Transcript: Trump Press Ban Backfires as Leaks Reveal Its Dark Motive

The following is a lightly edited transcript of the September 22 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.Three news organizations just sued the Trump administration after Donald Trump banned them from the White House grounds. They alleged that their First Amendment rights had been violated. Amusingly, to show that Trump is retaliating against them for their reporting, the organizations leaned on Trump’s own words and tweets, which state explicitly that this is what he’s doing. Trump’s rage at the media is backfiring in another way, too. Other news organizations, in solidarity with Trump’s targets, have joined in suspending the pool, so Trump isn’t getting TV coverage for some very big events. Meanwhile, Trump’s aides are leaking that Trump is lashing out at the media because he feels increasingly powerless as a potential election loss looms.We think Trump is headed for a major humiliation here in more ways than one, so we’re working through it all with Kristy Parker, counsel at Protect Democracy. Kristy, thanks for coming on.Kristy Parker: Thanks for having me.Sargent: So on Friday, Trump banned CNN, MS Now, and Politico from the White House grounds, openly due to their coverage. They just sued the Trump administration. Now TV networks have joined them, so there’s no pool coverage, and Trump’s events are already not getting covered. Kristy, maybe we can start here. How unusual is it for any of this to happen?Parker: I don’t think we’ve ever seen another political leader in this country be so blatant and overt in his desire to eliminate freedom of the press as it pertains to the way they cover him. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like that. We’ve certainly seen politicians have contentious relationships with the press. We’ve seen them try to control narratives and curtail the press in various ways. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anyone behave the way Trump does.Sargent: The lawsuit filed by CNN, MS Now, and Politico argues that Trump and the White House engaged in discrimination against them for their viewpoints or reporting. And to do this, they cite Trump’s own words and tweets. For instance, on Friday, Trump announced this ban during an eruption of rage on Truth Social, in which he said: “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning fake news CNN, MS Now, and Politico as a result of their constant reporting fake news.” Kristy, there he says, I’m banning them as a result of their reporting, right? I mean, that’s the essence of this, isn’t it?Parker: I mean, as a lawyer, I almost have to thank him, because he makes the job of lawyers very easy when it comes to doing something that typically has been considered difficult, which is proving motive. He announces his motives, makes it very plain what he’s doing. And you know, we’ve heard the old saying, when people tell you who they are, believe them. And, you know, that’s what we should do with him.Sargent: There are some other good examples of this as well. The lawsuit cites Trump justifying his ban this week. He said this: “There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories.” Then he reiterates that, saying they “purposely write negative news.”He doesn’t get to make that decision, though, Kristy. He actually thinks he has this power, I think. He thinks he has dictatorial power, that he can decree that something doesn’t count as actual news and then ban it. But what’s funny, I think, is that in declaring this power for himself, he admits the corruption of it all and creates an actual legal vulnerability, right? Like, there really is a legal vulnerability in these admissions, isn’t there?Parker: I mean, he’s giving away the whole game with the admissions. He is expressly saying, I am retaliating against the press because of the content of their speech. I am denying them access to me because I don’t like what they report. And when he’s saying that there’s something wrong with a country that allows things like that, what he’s really saying is there’s something wrong with America, because that is fundamentally who we are. We distinguish our democracy from other forms of government because we do allow the people to criticize the government. That’s the central feature of the whole thing. It’s, you know, the government answers to us. We can criticize the government. And the press is our intermediary in doing that.Sargent: I think it’s important to underscore what you said there, because he actually means that. Like, I don’t think it’s a glib construction on what he’s saying. He means that there’s something wrong with America that it allows the press to criticize a leader like him. He means it. Parker: He has said repeatedly that our ideals, our laws, our previous leaders are very stupid. His entire movement, his agenda, his ideology are attacks on the United States of America as the world’s leading democracy. That is in essence what he is about. Sargent: Right? Free press, democracy—all stupid.Parker: He believes that he is above the law, and that he as president should be above the law, and that the presidency is more of a king-like institution that can do anything it wants, rather than is one of three coequal branches of government that again answers primarily to the people, who are the ones who are supposed to be in charge.Sargent: Right. At least he thinks that as long as he’s in the presidency, right? He would not apply this to Barack Obama or Joe Biden or any other person who’s been president. So let’s dig into the legal guts of this a little more. The key to this, I think, is that federal courts have previously found that once the White House has granted access to news organizations, it can’t rescind that access on this basis, correct? Can you walk us through the legality of this, and where this lawsuit goes?Parker: Sure. So, you know, in essence, without getting too weedsy about it, from a First Amendment point of view, the White House has for many years granted reporters access. It’s in everyone’s mutual interest, both the media and the government’s, to have reporters explaining to the public what the government does. So for years it’s granted access to reporters. So it’s created essentially a limited forum whereby reporters can have access. When you create a forum like that, the First Amendment prohibits you from denying access based on the viewpoint of the reporter. So that can’t be the reason you don’t let a reporter in the White House—the content of their coverage.Sargent: Right. And he’s saying very explicitly that that’s what he’s doing.Parker: Again, he does not hide it. There’s no hiding the ball here. There’s no mystery to uncover. He has made it very clear that he is banning these reporters because he does not like the content of their coverage. And that is what is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.Sargent: He’s even going further and saying that he intends this as an express effort to get them to change their behavior, meaning change their speech about him. Let’s listen to Trump talk about this ban. In this snippet here, he’s a bit confused by his questioner at first, but then he figures out that the ban is what the questioner’s asking about, and he answers this way.Donald Trump (voiceover): The ban on the free press, right? A very simple ban. I don’t want them in my office. I don’t want them here. I would say the ban would go as far as you can. And if they could straighten themselves out, you know, if they could straighten themselves out, I’d love it. Look, they’re very dishonest people.Sargent: So, Kristy, two things about this. Number one, he says straight out that this is a ban on the free press. That’s something you mentioned earlier. I’m pretty sure that was accidental, but, like, you know, we’ll take it or whatever. But then I think the real guts of it is where he says he’d be thrilled if they responded to his ban by offering coverage that pleases him. And so that sort of takes it to another level, right? Because he’s not just saying, I’m banning them because I’m retaliating against them for their speech. He’s sending a message to the rest of the press. He’s saying, you need to straighten out, otherwise this is the fate that awaits you too. Isn’t that what’s going on here?Parker: I mean, sure. And that’s what we call government restrictions on speech creating a chilling effect on speech generally. So when he punishes three reporters and three networks for their coverage, his intent is to send a message to everyone else that the same thing will happen to you if you don’t shade your coverage in the way that I want you to. So yes, exactly that.Sargent: And he’s basically telling CNN, MS Now, and Politico that you’ve got to, you know, fix your coverage of me in order to get back in, right?Parker: Right. And that is precisely why we have the Constitution that we have and the laws that we have, because we don’t want government using its coercive powers to quash dissent, to quash information, to coerce certain kinds of stories being told about the government. The reason we don’t allow these types of bans under our Constitution is precisely to stop this sort of behavior from a tyrannical president.Sargent: So where do you see this all going? Can you walk us through what happens now? The three news organizations have asked for relief. I assume we’re going to see a temporary restraining order or some sort of injunction, maybe very quickly.Parker: They sought what’s called a temporary restraining order from the court, which means they’re asking the court to immediately block the administration from taking away these reporters’ access. There will probably be a hearing on that in very short order. I think the government has been required to respond to this filing by Tuesday. So I think we’ll be hearing something from the court fairly soon. And based on the letter of the law and previous actions this administration has tried to take, I think we will be seeing a restraining order entered in very short order against this. And then there will be litigation around a more permanent injunction against this action. And that could take a few months to unfold. But I expect to see these reporters having access restored fairly quickly, just because that is the law. And that’s what we’ve seen the courts do, and this particular judge do, in a previous case.Sargent: Well, here’s where it gets even darker. Trump advisors and confidants leaked to Axios that what worries them is that Trump feels the end coming on, meaning the end of his presidency, that his power is slipping away from him. As Axios puts it, quote: “Trump often retreats to his worst impulses when he feels most powerless. That helps explain Trump’s decision to ban three news organizations from the White House for the sin of reporting what he doesn’t like.” I mean, Kristy, that is real mad-king stuff. His own advisors are letting us know that our country is in the grip of a madman, basically, don’t you think?Parker: He lashes out when things are not going well for him, by defaulting to whatever it is he thinks he can do to, you know, drop a hammer on somebody, even in the short term. You know, so he likes to announce criminal investigations of people, direct the Department of Justice to prosecute people, pardon people who are ridiculous criminals, because he can do that with the stroke of a pen. So he likes to default to things that he believes he can do immediately that make him look powerful, when he is feeling at his weakest. So I think that is a fair assessment, both of him and of what we are likely to see in the coming days and weeks.Sargent: There’s kind of a dark irony to it as well, I think, because for Trump, the corruption is explicit—not just because he likes to blurt out his corrupt designs, but because that’s sort of how his movement functions. He essentially tells his supporters that he is openly corrupt and that nobody can do anything about it. He sort of invites his supporters to say to themselves, well, Trump’s corruption benefits me, and so I’m for it. And so when Trump kind of goes out and says, I don’t pay my taxes, or goes out and says, I’m banning three news organizations because they displeased me, he’s saying to his supporters, look, I can do this, right? I have the power to do this and nobody can stop me. But of course, the open admission of it, which is sort of central to MAGA ideology—it’s where the energy of it all comes from—ends up kind of coming back to bite him, doesn’t it? Because the courts just sort of look at it and say, well, you know, you can’t do that.Parker: Well, I think that’s where people really should take some hope, you know. Because he definitely wants to show his supporters that he is powerful and he is strong and he is doing things. And this lashing out that he does, by manipulating the levers of government power, is how he does it. But what we have seen in the last two years now is that he really doesn’t have that power. There are always actors within the system who can stand up to him, if they will. The people are the primary ones. We’ve seen them in grand juries refuse cases that he has tried to bring there, or that he’s directed the Department of Justice to bring against his enemies. Now we’re seeing the media band together, and today he’s got no coverage of stuff he’s trying to do. Like, there’s no video of him, there’s no audio of him. He can’t project the trappings of the presidency when the media decides that they are going to band together and exercise their power.So what we are seeing actually from him is a manifestation of his fundamental weakness. The more he does these sorts of things, the more he’s going to show that he’s really the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy’s going to get back there and see what’s really back there, as we continue to see these sorts of behaviors.Sargent: Well, let’s just close on that. Should we actually take heart from this? It sort of seems to me that it’s double-edged, right? On the one hand, you really can see the system holding in certain ways, like the grand juries turning away the prosecutions of his enemies, prosecutors quitting rather than bringing his corrupt cases. But then on the other hand, you’ve got people like Todd Blanche, who’s now the attorney general of the United States, who basically says straight out that he’s willing to carry out whatever Trump orders him to. In fact, that’s why Trump chose him for the job.And you’re going to have an interim period here where news organizations actually had to make a real decision, right? Like, these news organizations have to say to themselves, do we cover Trump truthfully, when there’s this big penalty to pay for it? And so I think it’s heartening, because the news organizations are coming down on the right side of that question, and they’re all banding together against him. But there’s sort of a sense that it’s slipped in a major way as well. I wondered if you could reflect on all that.Parker: I mean, you’re right. It is always double-edged, because as he exercises these powers, he certainly is going to be able to harm real people and their interests in the short term. As he does it, he’s going to cause them to have to hire lawyers and go through all sorts of turmoil. Some of the things he does result in tremendous harm to people, and they’re people who are less powerful than the mainstream media, or some of the folks that he’s tried to prosecute. So it’s definitely always double-edged.But I do think it’s never not been a fight to have the kind of democracy that our founders set in motion in seventeen seventy-six. Like, it’s always been something that we’ve had to fight for. It’s always been something that people have had to sacrifice for, because there are forces out there that don’t want it to exist. So I think the heart to take in it is that when people do decide, hey, democracy is worth sacrificing for, freedom of the press, freedom of speech—that is worth putting whatever interests I have on the line. And when we see people doing it, they are having ultimate success. So I think if people can just take heart in the idea that when you do stand up to the tyrant, he is not nearly as tough as his talk. I think we can come out on the other side. And that’s what we have to hang on to here: we can come out victorious on the other side.Sargent: I think that’s true. I just wish it didn’t require Trump slipping to, like, a 35 percent approval rating for people to figure this out. Because if you think back to the beginning of this whole catastrophe, there was a lot of folding and a lot of capitulation and a lot of institutional cowardice. Most of that’s passed and blown over, and we’re seeing some standing up going on, but it took a while, and there was sort of a sense there for a while that maybe it wouldn’t go that way.Parker: Well, I guess I’ll take it back to something I said earlier. I mean, I completely agree with that. And I think people need to not dismiss crazy rhetoric from people who seek power. And then they need to not dismiss the things that they actually do when they see them in power. We saw Donald Trump as president once before. The things he’s doing now are more aggressively extreme in the way that they are playing out than the first iteration was. But we could have seen what was coming the first time. And so it would be nice if we didn’t have to have these object lessons over and over, and we would just go from first principles, which is: if you come in trying to violate our Constitution and say that you’re a king and not a president, we’re going to stand up to you. All of us are, and not work an angle for our personal interests. And then we’ll all be better off.Sargent: Yeah, it would have been nice if our institutions had seen it that way at the outset of Trump 2.0. But we’re headed in what may be a salutary direction. Midterms coming, the people are going to weigh in, and that’s going to, I think, potentially change the equation even more, right? A sizable midterm victory, and all of a sudden, on the other side of that, this kind of emperor-has-no-clothes weakness you’re talking about, this kind of facade, is even flimsier, really falls apart, I think. What do you think?Parker: Well, I mean, I’m a huge sports fan. I like to think this is halftime of his second term. We’re making the halftime adjustments. We’re smart, savvy people, raised in a democracy and in the belief that we the people are sovereign, and we’re going to come out and we’re going to have a good second half and continue winning these battles.Sargent: I love it: We’re going to have a good second half, people. Kristy Parker, always a great pleasure to talk to you. Thank you so much.Parker: Thanks, Greg.