Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker on Friday accused President Donald Trump of attacking the First Amendment after Trump said he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House. Pritzker wrote on X that Trump was trying to keep the public from hearing about his record. The post drew sharp replies after AM 560 host Amy Jacobson quoted it and said Pritzker had taken away her press pass during the COVID era, a claim also raised by other users.
Rupar separately posted an Oval Office video of Trump answering questions about the ban. The video shows Trump at the Resolute Desk as a reporter asks how he justifies the move when “every president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment.” Trump replies, “Because they’re fake news,” and adds, “There may be others to join them.” In the same appearance, he says, “If they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my — into the people’s house,” calling it “a very simple ban.”
Pritzker wrote that the ban was “yet another attack on the First Amendment” and that Trump was “banning journalists he doesn’t like.” Trump had said on Truth Social the outlets were being barred “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS.”
CNN called a ban “an illegal assault” on press freedom. Politico said it would “vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.” The clip does not show whether the ban was later enforced on White House grounds.
Reactions to the White House Media Ban and Pritzker’s Post
The White House Correspondents’ Association said press protections “do not depend on whether the president likes a news organization’s coverage.”
WHCA president Jacqui Heinrich added that the issue is “the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account” of the presidency. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote that Trump had done “what dictators throughout history have done.”
First Amendment organizations took a similar view. Bruce D. Brown of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said a ban “would be flatly unconstitutional” and “textbook viewpoint discrimination.”
Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation said it was “difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment.” Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute said the First Amendment “prohibits the president from punishing journalists because he doesn’t like their coverage.”
On X, replies to Pritzker often turned to his own record. AM 560 host Amy Jacobson quoted him and wrote, “You took away my PRESS PASS when you didn’t like my line of questioning during the COVID era,” adding, “You’re a hypocrite.”
Some argued access is not the same as a right to publish. One wrote that the First Amendment “protects freedom of the press, not freedom of specific press outlets.”
Another said Trump was “merely denying them access to the White House” and that the outlets “are still free to report whatever they like.”
For now, the ban remains part of a broader fight over who may cover the White House and on what terms. Online debate around Pritzker’s post, meanwhile, has stayed split between those who treat the announcement as a First Amendment test and those who say his own past press restrictions undercut the argument.
