A federal judge has delivered a trio of liberal media outlets a win in their battle with the president over access to the White House grounds.

While the networks and their lawyer appear excited over the outcome, President Donald Trump has made clear this is but a battle in a war he means to win.

‘Plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security.’

How it started

Trump announced Friday that he was barring CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS,” stressing that “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America.”

Following the president’s proclamation, White House television pool members — including Fox News — circled the wagons and agreed to end pooled coverage in protest.

Meanwhile, the three banned networks sued Trump, two of Trump’s staffers, and U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran, claiming that “this ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.”

Alleging that the ban violated the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the media networks asked for the restoration of their White House hard passes and access as well as for a declaration that the ban was unconstitutional.

RELATED: Trump picked the wrong way to fight fake news

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The White House argued that:

the government has a “compelling interest in awarding hard passes to journalists satisfying minimum standards” and that the three networks did not meet those standards;the “Plaintiffs have engaged in a number of reporting incidents that have threatened national security”; and the networks are mistaken in their conclusion “that there is a special property or legal interest in access to the White House.”

How it’s going

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly did not buy what the White House was selling.

Early on Thursday, the Trump-appointed judge granted the liberal networks a 14-day restraining order and ordered the White House to reinstate White House hard pass press credentials to employees of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

Kelly said in his order that the plaintiffs had “shown a likelihood of success, at least on their Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim.”

The judge noted further that “none of Defendants’ arguments convince the Court that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on their due process claim.”

Kelly rejected the White House’s argument that the ban was motivated by national security concerns, writing, “Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ Plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting.”

“Defendants offer no declarations or other support — classified or unclassified — explaining how any of the reporting they identified in their letters to Plaintiffs damaged the national security.”

Trump, apparently anticipating this turn of events, noted on Monday, “As usual, we’ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World.”

Ted Boutrous, the lawyer representing the liberal outlets, said in a statement, “This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process, and the rule of law. We greatly appreciate the court’s swift action.”

The White House did not immediately respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Cnn, Politico, Fox news, Fake news, Ms now, White house, Donald trump, First amendment, Politics 

Over the last few decades, many industries discovered they could grow their customer base and profits by selling a cheaper, inferior version of their product while degrading the experience for everyone. Air travel and theme parks are obvious examples. Both learned that the advantages of scale could outweigh the obligation to deliver a high-quality experience.

That philosophy did not remain in the realm of economics. It spread slowly but surely into American public life. The United States government increasingly treats the country the same way: expand the customer base, maximize throughput, then sell people a tiered version of the American experience as the baseline crumbles.

An America designed for everyone eventually becomes an America belonging to no one in particular.

The old theme-park model was simple. You paid one admission price and had roughly the same access to rides and attractions as everyone else. The problem was capacity. If too many people entered, everyone spent the day standing in line.

The solution was brilliant. Sell more tickets, let the lines grow, then charge customers extra to escape the congestion the company created. Premium passes make the park tolerable for people willing to pay, but they do not fix crowded restaurants, bathrooms, sidewalks, or parking lots. The park serves more customers, earns more money, and becomes less pleasant.

The fast-pass system is especially revealing because the premium product is not really a new attraction. It is relief from the congestion created by admitting more customers. The company first degrades the common experience and then monetizes the escape hatch. That is the genius of the model. The wealthy do not merely buy more; they buy protection from the consequences of scale. Everyone else gets longer lines and is told that broader access represents progress.

Air travel followed a similar path. Flying was once expensive enough that many Americans rarely did it, but the experience was more comfortable and predictable. Low-cost carriers expanded the market by packing more seats into cabins and turning ordinary features into add-ons. Legacy airlines copied the model. More people could fly, but the customer experience became a maze of fees, cramped cabins, crowded airports, security lines, and delays.

This democratization was celebrated as progress, and in one obvious sense it was. Schoolteachers and retail workers could travel more cheaply and more often. But scale always has costs. When capacity expands faster than the infrastructure supporting it, abundance in one measure can produce scarcity in another.

RELATED: Free money wins elections — and that’s why America’s debt will keep growing

Blaze Media Illustration

The United States has applied the same logic to immigration. For decades, political and business leaders treated population growth as an economic good in itself. Illegal immigration and expansive legal immigration increased the supply of workers and consumers. Employers gained labor, investors gained demand, and headline economic measures such as GDP benefited from a larger economy. But a larger economy is not automatically a better country for the people already living in it.

Housing, roads, hospitals, schools, water systems, and power grids do not expand automatically with population. In places where growth outruns capacity, prices rise and service deteriorates.

Housing is the clearest example. The National Association of Realtors reported the median first-time buyer reached age 40 in 2025, though other estimates put the figure lower. Whatever the exact number, Americans are buying homes later, delaying marriage and children, and paying more for less space.

Labor markets create another conflict. Immigration can lower costs for employers and raise overall output while imposing concentrated costs on particular workers. Those effects are especially visible in lower-wage industries but also appear in sectors such as technology, where companies have long used and abused visa programs to expand the labor pool.

The costs are not purely economic. Large and rapid immigration can slow assimilation, especially when newcomers settle in concentrated communities large enough to reproduce the language, institutions, and customs of the countries they left. The result is not always conflict, but it can weaken the expectation that immigrants adapt to a common national culture.

The same sorting mechanism appears geographically. Families with enough money move away from crowded schools, failing services, and disorder, while people without that option absorb the consequences. Political leaders can then point to aggregate growth while the public realm fractures into radically different experiences depending on zip code and income.

The national statistics improve even as ordinary life becomes more expensive, more crowded, and less coherent. The public system remains available to everyone, but equality of access increasingly conceals inequality in the actual experience. That leaves Americans with a familiar arrangement: The baseline experience declines, while affluent people purchase private substitutes.

RELATED: This is what existential politics looks like

Blaze Media Illustration

Want a quiet neighborhood? Buy into a gated community. Want orderly schools? Pay private-school tuition. Want safety? Hire private security. Want enough space to raise a family? Move farther from the economic centers where you work. The things that once arrived as part of ordinary middle-class American life increasingly become premium upgrades.

The university completes the joke. It teaches students the moral case for ever-greater replacement migration while providing the credentials needed to earn enough money to avoid many of its consequences.

Other countries already show where this can lead. Brazil has wealthy neighborhoods, excellent private schools, luxury shopping, and first-world amenities alongside dangerous and dirty favelas. People with money can buy back pieces of civilization through walls, guards, private education, and exclusive enclaves.

That is not the American dream.

The American ideal was never perfect equality, but it did promise a broadly shared public world: safe streets, functional schools, attainable homes, reliable infrastructure, and a national culture recognizable to the people who inherited it. A nation cannot maximize scale forever without asking what, exactly, it is scaling. GDP is not a civilization. A labor market is not a people. A proper country cannot be reduced to an economic zone whose success is measured by how many workers and consumers it can process.

An America designed for everyone eventually becomes an America belonging to no one in particular. If we want the country to remain a nation rather than a marketplace, we will have to value continuity, capacity, assimilation, and the welfare of existing citizens more than endless growth.

​American dream, Illegal immigration, Legal immigration, Population growth, Private security, Labor market, United states, Equality, Opinion & analysis 

Over the past decade or so, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have transformed America beyond recognition, effectively replacing performance-based standards with identity-based quotas. Workplace hires, college admissions, and corporate promotions swapped personal achievement for group membership. Thankfully, commentators like Piers Morgan say those days are behind us. Woke, we’re told, is dead and buried.

It isn’t. DEI not only refuses to die but appears stronger than ever.

Administrators are writing their preferred political rules into machine intelligence.

A recent report by Defending Education, a grassroots organization dedicated to protecting American children from harmful ideologies, shows how universities are embedding DEI ideas directly into the AI systems that will shape how Americans learn and work.

Perhaps the most troubling part of this report is how ordinary the process can look. DEI can be built into the lessons used to teach children what AI is, the tests used to judge whether AI is “fair,” and the rules universities recommend for how AI should behave. The old social contract rewarded individual effort, clear competence, and the ability to tell fact from fiction. The new digital contract ranks software output based on ideological alignment.

Behind the academic curtain

MIT, for example, is developing AI lessons for K-12 students that teach kids to think about “algorithmic bias” and identify when an AI system produces unequal results. An algorithm that flags a high-risk loan applicant based on credit history fails this test if certain demographic ratios look uneven. UC Berkeley goes further, describing AI as something that can reinforce racial, gender, and other inequalities. Its researchers are developing tools to measure whether AI produces supposedly “equitable” results for different groups. Computer programmers used to debug code to fix technical errors. Today, researchers rewrite code to ensure equal outcomes across groups.

Columbia is developing tests for whether chatbots work properly for LGBTQ communities and has studied how prompts can produce better responses for “queer BIPOC youth.” A mathematical tool designed to process human language is being reprogrammed to act like a pink-haired guidance counselor with a radically leftist agenda. Other universities run programs that bring ideas about “equity” and AI directly to K-12 students and teachers and publish research that examines AI through Marxist ideas.

RELATED: Parents weren’t asked. Many still don’t know. Inside the new school surveillance nightmare.

gorodenkoff/Getty Images

A snowball effect is forming. Universities are helping write the rules for how AI will be taught and judged.

A century ago, political activists seized physical infrastructure like telegraph offices and train stations to control public life. Modern ideologues target software compilers and language models instead. Control the training data, and you control every answer the machine gives to the public.

Automating indoctrination

That creates a pipeline: First, a university develops a curriculum. Teachers receive it. Students learn from it. Then, AI companies adopt these standards to avoid lawsuits. Policymakers use university research when writing regulatory rules. Before long, ideas that began inside academia become part of the technology tens of millions of Americans use every day.

Engineers built computers to give accurate answers based on hard data. The current academic push forces these machines to censor objective reality whenever uncomfortable truths conflict with social theories. Ask a neutered AI model simple historical questions, and it will distort facts to avoid offending academic sensibilities. Ask it to evaluate job applications, and it will prioritize demographic targets over verifiable skills. Ask it about the perpetrators of crime in certain cities across America, and it will do everything but provide accurate information. White readers, particularly straight white men, routinely described as society’s most “privileged” group, should be especially concerned.

DEI on its own is dangerous enough, but merged with arguably the most powerful technology ever created, it is a recipe for disaster.

The end result is AI that lies to its users by design. When air traffic control systems, medical diagnostic tools, and financial software rely on algorithms trained to prioritize equity over accuracy, real-world performance drops and real lives are at risk.

Enforced mediocrity

The original social contract built American prosperity on a simple promise: Work hard, master a trade, deliver superior results, and you climb the ladder. The bureaucratic class spent decades dismantling that promise inside taxpayer-funded institutions. Now, those same administrators are writing their preferred political rules into machine intelligence. Human bias can be challenged, debated, and defeated in public debate. Software code hidden inside a proprietary algorithm operates without public oversight.

If left unchecked, this rather diabolical system will embed identity-based quotas into the permanent digital infrastructure of everyday life. Citizens will interact with technology that enforces destructive doctrines while presenting them as non-negotiable facts. The death of merit was bad enough when enforced by university deans and corporate HR departments. Machine-enforced mediocrity could make those bureaucrats look like absolute amateurs.

All is not lost, however. Now that the public can see what universities are doing, they can be challenged. The Trump administration has already ordered universities to abandon DEI. It now needs to recognize where DEI is taking root next and respond accordingly.

​Artificial intelligence, Tech 

The shooting death of a 15-year-old boy in Oklahoma was initially blamed on an intruder, but police arrested his 11-year-old sister after an investigation.

The teenager was found fatally shot in the head at his home in Edmond on Sept. 9.

They also said she was jealous of the attention he would get from the parents.

Initially his sister told police an intruder wearing a black hoodie broke in through a window and killed her brother before running out of the front door.

But police noticed that there were no signs of a break-in and instead saw evidence that the site was staged.

The parents of the children then told police that four security cameras had been turned off at the home before the shooting. When the daughter was asked about the cameras, she denied knowing anything about it.

Parents also said that their daughter was embarrassed by her brother, who was disabled. They also said she was jealous of the attention he would get from the parents.

The girl later admitted to shooting her brother with a small-caliber handgun, according to an affidavit.

Police seized an Apple iPhone, an Apple iPad, and a Samsung Digital Tablet from the home after obtaining a search warrant. They believe the devices may have evidence related to the motivation and the shooting.

A day after the shooting, the girl was booked into a juvenile detention facility on a second-degree murder charge, according to the Edmond Police Department.

RELATED: 16-year-old arrested for lethally shooting 15-year-old girl and her 9-year-old brother, cops say

Defense attorney Irven Box told KWTV-DT that the alleged comments from the parents were a strong motivation for the case against the girl.

“I think there’s a lot of evidence that she’s got some definite, very serious psychological problems,” he said.

However, she will likely not face charges as an adult, he added.

“She’s not going to serve any time in a state penitentiary; she’s going to be in some juvenile facility or some sort of treatment until she reaches majority,” Box said. “Until she reaches 18, so she’s got a long ways to go.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Oklahoma, Special needs child, Family shooting, Crime 

On Tuesday, Iowa House Republicans were shown polling that should scare the hell out of them.

The warning, as it was relayed to me, was stark: If you represent a district Trump carried by 15 points, you may still be within the margin of error. If you represent a Trump +10 district, you may already be under water.

We need to save our own country before we save anybody else. America first cannot become America eventually.

And this environment could end up being worse than the “thumping” of 2006.

I slept on whether to share this publicly because I do not want to black-pill people six weeks before a critical election. But there is still time to do something about it, and pretending the problem does not exist will not make it go away.

If the environment is this bad in Iowa — where Donald Trump has been the most popular political figure of the last decade — I shudder to think what it looks like elsewhere.

Iran has become a massive political albatross on par with the COVID lockdowns of 2020.

Whatever you want to call it — war, not-quite-war, prolonged military operation, strategic pressure campaign — voters are experiencing the consequences as another expensive Middle East entanglement with no clearly defined victory. Fuel prices are hurting. The public is frustrated bordering on furious. Republicans are beginning to distance themselves from the policy.

We are risking what remains of the Trump presidency on this.

If Democrats take control of Congress in January, much of the domestic agenda voters elected Trump to pursue will stop cold. Some of it will be reversed. Some of it will be tied up in investigations and appropriations fights. Add what the courts are already doing, and the remaining two years could become an exercise in siege warfare.

The damage would not stop in D.C.

RELATED: The mass-deportation promise is disappearing

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

States like Iowa have spent the last 20 years moving dramatically to the right, with Trump accelerating that transformation. A national collapse would spill down the ballot and put those gains at risk.

That is why this half-war, quasi-war, whatever-we-are-calling-it has become such a catastrophic misuse of political capital.

Many of us never thought it was worth the cost. Increasingly, the voters seem to agree.

We need to save our own country before we save anybody else.

If a plane is in trouble, you put on your own oxygen mask first. Not because everybody else is unimportant, but because you are useless to them if you pass out.

America first cannot become America eventually.

I desperately want this presidency to succeed. I want it to fulfill the promise voters saw in 2024. But whatever this is right now, it isn’t working. And Republicans do not have to sit here and take the loss.

There is still time. There is still plenty of ammunition. Democrats have given Republicans more than enough material to run against. But the president needs to get on the stump now.

The messaging needs to get much sharper and much more aggressive.

RELATED: The Christian counterculture is already here

John Tlumacki/Boston Globe/Getty Images

Stop wasting money on stupid ads about how often some Democrat missed a committee vote. Tell voters what Democrats are actually voting for. Put the cultural, economic, and constitutional stakes in plain English.

And most important, explain the mission in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. What does victory look like? What ends the operation? What are Americans being asked to pay, and for how long?

Because from the cheap seats, this increasingly looks like another Middle East quagmire in which ordinary Americans pay twice — once at the pump and again through their taxes.

If there is a compelling answer to that, the administration needs to give it. Soon.

Republicans are not out of ammunition. They are almost out of time.

And while we are at it, somebody please make sure Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are getting the finest health care in America.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on X.

​Fuel prices, Health care, Iowa, Midterms, Republicans, Democrats, Covid lockdowns, America first, Trump, Economy, Iran war, Polls, Opinion & analysis 

As the midterm elections approach, democratic socialism is attracting renewed attention as an alternative to America’s constitutional order. Recently elected officials in Seattle, Colorado, and New York City, along with dozens of others, identify as democratic socialists. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America has surged, and a recent CNN poll found that a third of Democrats now identify with the movement’s political program.

The goals of the DSA and the promises made in campaign rallies should be understood by all Americans for exactly its aim: a complete overhaul of the U.S. Constitution and the governing laws that have ensured our freedoms for the last 250 years.

A ‘new society’ that eradicates the right to religious liberty is a familiar step down an extremely dark path.

This is not an esoteric challenge to our economic system. It’s a threat to our entire republic.

At the core of all socialist movements, historically and contemporarily, is the supremacy of the collective over the individual, where the state assumes the role of controlling guardian to determine what is “best for society,” squelching individual liberties, all in submission to this ideological monopoly.

As such, the one thing totalitarian governments will never allow is an appeal to a higher authority than the government. There can be no authority higher than the state. That is why socialist-controlled governments have always viewed religious liberty as a threat and target it as one of the first freedoms to dismantle.

That’s why Virginia Democrat Senator Tim Kaine’s remarks during a 2025 hearing deserve attention. The former Democratic Party vice presidential nominee said he found “extremely troubling” “the notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator.”

The American founding says otherwise.

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That formulation is not ornamental. It establishes a limit on government.

If government grants your rights, government can redefine them or take them away. If rights exist before government, then government is bound to respect them.

That’s why religious liberty is the first right protected in the Bill of Rights. Without the right of conscience, all other liberty disappears.

Members of the DSA counter this assessment by pointing to its Religion and Socialism Working Group outreach to the faith communities. In their own words, “DSA’s Religion and Socialism group is open to DSA members of all faiths whose socialism is in some way inspired by their spiritual identity.” In other words, religion is welcomed and approved only if it agrees with the DSA’s socialist ideology, which in essence, then, is a state-endorsed church. All opposing religious viewpoints need not apply.

RELATED: ‘Reign of terror’: One-third of Democrats give thumbs-up to Trump assassination

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

In the old Soviet Union, state regulations defined how religious organizations could function, what they could say, and when they could meet. Eventually, church doors were closed, sectarian schools were closed, and religious leaders were incarcerated, all because socialist regimes cannot allow organizations or the populace to appeal to a higher authority than the government.

The commonly repeated pattern with all socialist movements begins with ideological propaganda denouncing all viewpoints that don’t fall in lockstep with its platform. In the case of the DSA, that means throwing out the old and fundamentally changing the very foundations of our government, including religious liberty.

But that’s just the start. In the DSA’s program for the current year, the objective is quite clear: “Our goal is to put workers in charge of the government through a new democratic constitution …” and “Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

This “new society” would eliminate the three co-equal branches of government that provide essential checks and balances. Gone are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the rights of all Americans.

Religious liberty is foundational to a country that values individual freedoms. It defines the relationship between citizens and government by limiting the government’s power and protects freedom of conscience. It is inseparably linked to broad civil liberties including free speech, parental rights, academic freedom, and freedom of assembly.

None of these rights can exist without the foundation of the right of conscience: religious liberty. A “new society” that eradicates this most important right is a familiar step down an extremely dark path. What we need instead is a recommitment to a society that understands and cherishes the liberties protected in our founding documents that have defined us as the “land of the free.”

​Bill of rights, Declaration of independence, Democratic socialism, Democratic socialists of america, Religious liberty, Soviet union, Midterm elections, Democrats, American founding, Dsa, Opinion & analysis 

A nude celebrity advertisement has become more offensive to some women than a mother accused of killing her own children, and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales believes someone should be — and one day will be — “studying this.”

“I always feel like when I watch videos that feature white liberal women, like in a hundred years, they’re going to be studying this. They’re going to be looking at this phenomenon. They’re going to figure out how this hive mind of mental illness really came together,” Gonzales says.

“One of their biggest data points is how the Lindsay Clancy trial broke them,” she adds.

And in Adam Francisco’s series of man-on-the-street interviews with some of these women, he only proves Gonzales right.

In the series, Francisco holds up side-by-side photos of Sydney Sweeney posing nude and Lindsay Clancy, posing the question “Who hurts women more?”

One woman explained that Sydney Sweeney hurts women more because she “sets a bad precedence for women as a role model.”

“So, in your opinion, posing nude for an ad for a company that you’re an investor in … versus her, who’s accused of killing her own kids due to mental instability or hormones. You still would choose this is worse for women?” he asks.

“I think they both get a bad rap,” she answered.

“But who’s worse?”

“It depends what side of the fence you’re on,” she answered.

Another woman explained that her choice was Sweeney “because she’s putting a sexual image on women and for a sports ad when there’s women that have worked really hard in sports and they could honestly be more representative in a sports ad.”

She then said that Clancy doesn’t “hurt women, though, as much.”

“She hurts her own image and like mothers in general, like it affects like the mental state, but then she hurts like the reputation of women,” she added.

“I would argue, this hurts women way more, because it’s saying if a woman is too hormonal, she may kill her own kids,” he answered.

Gonzales is “honestly baffled” by the women’s answers.

“Like, please, Trump administration, can you guys study the white liberal woman brain?” she asks.

“There’s so much brain rot there,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Blazetv show 

The president continued his rhetorical attacks on the mainstream media after issuing a controversial ban on several outlets from the White House.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to regain access, while other news outlets have boycotted the press pool as a form of protest.

‘She’s got a ”TRUMP” addiction, and so does CNN and MSDNC. They’re all sick, treasonous, and demented!’

President Donald Trump fired back in a post on the Truth Social platform.

“All of the SLEAZEBAGS, like Third Rate ‘Reporter,’ Kaitlan Collins, of Fake News CNN, a truly unhappy person, said they weren’t going to be covering me,” he wrote.

The president was referring to an episode in which Collins asked him when the Iran war would end during his visit to the United Nations General Assembly.

“Then why were they ranting and raving like Lunatics, in the Press Area, at the United Nations?” he added. “Why was she there? She’s got a ‘TRUMP’ addiction, and so does CNN and MSDNC. They’re all sick, treasonous, and demented! The ‘good news’ is that they have a great, for them, and totally disloyal Judge.”

Collins later said that she was credentialed by the United Nations and denied that CNN had said the network was never going to cover the president.

“We will continue to cover the president and his speech and as he meets with world leaders today, just not with a TV camera from one of the five major networks in the room,” she said.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly is presiding over the case and was appointed by Trump in his first term as president.

Collins also faced restrictions from the White House in 2018. Fox News defended her at time and called on the administration to back off.

RELATED: ‘By accident’: CNN panelist apologizes after accusing Trump of involvement in Epstein sex-trafficking ring

CNN host Jake Tapper defended Collins in a post Wednesday.

“Not going to dignify the president’s juvenile social media post about our brilliant @kaitlancollins except to say she and we are going to keep doing our jobs,” he wrote, “which is to ask and cover the questions voters care about — like those about the war in Iran and the economy.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​President donald trump, Kaitlan collins, Press ban, Jake tapper, Politics