On Monday, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico announced they were suing the Trump White House, and Brian Stelter posted the joint statement with the gravity of a man reading a declaration of independence. The government, the networks declared, does not get to decide what the press reports. Revoking a newsroom’s credentials because the White House dislikes its coverage is a threat to press freedom itself.
“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the statement he posted read. “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
A fine principle. Stelter should have mentioned it in March 2021.
That was about eight weeks into Joe Biden’s presidency, on CNN’s own media program, and the host was Brian Stelter. He brought on David Zurawik, a longtime Baltimore Sun media critic, and teed up a question: now that Fox News was supposedly radicalizing into a political tool, should it still be in the White House press pool? Should it still enjoy the privileges that come with news-gathering? Maybe that ought to be reassessed.
“There are, you know, these questions about Fox’s— as Fox radicalizes, and as it becomes even more and more of a political tool. Zurawik, you wrote a column recently for The [Baltimore] Sun about this, saying Fox should be viewed as a political tool, and that raises a question,” Stelter began. “Should it be a part of the White House Press Pool? You know, should it be afforded the privileges that come with news-gathering, even though they do have some ‘news’ reporters at the White House, you’re saying they’re primarily a political tool, so should that be reassessed?”
Zurawik didn’t need persuading. Why treat Fox as a journalistic organization at all, he asked. “You’re not supporting democracy. You’re not supporting the larger values of this culture,” Zurawik said:
WATCH:
Hey @brianstelter is this you discussing whether Biden should ban Fox News from the White House Press Pool?
pic.twitter.com/YwZB9O8FVq— Matt Margolis (@mattmargolis) September 21, 2026
Why give it a seat in the briefing room or on Air Force One? He compared letting Fox’s reporters travel with the president to inviting the Proud Boys aboard. On CNN, the idea drew no pushback, no sober reminder about the First Amendment, no worry about precedent. It was a conversation among friends about which of their competitors deserved to be thrown out of the building.
Hold that tape against Monday’s statement and the contradiction isn’t subtle. In 2021, the question of whether a White House should strip a news organization of access over its coverage was treated as reasonable, even overdue, provided the network was Fox and the president was a Democrat. In 2026, the identical act is an existential assault on the free press. The only variables that changed are which newsroom is on the outside and which party holds the pen.
That’s the whole tell. These outlets don’t hold a principle about press access. They hold a position about who deserves it, and the position is that they do and their competitors might not. When Stelter and Zurawik mused about kicking Fox out, they weren’t defending journalism against government power. They were inviting government power in, on the assumption it would only ever point one direction.
It didn’t. Now CNN’s correspondents have been turned away at the gate, and the network has discovered a devotion to viewpoint neutrality that somehow never came up when it was the one proposing the ban.
The lawsuit will make its way through the courts, and CNN’s lawyers will talk about bedrock constitutional protections. Opposing counsel should cue up that March 2021 segment and play it in full. Let the network explain to a federal judge why a president excluding a news organization over its coverage was a legitimate topic for thoughtful discussion right up until it happened to them.
They floated the rule. They just never expected to live under it.
