Press ban in White House tests First Amendment

By Addison Doornhaag \ Nov. 3, 2026

In September, President Donald Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were banned from the White House, a move that has prompted a debate about press freedom that reaches all the way to the Maryville College campus. 

Trump made the announcement on Truth Social, saying he was banning the outlets “effective immediately” over what he called “fake news.” He also suggested that other media outlets could face similar bans. The White House has not said how the ban will be carried out, and the administration has not accused the three outlets of any specific legal violation.

CNN called the ban an “illegal assault” on press freedom and said its reporting was fair and accurate. Politico vowed to defend its First Amendment rights.

Dr. Mark O’Gorman, professor of political science at Maryville College, said the tension itself is not new. He tells his students that nearly every president has been critical of the press at some point, from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to the present day. What concerns him is the escalation from criticism to exclusion.

“The press is the press, and more often than not they’re confrontational,” O’Gorman said, describing the traditional norm that journalists are let into the room regardless.

He said he was surprised by the response from the broader White House press corps. News organizations that rarely share an ideology rallied around the three outlets, including networks viewed as political opposites. 

“They could not be more different,” he said, “yet they found themselves coming to the defense of the other.”

That reaction reflects a question Michel Gonzalez Lara (’27), president of the Maryville College Politics Club, raised. She argued that collective action by news organizations can be an effective response to government pressure, and that it should not be read as partisan. “Freedom of the press affects everyone, regardless of their political beliefs,” Gonzalez said.

Both Gonzalez and O’Gorman drew a distinction between a president criticizing coverage and a president using government power to act on that criticism.

Gonzalez said that presidents, like anyone, have the right to disagree with what is said about them. But she said a “clear line” must separate criticism from using government power to punish or restrict the press.

“No president should be able to ban a press organization from the White House simply because they disagree with its coverage,” she said. She warned that ignoring actions like this could set a dangerous precedent for how the government treats the press and other forms of expression.

O’Gorman framed it in terms of belief versus action. Every president holds frustrations with the press, he said, but turning them into action sends a different message. In his view, the ban amounts to the nation’s highest elected official declaring that press freedom is no longer absolute. He expects the outlets to be challenged in court, expects a court to side with the press, and wonders what the president would do afterward. 

He rejected the idea that this is only a question of presidential power. The First Amendment, he said, is so central that presidential authority cannot override it. “We are a nation of laws,” O’Gorman said. He also dismissed the administration’s argument that the press was being disrespectful as “an emotional judgment” rather than a legal one.

For a campus newspaper, the story is more than a national headline. O’Gorman uses it in his 300-level American Political Process course to teach students where presidential power ends and where the First Amendment begins.

When asked what student journalists would do if a college administration tried to keep their publication from covering an event due to unfavorability, O’Gorman pointed to a landmark Supreme Court case. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), students were punished for wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War. “The rights of the First Amendment do not end at the schoolhouse door,” he said, quoting the ruling’s famous line.

In an MC example, The Highland Echo effectively serves as the credentialed news source for the student body, and that authority comes with obligations. “Especially if the story is provocative, you better have your facts right,” he said, urging student reporters to “double source” sensitive information so they can stand behind their work. He said he has watched the paper cover intense stories over the years, and the administration has consistently supported its role as an independent voice. 

Gonzalez said student newspapers have a duty to inform their readers about conflicts between administrations and the press, even when the topic is difficult or risky, and even if the paper’s own access or credibility could suffer. “Students deserve to understand what is happening,” she said, and accurate information should stay the priority.

Both said the ban should prompt people to pay attention.

O’Gorman hopes it will make more citizens “lift their heads” and consider how the country arrived at a moment when a president seems comfortable disrupting long-standing norms. He noted that the president has offered no clear explanation of why he is doing this for the first time. 

Gonzalez said an action like this can shape how people view and use their First Amendment rights well beyond the immediate dispute. 

“As college students, I think we have a responsibility to understand these rights and speak up when we believe they are being threatened,” she said, “because the decisions being made today can affect our future.”