VIDEO: Trump Attacked By Kamala – ‘Absolutely Abhorrent’

President Trump just picked a fight with three newsrooms, and the fallout is already headed to federal court, with Kamala Harris attacking him yesterday.

See the video below,

Quick Take

President Trump announced on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over what he called “FAKE NEWS” coverage.
Reporters from all three outlets had their credentials disabled and were turned away from White House grounds within days.
The outlets sued, calling the move an unconstitutional attack on press freedom and a First Amendment violation.
Republican Senator John Barrasso defended the ban publicly, while critics, including Kamala Harris, called it “absolutely abhorrent.”

Trump Announces the Ban and Explains His Reasoning

President Trump posted the announcement himself, writing that he was “banning Fake News CNN, MS NOW… and Politico… from the White House as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” He later told reporters he wanted “honest news” and said he disliked what he called dishonest press coverage.

Trump also claimed Politico had received eight million dollars from the Biden administration, using that figure to argue the outlet was not a neutral player.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris shares thoughts on Trump's ban of news outlets from the White House after an event with Abdul El-Sayed in Detroit Tuesday:

"It's absolutely abhorrent." Video by David Guralnick, TDN. https://t.co/XzS52wg7aq pic.twitter.com/woOw7tvBsR

— The Detroit News (@detroitnews) September 23, 2026

Republican Senator John Barrasso defended the decision on national television, arguing the press has an obligation to report fairly and pointing to the Hunter Biden laptop story as an example of past media failure.

He insisted the ban did not violate the Constitution. Yet Trump himself later acknowledged there was no single story or factual error that triggered the move, which weakens the case that this was punishment for a specific act of misconduct.

Credentials Pulled, Lawsuit Filed Within Days

The ban was not just talk. Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico showed up at the White House and found their badges deactivated.

Access was denied outright, according to multiple contemporaneous reports. The outlets responded fast, filing suit in federal court in Washington and asking a judge to immediately restore their access while the case proceeds.

In their joint statement, the three organizations said the White House “revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” without notice or any formal process.

They called it a “direct assault on the First Amendment” and asked the court to affirm that the government does not get to decide what the press reports or publishes. A judge has been assigned the case, and legal scholars say the outlets have real advantages heading into that fight.

A Fight Over Fairness or a Free Press Problem

Here is the uncomfortable truth for the administration’s defenders. Courts have long held that once the White House opens its facilities to a press pool, it cannot start picking and choosing who gets in based on how they cover the president.

That is called viewpoint discrimination, and it has a rough track record in court regardless of which party sits in the Oval Office. Conservatives who value due process and consistent rules should take that precedent seriously.

Legal experts have been blunt about the odds facing the White House. One First Amendment attorney warned the move sends the message that critical coverage costs an outlet its access, and a Harvard government professor called it a clear constitutional violation.

Democratic voices, including former Kamala Harris, have amplified that criticism loudly, framing the ban as retaliation dressed up as a fairness complaint.

None of that means media bias complaints are baseless, or that conservatives should ignore years of frustration with coverage many see as slanted.

But punishing an entire newsroom without a documented policy, a hearing, or evidence of specific falsehoods is a different animal than holding reporters accountable through normal channels.

A lawsuit is an allegation, not a verdict, and the courts will decide who is right. Until then, this fight is really about whether the government gets to set the terms for who covers it, and that is a precedent worth watching closely no matter your politics.