Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "46b186f337a59d2ecb74c73badbd635a4de4ac56280bc2e1d1efb3a044054031",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/live\/2026\/09\/23\/business\/trump-cnn-politico-msnow-ban-hearing?emc=edit_na_20260923&nl=breaking-news&segment_id=226967",
    "parsed_content": "Judge Appears Skeptical of Trump\u2019s Ban on 3 Media OutletsCNN, MS NOW and Politico argued in court that the president\u2019s effort to block them from the White House complex violated their First Amendment rights. The judge promised to rule soon.Sept. 23, 2026Updated 7:34 p.m. ETShare full articleImageThe White House briefing room on Saturday, after journalists from Politico, CNN and MS NOW were barred from the grounds.Credit...Andrew Leyden for The New York TimesSee more of our coverage in your search results.Encuentra m\u00e1s de nuestra cobertura en los resultados de b\u00fasqueda. Add The New York Times on GoogleAgrega The New York Times en Google Latest PinnedErik Wemple and Zach MontagueHere\u2019s the latest.The judge hearing a challenge to President Trump\u2019s attempt to block three news outlets from the White House said on Wednesday he would consider the argument offered by both sides and issue his ruling as soon as possible, leaving in place \u2014 at least for now \u2014 the president\u2019s block on CNN, MS NOW and Politico.The judge, Timothy J. Kelly of U.S. District Court in Washington, seemed skeptical of the administration\u2019s arguments but did not immediately rule on the request by the three outlets to restore their access to the White House complex.A lawyer for the media outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous, told the judge that Mr. Trump\u2019s statements that he had imposed the ban because he took exception to their journalism made him \u201cour lead witness.\u201d Mr. Boutrous said such a rationale infringes on the outlets\u2019 constitutional rights. \u201cHe keeps proving our point,\u201d Mr. Boutrous said.A lawyer for the administration, Michael Velchik, countered that the outlets were embracing an \u201cabsurd interpretation of the First Amendment.\u201d He argued that the ban should remain in effect, saying it had been imposed on national security grounds.Judge Kelly, who was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2017, has experience in a similar case. He ruled against the president in a similar dispute with CNN the next year.In announcing his ban last week, Mr. Trump said he was fed up with \u201cpurposely negative stories.\u201d It was a significant escalation in his battles with the news media, which has been a frequent target of his ire. He previously sought to bar one organization, The Associated Press, from the Oval Office; that effort is also being challenged in court.The three outlets filed suit on Monday, saying Mr. Trump\u2019s ban \u201cbrazenly discriminates based on editorial viewpoint.\u201d In its response, the administration said the outlets were responsible for \u201creporting incidents\u201d that \u201cthreatened national security and spread falsehoods.\u201dHere\u2019s what to know:The judge: Judge Kelly, a former federal prosecutor, presided over a similar case from November 2018, when Mr. Trump, then in his first term, expelled the CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House complex. The judge sided with CNN, a decision Mr. Trump suggested was a boon for the media outlets in the new case.Media boycott: Other news organizations responded to the ban with acts of support. The consortium of five networks that covers the president as the so-called TV pool \u2014 ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News and CNN \u2014 suspended shared coverage of Mr. Trump, and some news outlets, including The New York Times, temporarily withheld publication of pool photos of Mr. Trump\u2019s events.Pool coverage: The White House press pool, established during the Eisenhower administration, is a rotating group of correspondents, TV camera operators and photographers who are the eyes and ears of the broader White House press corps in small settings. Read more \u203aShow moreSept. 23, 2026, 5:29 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Michael M. GrynbaumMajor TV networks declined to film the Chinese leader\u2019s arrival.ImageSigns of support for banned media outlets have appeared in the White House press gallery.Credit...Andrew Leyden for The New York TimesIt could be remembered as a landmark moment in U.S.-China relations: the arrival on Wednesday evening of China\u2019s top leader, Xi Jinping, in the United States, where he was greeted by President Trump at Joint Base Andrews.But because of Mr. Trump\u2019s continuing standoff with the White House press corps, no major network camera captured the proceedings.Since Monday, the networks that operate the White House TV pool \u2014 ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC \u2014 have declined to film Mr. Trump\u2019s public events as an act of solidarity with CNN, which, along with MS NOW and Politico, has been barred by the Trump administration.Because of a quirk in timing, an unusual scene unfolded on the Andrews tarmac as reporters waited for Mr. Xi\u2019s plane to land.Crews from CBS, Fox News and NBC had set up their camera and audio equipment earlier in the afternoon, because a federal judge in Washington was hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by the three banned outlets to restore their access to the White House.If the judge had issued a ruling from the bench to suspend Mr. Trump\u2019s press ban, and if the TV pool had decided to resume operations, the crews would have been ready to broadcast live footage of Mr. Xi.But the judge, Timothy J. Kelly, declined to issue any order, saying he needed time to weigh his decision. So the network crews dismantled their equipment and departed before the Chinese leader arrived.Some smaller TV networks were on-hand at Andrews, including One America News and the Right Side Broadcasting Network. LindellTV, a fledgling digital news site founded by Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow, was there as well.The Associated Press captured video of Mr. Trump\u2019s greeting of Mr. Xi and made the footage available to its subscribers, but the wire service said it would not stream the feed on its own platforms. \u201cWe continue to stand with our colleagues at other news organizations who have had their access restricted,\u201d an A.P. spokesman said.On Thursday, the president has a full day of high-stakes meetings with Mr. Xi. Usually, footage of a high-stakes summit of two global leaders would be scrutinized for every minute aspect of the leaders\u2019 body language and interactions.It remained unclear if Mr. Trump\u2019s ban would still be in effect on Thursday, and how that might affect the networks\u2019 coverage plans for the day\u2019s events.Katie Robertson contributed reporting.Show moreSept. 23, 2026, 4:57 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleJudge holds off on immediate ruling on White House\u2019s media ban.ImageJudge Timothy J. Kelly handled a similar case in November 2018, when President Trump, in his first term, expelled CNN\u2019s Jim Acosta from the White House complex.Credit...Haiyun Jiang\/The New York TimesA federal judge on Wednesday declined to issue an immediate ruling on the White House\u2019s ban against CNN, MS NOW and Politico after hearing arguments from the two sides in the case, leaving the ban in place for the time being.The judge, Timothy J. Kelly of U.S. District Court in Washington, appeared skeptical of the legality of the ban during the hearing. But he pulled up short of immediately reversing the ban, as the media outlets had asked. He instead said he would rule \u201cas soon as possible.\u201dThe ban dates to last Friday, when Mr. Trump declared in a Truth Social post that he would bar CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House because of their reporting. On Saturday, journalists for each outlet were denied access to White House grounds, and by Monday, the outlets had sued the administration, arguing the ban was a violation of their First Amendment rights.Other media companies pulled back from their routine coverage of presidential events as a show of support for the banned outlets. The television pool \u2014 five networks that share the responsibility of providing and distributing television coverage of the president \u2014 suspended that coverage starting Monday. The New York Times and The Washington Post also said they would limit publication of photos taken from the president\u2019s events as part of a broader effort among journalists to boycott in support of the barred journalists. NPR stopped using audio from White House events, according to an internal memo viewed by The Times.A lawyer for the media outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous, told the judge in Wednesday\u2019s hearing that Mr. Trump\u2019s repeated statements that he had imposed the ban because he took exception to journalism from certain media organizations made him \u201cour lead witness.\u201d Mr. Boutrous said such a rationale infringes on the outlets\u2019 constitutional rights. \u201cHe keeps proving our point,\u201d Mr. Boutrous said.Mr. Boutrous also responded to the White House\u2019s argument, in court filings, that the ban stemmed from \u201creporting incidents\u201d that threatened national security.Judge Kelly asked Mr. Boutrous whether disclosing classified information that the White House viewed as endangering national security could justify revoking White House press credentials. Mr. Boutrous responded that such a move would be unconstitutional \u201cviewpoint discrimination,\u201d and would threaten the country\u2019s tradition of uncompromising reporting on national security.A lawyer for the administration, Michael Velchik, countered that the outlets were embracing an \u201cabsurd interpretation of the First Amendment.\u201d He said the affected outlets mistakenly thought they could \u201cknowingly publish classified information\u201d while still enjoying \u201cprivileged access to the White House complex.\u201d He argued that access to the White House is a \u201cprivilege, not a right.\u201dMr. Velchik said that the three outlets had received notice of the ban and were given an opportunity to challenge the White House\u2019s decision. He was referring to letters that the White House sent to CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Tuesday, days after the outlets were denied access, describing the ban as \u201cpreliminary\u201d and offering them until Friday to object.Judge Kelly interrupted Mr. Velchik to question whether that notification constituted the sort of due process required before booting reporters out of the complex.\u201cI don\u2019t know how a letter that they got after the pass was revoked could provide them with the kind of \u2014 the standard that they\u2019d have to conform their conduct to,\u201d said the judge.In his rebuttal, Mr. Boutrous scoffed at the idea that the White House was offering the news outlets a bona fide opportunity to appeal the ban. \u201cThe president has made absolute clear he despises the reporting\u201d of the banned news organizations, said Mr. Boutrous. \u201cThey\u2019re going to keep playing games, they\u2019re going to keep moving the ball.\u201dJudge Kelly also decided a similar case from November 2018, when Mr. Trump, in his first term, expelled CNN\u2019s Jim Acosta from the White House complex. Mr. Acosta wasn\u2019t given an opportunity to rebut his banishment, he said at the time.At least one of the stories that the White House cited as failing to meet its standards was actually based on a press call organized by the White House itself. In its letter to Politico explaining the ban, the White House pointed to a June article from the outlet that said the odds of reaching a preliminary deal to end the Iran war were about 80 percent, \u201caccording to a senior administration official.\u201d That senior administration official was speaking on a call organized and authorized by the White House, according to an invitation that was sent to The New York Times. The Times also attended and reported on the call at the time.The Washington Post earlier reported on the origins of the June Politico article.Fights over journalistic access have become a staple of Mr. Trump\u2019s presidency. In his first term, the White House revoked another reporter\u2019s access in addition to Mr. Acosta. Both recovered their credentials in legal proceedings. At the start of his second term, Mr. Trump also booted The Associated Press from the pool of journalists who cover the president in such spaces as the Oval Office and Air Force One. That case remains in litigation. Mr. Trump\u2019s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has also imposed reporting and access restrictions on news organizations that have been successfully challenged in court by The Times; the Pentagon is appealing those rulings.Show moreSept. 23, 2026, 4:34 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Mack LiedermanIt is unclear when Judge Kelly will issue a ruling after hearing brief arguments today, but precedent suggests he could move swiftly. In the 2018 case, the same judge ruled in favor of returning Jim Acosta\u2019s press pass after he heard nearly two hours of arguments on a Wednesday. The following Friday, he issued a temporary restraining order in favor of Acosta. The Trump administration then dropped the issue, and Judge Kelly never made a final ruling.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:30 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleBoutrous said the letters that cited stories from the outlets that allegedly threatened national security \u201chave been out there for months and months and months.\u201d \u201cMost of them are from a long time ago,\u201d he said, \u201cso this is just post hoc -- it\u2019s not legitimate.\u201dSept. 23, 2026, 4:27 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleBoutrous seemed skeptical of the White House\u2019s argument that the news organizations have a legitimate chance to secure reentry via the appeal process laid out in the letters to the news organizations. He notes that President Trump has been attacking media organizations steadily for a long time. \u201cThe president has made absolute clear he despises the reporting\u201d of the banned news organizations.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:22 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueThe media companies\u2019 central argument is straightforward: that the president banned the three media outlets on an impulse and has continued to suggest that the decision was related to distaste for their journalism, even as the Justice Department is arguing otherwise.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:21 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleThe judge has decided to take the arguments under advisement and issue a ruling as soon as possible.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:19 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueOn rebuttal, Theodore J. Boutrous is suggesting that the national security questions brought up in the case were raised strategically days after the bans, as a late justification for retaliating against the media outlets.\u201cI guess the lightbulb went off and they all said, \u2018Start talking about national security,\u2019\u201d he said.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:17 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Mack LiedermanIn court, lawyers for the Trump administration have emphasized a common explanation for blocking reporter access: national security. Trump has also cited national security as a reason to build a new ballroom on White House grounds and investigate leaks to journalists.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:12 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleBoutrous is now beginning his rebuttal.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:12 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleJudge Kelly stopped Velchik on an important question relating to due process. The White House, in a filing on Tuesday night, said that the media outlets received \u201cpost-deprivation\u201d process because they have until Friday to challenge their exclusion from the building and grounds. But the judge noted that in a case like this, due process notification is a two-pronged matter, with the first being a notification to journalists about the standards and conduct requirements consistent with having a press pass. The second prong is notification that a violation has occurred.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:11 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueVelchik is also retreading arguments the Trump administration made last year after the White House banned some Associated Press reporters who declined to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the \u201cGulf of America.\u201d In that case, an appeals court panel ruled that a president could withhold or grant access to certain reporters in certain intimate settings, such as the Oval Office or on Air Force One. But the current bans, which prevent reporters from multiple organizations from entering the White House at all \u2014 including shared press areas where their equipment is stored \u2014 went further than President Trump had before.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:05 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleThe Justice Department\u2019s counsel, Michael Velchik, is now presenting the government\u2019s argument. He started by saying that the media companies are adopting an \u201cabsurd interpretation of the First Amendment\u201d in asserting that revoking press passes for national security reporting is out of bounds for the government.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:01 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueBefore Boutrous concluded, he warned that deferring to the Trump administration at all about national security concerns could invite more \u201cshenanigans.\u201d\u201cYou can kind of see where we\u2019re headed here,\u201d he said, predicting that the White House would continue testing the limits on shutting down adversarial reporting.Sept. 23, 2026, 4:00 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleThe lawyer for the outlets, Theodore J. Boutrous, is close to finishing up, and he has faced little in the way of adversarial questioning from Judge Kelly.Sept. 23, 2026, 3:57 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleBoutrous is now addressing allegations in the letters from the White House to the three news organizations, which premise the access ban on claims that the news organizations threatened national security with their reporting.Sept. 23, 2026, 3:55 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueThe president\u2019s statements about the bans this week have become a central pillar of the media organizations\u2019 arguments. Boutrous described the lawsuit as \u201cprobably the clearest case in history,\u201d because he said Trump\u2019s intentions were so clear.\u201cThey\u2019re literally arguing that reporters shouldn\u2019t scrutinize national security issues and decisions by the government,\u201d he said.Sept. 23, 2026, 3:46 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleBoutrous expressed incredulity at the letters that the White House sent to CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Tuesday. Those letters informed the media companies that this was a \u201cpreliminary\u201d ban and gave them until Friday to challenge the ban. Boutrous said that the letters didn\u2019t have letterhead and he had wondered if they were even \u201creal.\u201dSept. 23, 2026, 3:43 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleAt the start of his argument, Boutrous focuses on legal rulings that require \u201cclear standards\u201d for when the White House wishes to revoke the press credentials of White House reporters. He says that there was \u201cnot a semblance of due process\u201d in the case of the three media outlets, calling the White House\u2019s action an \u201cunprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishment.\u201dSept. 23, 2026, 3:42 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueTheodore J. Boutrous, a lawyer representing the news organizations, is telling Judge Kelly that President Trump has been repeating publicly for days now that he barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters because he took exception to their journalism.\u201cHe keeps proving our point,\u201d Boutrous said. \u201cHe\u2019s really our lead witness here.\u201dSept. 23, 2026, 3:42 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Katie RobertsonThe New York Times stopped publishing White House pool photos in support of the banned outlets.ImageCredit...Lucia Vazquez for The New York TimesThe New York Times will continue to avoid publishing images from the White House press pool in support of the banned media outlets, a spokesman said.The Times took the stance after President Trump\u2019s decision Friday to bar CNN, MSNOW and Politico from the White House. The three outlets on Monday sued to restore their access, saying the ban violated their First Amendment rights to cover the president.On Tuesday, Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for The Times, said in a statement that it would continue to withhold the publication or distribution of images from the White House still photography pool in recognition that \u201cbarring these media outlets is unequal treatment and punitive retaliation for simply reporting the news.\u201d\u201cWe\u2019ll maintain this policy until a court has the chance to hear arguments on the legal claims filed by those media organizations,\u201d Mr. Stadtlander said. \u201cWe remain committed to covering the president and his administration with thorough, unflinching news reporting.\u201dThe press pool is a small, rotating group of journalists who act as the eyes and ears of the broader White House press corps, especially when many of the president\u2019s events take place in smaller spaces. It includes television correspondents as well as print and radio reporters and photographers, all from accredited outlets that rotate. Times reporters and photographers are regularly part of that rotation and rely on the pool\u2019s feeds for coverage of the White House.The Times also joined an amicus brief in the news outlets\u2019 court case on Wednesday. It, along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the White House Correspondents\u2019 Association and dozens of other news organizations, called for the immediate restoration of the three media outlets\u2019 access.\u201cThe Constitution leaves the choice of how to cover \u2018public issues\u2019 \u2014 \u2018whether fair or unfair\u2019 \u2014 to the free press, not to the whims of any administration,\u201d the brief said.Show moreSept. 23, 2026, 3:40 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleRepresenting the three media outlets at the hearing will be Theodore J. Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who defended both CNN\u2019s Jim Acosta and Playboy magazine\u2019s Brian Karem in their successful legal battles against the White House after being booted from the grounds in the president\u2019s first term. Representing the White House is Michael Velchik, senior counsel in the Justice Department\u2019s civil division. A graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law, Velchik has served in several government positions, including as deputy associate counsel to the president in his first term.Sept. 23, 2026, 3:38 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleIn his introductory remarks, Judge Kelly said that he was \u201csurprised\u201d to find in 2018, when he presided over Jim Acosta\u2019s case, that legal precedent dictated that journalists had a First Amendment interest in a pass to access the White House grounds, and that those journalists had due process rights under the Fifth Amendment when it comes to revoking those credentials.Sept. 23, 2026, 3:34 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Zach MontagueThe hearing is starting. Judge Timothy J. Kelly has asked for tight 20-minute arguments from each side.Sept. 23, 2026, 3:25 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Mack LiedermanThe Trump-appointed judge presiding over today\u2019s hearing is the same judge who sided with CNN when its former White House reporter Jim Acosta had his press pass pulled by President Trump in 2018. Acosta told C-SPAN last week that he expected history to repeat itself today.\u201cNo judge is going to say you can throw news organizations out of the White House,\u201d Acosta said. \u201cIt\u2019s not his house. The house belongs to the American public. And because it belongs to the American people, the press in this country have the right of access, to go and cover the president on those grounds. So he\u2019s going to lose again on this.\u201dImageCredit...Doug Mills\/The New York TimesSept. 23, 2026, 3:24 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleThe judge in this case once restored White House access for a CNN reporter after Trump stripped it.ImageJim Acosta, a CNN reporter, talking to journalists at the White House after having his access reinstated by Judge Timothy J. Kelly in 2018.Credit...Sarah Silbiger\/The New York TimesJudge Timothy J. Kelly is presiding over the lawsuit three media outlets filed to challenge President Trump\u2019s banning them from the White House almost eight years after siding with a journalist in a similar case.A former federal prosecutor, Judge Kelly was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2017 by President Trump. Judge Kelly also presided over a case from November 2018, when Mr. Trump expelled CNN\u2019s Jim Acosta from the White House complex after a contentious news conference.Mr. Trump suggested on Tuesday that the media outlets would benefit from Judge Kelly\u2019s involvement. \u201cThey have a great, for them, and totally disloyal Judge,\u201d he wrote on Truth Social, the platform that he owns, in a post that also criticized CNN and MS NOW.In the 2018 case, Judge Kelly said Mr. Acosta wasn\u2019t given enough notice to contest his banishment. Judge Kelly ordered the White House to restore Mr. Acosta\u2019s press credential and access.Mr. Acosta, who had frequently clashed with Mr. Trump, angered the president with questions about immigration and a special counsel investigation. The CNN correspondent would not give up the microphone after Mr. Trump tried to move on to another reporter.Hours later, the press secretary at the time, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, announced that the administration had removed Mr. Acosta\u2019s credentials.In the 2018 case, CNN dropped its suit after Mr. Acosta\u2019s access to the White House was restored. But in ordering Mr. Acosta\u2019s access to the White House restored, Judge Kelly declined to say whether the administration\u2019s action was a First Amendment issue.\u201cI want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling,\u201d he said, steering away from access questions. \u201cI have not determined that the First Amendment was violated here.\u201dShow moreSept. 23, 2026, 3:11 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Erik WempleHere\u2019s what the news outlets and the White House have said in court papers.ImageThe lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW and Politico against the administration of President Trump.Credit...Jon Elswick\/Associated PressAfter President Trump barred them from the White House grounds on Friday, CNN, Politico, and MS Now sued the administration, saying the ban was a violation of their First Amendment rights to cover the president.Part of their argument hinges on the fact that they were given \u201czero\u201d notice of the ban ahead of time and didn\u2019t have the chance to challenge it.The joint complaint, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Monday, said that the \u201cConstitution does not allow a president or any other government official to deprive the press of their First Amendment rights and liberty and property interests with no notice or process based solely on his dislike of the content of their reporting.\u201dOn Tuesday, days after the ban first took effect, the White House sent CNN, MS NOW and Politico letters clarifying that the access ban was \u201cpreliminary\u201d and could still be challenged, according to a White House filing Tuesday night. That letter gave the outlets until Friday to contest the ban, and the White House lawyers said that represented adequate notice.The White House also said the outlets had fallen short of White House conduct standards and were responsible for \u201creporting incidents\u201d that \u201cthreatened national security and spread falsehoods.\u201dShow moreSept. 23, 2026, 2:44 p.m. ETSept. 23, 2026Peter BakerTrump faced the sting of cancellation this week.ImageTelevision is how President Trump\u2019s allies and even his aides communicate with him.Credit...Pete Marovich for The New York TimesFor the first time, President Trump this week has found himself at least partially deprived of the major TV networks that have covered nearly every movement and utterance he has made for more than a decade. His first taste of life without the major television networks that are now boycotting the White House press pool in protest of his ban on select news outlets was a sour one. He was left almost literally shouting into the wind on Monday as he cut the ribbon on his new helipad on the South Lawn of the White House, recorded only by a second-tier news broadcaster that could not capture his voice over the roar of Marine One.Yet when it comes to attracting attention, the president still manages to find a way. By the end of the day, there he was live on CNN after all \u2014 not filmed by the White House television pool, which refused to follow him, but by other cameras that met him when he arrived in New York and were not part of the boycott agreement. He had to rely on Mayor Zohran Mamdani to get on air, not at his own White House but as a guest at Gracie Mansion in the heart of liberal America. But he crowed that he could still force his way onto the screen.\u201cThey said they\u2019re going to boycott me, but they never boycott me, so I wasn\u2019t very worried about that,\u201d Mr. Trump boasted with the mayor at his side and a large group of reporters in front of him. \u201cLook at all that press.\u201dThe moment reinforced the challenge of carrying out any kind of television blackout on the president in an age of proliferating media, and underscored the limits of the news industry\u2019s willingness to cut him off.But the walkout by the five major networks that follow the president everywhere he goes still represents a threat to the way Mr. Trump has governed. Television has been central to his rise to fame and power. His 14 seasons on reality television made him into a national force and helped propel him to the White House. His 10 seasons on political television since then have allowed him to dominate American life in a way that none of his predecessors ever did.Show more",
    "published_at": "2026-09-23T18:08:23+00:00",
    "author_name": "Erik Wemple, Zach Montague, Michael M. Grynbaum",
    "site_name": "The New York Times",
    "section": "Business",
    "publisher": "The New York Times Company",
    "ai_headline": "Judge Appears Skeptical of Trump\u2019s Ban on 3 Media Outlets",
    "ai_simplified_title": "Judge Skeptical of Trump Media Ban",
    "ai_excerpt": "Judge Appears Skeptical of Trump s Ban on Media OutletsCNN MS NOW and Politico argued in court that the president s effort to block them from the White House complex",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "Freedom of the Press",
        "First Amendment",
        "White House",
        "Media Relations",
        "Judicial Rulings",
        "Donald Trump",
        "Media Ban",
        "Legal Proceedings",
        "Journalism",
        "Trump Administration"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "News",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "informative",
        "perspective": "neutral",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": {
            "0": "expert_quotes",
            "1": "data_cited",
            "3": "legal_proceedings_details",
            "5": "legal_proceedings_reported",
            "7": "named_sources"
        }
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999998,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-09-25T03:37:18.710310Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/live\/2026\/09\/23\/business\/trump-cnn-politico-msnow-ban-hearing",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": "Erik Wemple, Zach Montague, Michael M. Grynbaum",
            "published_at": "2026-09-23T18:08:23.000000Z",
            "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
            "site_name": "The New York Times",
            "section": "Business",
            "publisher": "The New York Times Company"
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
        "chunking_used": true,
        "total_chunks": 5,
        "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
        "merged_at": "2026-09-25T03:37:28.080423Z"
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-09-25T03:37:18.710310Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 6024,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/live\/2026\/09\/23\/business\/trump-cnn-politico-msnow-ban-hearing",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": "Erik Wemple, Zach Montague, Michael M. Grynbaum",
        "published_at": "2026-09-23T18:08:23.000000Z",
        "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
        "site_name": "The New York Times",
        "section": "Business",
        "publisher": "The New York Times Company"
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false,
    "chunking_used": true,
    "total_chunks": 5,
    "chunk_merge_method": "comprehensive",
    "merged_at": "2026-09-25T03:37:28.080423Z"
}