moment as we lead up into this visit from President Xi, because you have to remember that President Trump, these images of him greeting Xi, he is going out to Joint Base Andrews. That is not done. He has not done this with any other leader.
He wants the pictures of this out there. He wants the photos. He wants the video of this elaborate welcome of President Xi that they have been planning now for months. And instead, he is not going to get that. They might let some unilateral single cameras in who work for specific conservative networks, but they're not going to have that video that goes out to all of the pool members, both conservative networks and the main five networks, all to local stations, that they use that pool footage to tell the story. The video part of the story of this visit.
And this is going to be very striking for the president to not see that, to not look up at the television and see those pictures there.
HUNT: Yeah.
All right, everybody stand by for me. Let's bring the rest of our panel in here to broaden out our conversation. CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali, CNN political commentator Sabrina Singh, and Republican strategist Kristen Davidson. We're also joined by CNN political commentator and former Trump White House director of strategic communications, Alyssa Farah Griffin. Thank you all very much for being here.
And I do -- I want to dig into some of the historical comparisons in just a minute. But Alyssa, I actually want to start with you just to kind of help us understand because you were in the room, you were making some of these decisions in the first term, you understand what makes the president angry, what makes this particular president angry. You understand the various imperatives, the forces that are pushing and pulling as these kinds of decisions are getting made.
And now, of course, we're seeing the administration try to pull the national security card, which is something that can work. And the executive privilege around all of that is not insignificant. But I'm interested to know what you make of the arguments that the White House is making, whether they're going to succeed, and what it looks like behind the scenes when these things play out in Trump world.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATO: So, first, the arguments, and I say this as a non-lawyer and as a communications professional, the argument of journalists being unprofessional in this decorum, I mean, there is just countless tape of the president dressing down reporters, very little of reporters firing back in an unprofessional way.
But far more importantly, and Sabrina could speak to this as well, I've worked with journalists when we're dealing with highly sensitive information, matters of national security, and I have found whether at the Pentagon, whether at the White House, these reporters treat this so delicately. They're incredibly responsible and they know the risks associated, whether it's a foreign trip where there may be a threat involved, whether it's something that we have to talk them off of publishing because it could jeopardize assets in the field.
I have found that every professional journalist I've worked with has gone above and beyond to protect national security when it comes to their reporting and their editors as well. So I think that on its face would be incredibly hard to prove and to attack.
But inside the White House, Brian said it so well, this is a huge moment for the president. He is meeting with President Xi, somebody who he admires. He wants the iconic photos and videos and footage of him. This has been months of prep and planning, and it's a highly consequential historic moment, and he's not going to have the coverage that he wants.
I remember oftentimes, if he didn't like, you know, who the photographer was, he'd say, get Doug Mills from "The New York Times".
[16:30:04]
Like, he --
HUNT: Don't you all? Everybody wants Doug Mills to shoot them.
GRIFFIN: We all want Doug Mills.
HUNT: His photos are beautiful. But yes, continue.
GRIFFIN: He really does think of every detail of how he's a TV guy, how he can capture these significant moments. And this is such a problem of his own making, this important week with the UN, with President Xi, that he's in this position.
HUNT: Yeah, Sabrina Singh, jump in here because to Alyssa's point, you also have experience in this regard.
SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yeah, what Alyssa said is exactly right. When I was at the Pentagon and at the White House, I think reporters take very seriously the job when they are handling items that are of national security interest or classified materials.
And there were plenty of times when I was at the Pentagon that I didn't agree with how something was reported or the characterization of some of the documents that I dealt with a leak case where we had an airman leak hundreds and hundreds classified slides onto a social media site. And, you know, we didn't always agree with how reporters would characterize or report on some of the information in there because it could jeopardize whether it was the Ukrainians or our own assets.
But we worked with those reporters. We had to work with them to make sure that they also understood the background of some of what they were reporting on. And oftentimes we did come to some type of conclusion.
And I think today, those reporters looking back you're just doing your jobs. It really -- I mean, at the end of the day it was this airman that was held responsible as he should have been. And so, I think this is all going to really backfire on the president.
Today is a really big moment with the president from China coming in. He hasn't been here since 2015 lots of prep goes into these meetings and this is a big moment on the world stage for President Trump too and there's no one to record this information or to record the arrival. We'll see what happens. Maybe tomorrow, you'll be back at White House to report on it.
But I think it's just going to backfire because right now we're not talking about President Xi's visit. We're talking about this court case.
HUNT: Right. Well, you know, and I think one other -- one other piece of this that I think is worth considering, we've been talking about these, Sabrina was talking about leak investigations when there is classified information that's leaked. It is also true that the White House has routinely trusted the news organizations that it is familiar with, ones in the pool, for example, the news wires and others, when they have wanted to do something that was extraordinarily sensitive around national security. But then when they wanted to bring American reporters with them, and they know, they have known in the past, that they can actually trust those organizations that they work with to protect whatever is happening until the agreed upon embargo is lifted when the information is allowed to be released. So that's part of this as well.
Tim Naftali, I want to bring you into this conversation just because We still are talking about the First Amendment, even though we are down in these legal weeds that everybody would like to, the Justice Department wants to take us to. And just to kind of set the stage, I mean, if you go back to the height of Watergate, okay, which was the height of trust in the media, there was quite a bit of Americans who trusted the media.
And "The New Yorker" kind of walked through at the time when obviously Richard Nixon was at odds with the press, all of the other presidents in the past who have. So, they start with Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. They were portrayed by contemporary newspapers as backwards yokels, clever schemers, evil tyrants. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson suffered widespread attacks both
on their policies and their characters. Franklin Roosevelt subjected to an unparalleled 10-year campaign of abuse and vilification. Harry Truman was held up to ridicule and contempt by the press.
John Kennedy felt that he was dealt with unfairly by the press. I kind of, eh, you can weigh in on that.
Anyway, Lyndon Johnson believed the entire press was so nostalgic for Kennedy and so dominated by snobbish Easterners that it was incapable of appreciating his own accomplishments. All these presidents resented attacks on them, despised the press for willfully distorting the truth as they saw it. Still, they knew that nothing could be done to prescribe bounds to the press because its freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution.
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Indeed. All presidents have had a sensitivity towards the press. All presidents -- after all, think about the people who run for president. They are people who have built an image and sold themselves -- and the press can undermine that image and undermine their ability to govern. So, there's a sensitivity. This is all about how presidents have reacted to that sensitivity.
Some presidents have wiretapped members of the press. One president in particular, Richard Nixon, created an enemies list, and many of the people on that enemies list were members of the press. All of them, when they did these things, knew it was wrong. They didn't tell the world that they were wiretapping members of the press. They didn't tell the world that they had an enemies list.
[16:35:00]
Why? Because they understood that the American people wouldn't put up with that kind of approach in general to the press.
Now, we've had a number of cases where the press has published national security material, and in the most famous case involving the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the Supreme Court said, look, the press -- and I'm paraphrasing -- the press are part of the system. They're a check and balance, part of the checks and balances. They have a right to publish this material. We may not like it, but they have a right to it.
Keep in mind that whereas members of the national security system have to sign secrecy agreements, members of the press do not. So, their job is to hold the government accountable. And that's a job that is traditional, longstanding, and completely consistent with the American constitutional system.
The president's lawyers today are making a very different argument and an argument that does not actually fit the American system at all.
HUNT: Interesting.
I mean, Kristen Davison, obviously the president -- the current president has made this a focal point of almost everything that he has done, right? Since he walked onto the stage, since he came down that golden escalator, he has been talking about fake news. And picking this fight with the press often is something that seems to reward him with his base. I mean, how does that dynamic play out here, especially as, I mean, the latest CNN poll has his approval rating 32 percent, I believe?
KRISTIN DAVISON, PARTNER, AXION STRATEGIES: I think that this president has probably been one of the most effective in terms of working the press and using it to his advantage. So, we're 36 minutes into this program and we haven't mentioned the American people once. We are sitting here in a D.C. bubble saying the poor press, we can't go in.
And that is why we talk about trust and how White Houses trust press corps. The American people don't trust the press. And why is that? Because we've just spent 40 minutes talking about how bad the president is and how, you know, this is a -- we are the victims.
And that can't be the case. We have to go broaden that. And I think, to your point, we're talking about how this could be a negative, that we're not capturing the arrival of the Chinese president today. There might be a benefit in some of these places, right?
If you're running for office in the Midwest or in some of these places, you might be okay that there's not a glowing image of President Trump and President Xi today. So there is, I do believe that we have to look at step beyond.
Now, I don't know the legal part of it, fortunately I didn't go to law school.
HUNT: Yeah.
DAVISON: But thinking through, you know, that will work itself out to your point, to your arguments. I'm talking about the political part of it and the fact that right now, yes, the approval rating is down, the press approval rating and trust is even worse. And why is that? Because sometimes we forget the connectivity there, and that is what Trump has been so effective at doing.
We've now spent the entire time talking about this and not about his approval rate, not about gas prices, not about diesel, not about the election.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, I do think it is important to underscore and we touched on this and we talked about the Xi visit that there may be Chinese state media available to cover that. The point -- the point of all of this is not that news organizations are focused on themselves. The point is that independent objective news organizations are there to get answers for the people who are reading and watching and seeing, because it's the American people who deserve independent eyes and ears, eyes and ears that are not government controlled, eyes and ears at moments of our most critical national times.
And we saw that probably most saliently on September 11th when there was a pool traveling with President Bush to see Andy Card whisper in his ear as he read to school children that the second tower had fallen, or had been hit and that America was under attack. The point of having a reporter from an independent news organization traveling with the president of the United States in that moment is because that reporter has no responsibility beyond telling the truth. to the American people. They have no other imperative beyond that.
And people who are operating on behalf of the government as government agents, employees, et cetera, they have potentially different motives. They are potentially protecting different things. They are potentially upholding different things, whereas reporters from independent news organizations are specifically devoted.
And do we sometimes fall down on the job? We are all human. We are all human. We sometimes fall down on the job.
But the job -- the job is to do the very best you can, the very best we can, to look and see at what is happening and to tell people what is happening without fear, without favor, and without putting anything ahead of them, without putting anything ahead of thinking about what does the audience need and deserve to know about their government, because guess what? It's them that are making the decisions about who should run it, who should be in charge.
[16:40:01]
And that is why presidents, all presidents, this president, care so much, OK, about what that reporting is and how it's presented.
And Elie Honig, I know you wanted to weigh in, so go ahead, jump in.
HONIG: Yeah, so Caroline, I think, said earlier, fortunately, she did not go to law school. Unfortunately, I did. And so let me address this point that while we haven't been talking about whether the American people like or dislike Donald Trump, whether the American people favor or disfavor the media coverage of Donald Trump.
Legally, under the First Amendment, the beauty of the First Amendment is the First Amendment doesn't give a darn weather coverage is favorable or unfavorable. The First Amendment doesn't care whether you're Newsmax or PBS or the BBC or TMZ, you get the same protection.
And when you get into saying some coverage good, some coverage bad, some coverage fair, some coverage unfair, the First Amendment says you cannot pick and choose. Once you've opened up the briefing room, once you've opened up a public accommodation to the media, you do not get to pick and choose.
So yes, Kasie, as you just laid out, it is absolutely a journalistic virtue to try down the middle to be fair and objective, but the First Amendment also protects you even if you're openly partisan, even if you openly love Trump or openly hate Trump. You still get the same First Amendment protection.
And so, I understand the point journalistically, I understand the point Ms. Davison's making, but legally, the First Amendment sweeps much more broadly than do we like a given outlet in a given moment or not?
HUNT: Tim Naftali wants to jump in here.
NAFTALI: I just want to remind folks that all presidents are human beings and they overreact and they get angry. And until recently, we had a White House that was able to curate a president's moments of anger.
Richard Nixon actually wanted to do even worse things that he ultimately was -- that he ultimately did. John F. Kennedy had his moments too. But they had a White House staff and they had lawyers who were working on behalf of the presidency, not on behalf of the president, who protected the presidency by making sure the president's eruptions didn't become action.
What seems clear, I think, is that on Friday, the president erupted, and his lawyers weren't ready for his ban. And now they're trying to catch up and come up with sophist, I would argument -- arguments.
But the point here is this presidency doesn't have guardrails or any curation. And what we're seeing is a personalized view of the press. All presidents have had it, but not all of them have shown it because they know it's not in the interest of the presidency.
SINGH: Can I just pick up on what Ellie was saying, too? Because I thought he made a good point about access and press access to the White House or press access at any building with the State Department or the Pentagon.
When I came into the White House and then later at the Pentagon, one of the things that the previous Trump administration had done is open it up to other outlets, more right-leaning outlets, to allow them into the White House briefing room and to allow them into being part of the pool. And one of the conversations that we had at the White House at the time was, should we revoke these passes because they're not considered legacy media? And at the end of the day, we chose not to do that. because they not only had been credentialed by the White House or the Pentagon, but to Elie's point, it doesn't matter if you have a bias if you are being credentialed.
Today, it is CNN, MS NOW, and "Politico". Tomorrow, it could be someone else. And so, we made that very conscious decision to maintain access and broaden it out. Now, again, we didn't love always the coverage that we were getting from some of these outlets, but we still took their questions. I took their questions at the podium. It was important for transparency.
And again, I think today we're talking about CNN, tomorrow it could be someone else, and that's why outlets are banding together.
HUNT: Alyssa Farah Griffin, you wanted to jump in here. Go ahead.
GRIFFIN: Yeah, I really want to hone in on this particular moment, the fact that it aligns with President Xi's visit, because we know the Chinese government are masters of propaganda. They are looking for any angle to look stronger, any, you know, image that makes them look superior to the Americans.
There's going to be so much disinformation and misinformation campaigns run by the CCP while this visit is taking place. And it is such a, just thinking about it more, such a tremendous moment, just not having this independent American feed the vision of, you know, from the American perspective, this entrance in.
We'll still, of course, have reporting on it. Reporters who are there covering it and those who even aren't in the building will still get readouts. We're still going to get pool reports.
But I've been in Korea, I've been other parts of the country where you fight for that press access because you never want to give an ally or an adversary just their version of the events, just their imagery of the events.
It's so important that the American perspective be seen and that that be the primary focus.
[16:45:00]
So, it really is an incredible moment that this is happening while President Xi is coming, and at a moment, by the way, where we're literally in an A.I. arms race with China, one of the most consequential moments probably in American history.
HUNT: Yeah. And you know, Andy McCabe, let me bring you in here as well, because, you know, on this question of national security, I mean, we have often actually viewed our free press and the way that free and fair information can be spread around the world as something that actually enhances our national security. That obviously has fallen out of favor somewhat in the last decade or so.
But I know you are also looking at the ways in which this administration sometimes seems not to prioritize national security. Lay that out for us.
MCCABE: Yeah. So I think you're absolutely right. I think, you know, part of the image and the projection of our American values around the world, particularly with governments like China, like Russia, like places like Turkey, other places. Georgia that don't have a free and fair press, part of our constant reminder to them is, look, we do. We deal with it. We suffer the barbs that the press has for us on occasion because it's more important to have an educated and foreign populace.
And I think that makes the current situation stand out all the more. Like, I think Tim Naftali's point was absolutely right. This seems to have developed in an explosive, you know, in a fit of peak on the part of the president last Friday. And the national security rationalization is something that we are now seeing after the fact as an excuse to try to kind of make this all go away.
But I think to evaluate that you have to look at what they didn't do to respond to the alleged national security threat here. I think it was Katelyn mentioned earlier, there is a timeline here that does not favor that interpretation. The articles that CNN allegedly published were back as early as last January, and the people who published those articles have had continued access to the White House during this time. That's not something you would do if you actually thought those reporters were involved in some sort of threat to national security.
They also did not identify any specific or alleged confidential or classified information. You, of course, have to be able to say, for instance, in a prosecution of someone for mishandling classified information, you have to identify what the information was that was either classified or national defense information.
And of course, the administration made no effort to approach the news entities CNN, MS NOW, and Politico and try to have one of those conversations where you say, look, you really you are unintentionally creating a national security threat that could put our troops in harm's way, could put our case officers, our agents who work around the world in harm's way, and here's why.
I've been in those conversations with some news organizations, and you know, they listen and they make their own judgment ultimately as to whether or not they'll refrain from publishing the thing that we've objected to or maybe go ahead with it, but that's the way the process is supposed to work. Clearly, it didn't happen here.
HUNT: Yeah, really, really interesting insight there. This has been a really strong conversation here as we've been covering the hearing from Judge Kelly around whether CNN, MS NOW, and Politico should be reinstated after being banned from the White House, and just to pull it together -- again, I think it's worth remembering what this is really about, which is the ability of the people, the American people, to have free, fair, independent information about their government and the rights that they have as well to criticize the government.
And John F. Kennedy put it really well years ago as, again, a president who didn't always get along with the press, had his problems too. But I'll just leave you with his words.
We'll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN F. KENNEDY, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why our press was protected by the First Amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental. Not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:54:19] HUNT: All right, welcome back. We're heading towards the top of the hour.
But, Kristen Holmes, you of course, our senior White House correspondent, this week is a big one for the president with the visit from President Xi. But it's also, of course, worth remembering we have new CNN poll numbers out that show his approval rating really at its nadir, back down where it was right after January 6th. And of course, we're just weeks from the midterm elections.
HOLMES: Yeah, and this is not what Republicans would like Donald Trump to be focused on. First of all, if you look at his approval numbers, there are a lot of questions as to why the political team for Donald Trump wants to have him out there on the campaign trail with Republicans, because some of those numbers, including in his base, are very jarring and alarming for Republicans who are now potentially going to have to campaign side by side with him.
The other thing that I've been hearing from these Republicans who are either involved in elections or running for office themselves is that this is not where they want the president's focus on. They don't want him focusing on media ban or on Lake America or on any of the things that he is ranting about on social media, they want to be able to focus on him trying to put out solutions for the economy or the end of the war in Iran, because that is what Americans care about right now.
I mean, the polling also shows that 28 percent of Americans, I believe, approve of the way he's handling the economy. It also shows that 68 percent of Americans believe the economy is the top issue for them when they go to the polling place.
So, the idea that Trump is kind of all over the place is not helping the already very hard political headwinds for these Republicans.
HUNT: Yeah, Alyssa Farah Griffin, can I get you to weigh in on that, too, because there are these questions about President Trump and the strategy that he uses, and he goes back to the well on issues that light up his base when he is making political decisions. I'm curious if you think that that's an that what we're seeing here is an example of that, where he's doing something familiar for a reason. Or if your sense of it is simply that he got angry?
GRIFFIN: I kind of think it's two things. And to the broader point of him getting out on the campaign trail when it's really not helpful in Republicans in this moment, the president actually has a very, very strong political team around him. I think it's probably the best that he's had.
I don't think that they're deploying him because they want to get independents and moderates and try to boost numbers. I think that they see that there's enough of an issue with his actual base turning out. And that's the one thing. Even with his numbers hovering in the low 30s, Donald Trump can get his base out if he shows up.
But the other thing is, yes, he's going back to the familiar fights. But this one, I think, is a complete missed opportunity because, frankly, his base would rather see him arguing with a reporter in the Oval Office and bantering back and forth and a little bit of name- calling than they want to not be able to get imagery of significant moments when the president is doing things.
And finally, really the only thing that I think could help Republicans at this point, some days out is if Donald Trump can pull a rabbit out of a hat and get some kind of deal with Iran. That's the biggest thing. Something that could help bring down fuel prices could feel like a win, but it feels like a foregone conclusion where these midterms are going.
HUNT: Right. Well, I mean, Kristin, the president has said that he doesn't think the war is going to end until after the midterms. He straight up said that we'll get a deal after the midterms. And the reality is what Alyssa was just talking about there, that's what's putting Iowa, for example, in play, it's diesel prices.
DAVISON: Right, right. And at this point, because we've started voting in a lot of these states, North Carolina, Virginia, early vote has already begun, people are making their decision.
This is a two-part argument that Republicans have to make. We have to say, look at what we've done, and you'll see that there's some fatigue with the base because they were so enraged about the border and about cultural issues, and Trump was elected, so those were solved. So now they're not as angry about the other thing, so they're not going out to vote.
But here's what we've done so far, biggest tax cut, no on tips, no tax on Social Security, but we know you're hurting and here is the plan. And it needs to be that second part is what you need to see in some of these races, like in Iowa, like in Kansas, like in Georgia, Michigan, and Maine. And that second part is where the discipline really comes in for every campaign.
If you're on a campaign right now and you're running a campaign, what are you going to do for me? How are you going to get money back in my pocket? That's the part.
And frankly, Democrats don't have an answer for that either. That is the reason why we see this a lot of these are margin of error races because Democrats don't have good answers for that either. It's just that Trump did a worse job this time around.
So, both parties, candidates in all of these margin of error races, need to focus on one thing, and it's money in American people's pockets, and how are they going to get it there?
SINGH: I would say sorry, I just don't think that that's true. I mean, Democrats are out there campaigning on the idea of expanding access to affordable health care, making -- lowering your grocery prices.
And yes, the war is a factor in that, but I think the president started this war. It was a war of choice. And unfortunately, we aren't any solutions to how it ends. So, to the candidates in Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska, this is the question that everyone.
HUNT: Yeah. I want to end here with Ellie Honig. I think that you're still with us. We have 60 seconds left. What's next here? Push us ahead.
HONIG: So this argument that just happened was in federal district court, which is the trial-level federal court. We should get a ruling from this judge, a written ruling. Could be tonight, could be tomorrow, but it will be soon.
Whoever loses and by the way, we could have a split ruling. If the judge, for example, says that you can restrict media access in some areas of the White House, but not others. But at least one side is going to be unhappy and going to appeal to then the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. You're automatically allowed to appeal to that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. You're automatically allowed to appeal to that D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Whoever loses there is then going to very quickly ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but you're not automatically entitled to have the Supreme Court hear your case. They may well decline it.
So, this is all going to move very quickly, Kasie. This is the first step of what's going to surely be a multi-step legal process.
HUNT: And we will be here covering it all.
Thanks to my panel. Thanks to you at home for watching.
"THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.
