Overnight, a new ruling. A federal judge now says that the Trump administration must allow CNN, MSNBC, and Politico full access to the White House while the legal battle over President Trump's press ban plays out. The judge writing in this order that the president's ban likely violated the First Amendment, that the president's own comments prove they have been barred from the White House in retaliation for their coverage. The judge also undercut the administration's national security claims around all of this, writing that there's quote, 'No evidence in the record that President Trump made the decision to revoke the plaintiff's hard passes on national security grounds from the get-go, nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision.' Now, the attorney representing CNN and the other outlets involved responded to the order overnight this way: 'When the president issued his ban on the free press, he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the president has repeatedly, candidly, and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn't like and to try to force journalists to cover him in ways he prefers.' Joining me right now is chairman and editor-in-chief of CNN Worldwide, Mark Thompson, also known as my boss. It's good to see you.
Yeah. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for having me.
Thanks for coming in. So with this order, it's a longer-term solution. It is a longer-term order coming from this judge and really for the first time saying that the president, this ban likely violated the First Amendment. What's your reaction?
So it's not the end of the matter. I mean, sooner or later there may be a trial, but I think it's a really big boost. The judge essentially saying our complaint is likely to succeed, as you said. But behind that, it's the judge saying that our complaint, that our fundamental rights to cover the president properly inside the White House and the rest of it were violated, and that we're likely to prevail in the final trial. So to me, it's a vote of confidence in free speech and our right — not really so much for ourselves, but on behalf of the public everywhere and on behalf of, by the way, all the people who are subscribers to the TV pool, which we're part of, to hear their political leader held to account by the press in ways that no politician always loves. By the way, that fundamental defense of that takes a step forward.
Yeah, I have had many conversations where, and it gets to what you're just speaking about, which is this isn't about CNN. It is, but it is much bigger. It is about the public's access to ask tough questions of the commander-in-chief, the president of the United States. And it just represents kind of — I'll just acknowledge it — this strange moment. It is not every day that I'm interviewing my boss on air. It is, you know, not every day that CNN and other outlets are forced to be the news rather than report the news.
I'm just downstairs. We don't want to be the news, right? But I think the other thing I want to point to is we've had great support from the other news organizations. I mean, this goes beyond politics, goes beyond ideology or different perspectives. In 2009, the Obama administration attempted to ban Fox from a series of interviews with a Treasury official. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS all supported Fox in that instance. We support each other because we know that this can be something which happens with governments of the left, governments of the right, governments of the center. By the way, I've been an editor-in-chief over many years on the other side of the Atlantic. Happens there. Happens across the political spectrum. And on these occasions, the press has to stand together to defend our rights on behalf of the public.
Talk about that. Just that. I mean, you ran the BBC, you led The New York Times, you've seen a lot. How do you describe this moment that we're in?
Well, I mean, I think the first thing is the politicians are — I think, you know, in human terms it's very understandable, and they're killing themselves to do their jobs, and constantly they're bombarded by questions, many of which to them understandably feel irritating, annoying, negative, and all the rest of it. It's us doing our jobs. And back through the ages, presidents — Thomas Jefferson was a passionate supporter, significantly responsible for the First Amendment to the Constitution, passionate supporter to the end of free speech. He was driven mad by the press, the actual press, and talked about how much he hated the press. That's very typical. So to me, it's one of those things you have to be vigilant all the time about. There's always a risk that a government of any political hue, particularly when they're under some political pressure, they just lose their patience. But unfortunately, when that happens, fundamental rights begin to get pushed away. And we know there's a road there which, if governments are allowed to go down, is very dangerous — dangerous not just for the press, but for democracy and a free society.
