UN Ambassador Mike Waltz said Sunday that President Donald Trump was “absolutely spot on” in barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House facilities, arguing that journalists have no inherent right to access government buildings and that the president is within his legal authority to exclude outlets he believes are not acting in good faith.
Waltz made the remarks during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” where anchor Dana Bash pressed him on the administration’s decision, which was announced Friday. Bash noted the timing came just before Trump was set to host China’s leader, and suggested the move marked a reversal of America’s traditional role in pressing other nations for greater press freedoms.
“The president is absolutely within his rights to limit journalists to government facilities, particularly when, in his opinion, they’re not behaving as good-faith journalists,” Waltz said. He added that the position is not merely the president’s own view, but one reflected in Supreme Court rulings. “Zemel v. Rusk, off the top of my head, and I’m not a lawyer,” he said. “That said, look, you can have the ability to speak. You can have ability to publish as an open and free press. But you don’t have an inherent right to any government facility that you want, whether it’s Langley or the White House.”
Bash pushed back, noting Waltz’s own background as a Green Beret who served 27 years in the military defending freedoms including the First Amendment. She pointed out that Trump had explicitly said the outlets were being banned because he did not like what they reported.
Waltz points to prior administration, alleges bad-faith reporting
Waltz responded by arguing that the previous administration had similarly restricted access for journalists and outlets it deemed right-wing, and that those organizations have since been allowed back into White House facilities. He also accused some outlets of relying on anonymous sourcing, claiming he had seen an example just a day earlier involving a source who was deceased.
“I would hope that the media would take a good introspective look at itself and its practices because it throws things out there and then puts a little baby correction that nobody pays attention to and it sticks to people like napalm,” Waltz said. “And so it is incredibly frustrating, I can tell you as someone who’s serving in the public space.”
He returned to his legal argument, saying the Supreme Court has been clear in multiple rulings going back to the 1960s that the right to speak and publish differs from a right to access any government facility. “I’ll leave it to the lawyers,” he said, “but I think the president’s absolutely spot on here.”
Legal and political backdrop
The ban, announced Friday, removes three major news organizations from the White House press pool — a move that drew immediate criticism from press freedom advocates who argue it is a direct response to coverage the president dislikes. The administration has not detailed what specific reporting triggered the decision, but Trump has publicly stated that he dislikes what the outlets have reported.
Waltz’s reference to Zemel v. Rusk is notable. That 1965 Supreme Court case upheld the government’s authority to restrict travel to Cuba, and in its reasoning the Court distinguished between the right to speak and the right to access government-controlled spaces. The case has been cited in debates over press access to military bases and other federal facilities, though it is not typically a direct precedent for White House press credentialing.
The dispute comes as the president prepares to host China’s leader, a diplomatic moment that Bash argued makes the ban especially awkward given the United States’ historic advocacy for press freedom abroad. Waltz did not directly address that framing, instead focusing on what he described as the media’s own accountability problems.
So far, there has been no indication from the White House that the decision will be reversed, and it remains unclear how the affected outlets will respond. Press freedom groups have already signaled opposition, and the episode is likely to intensify the ongoing debate over executive power and the independence of the press corps covering the White House.
Source: www.breitbart.com — https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/09/20/mike-waltz-trump-was-spot-on-banning-cnn-ms-now-politico-from-white-house/