On Friday, President Donald Trump said he is banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House for reporting what he called “fake news.”
“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,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”
Reporters Committee President Bruce D. Brown made the following statement:
“A ban like this would be flatly unconstitutional. The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can’t ban others because it doesn’t like their reporting. This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged.
“At a time when the administration is on the defensive in a wide range of court battles with the news media, today’s attack is more than just one more provocation. It makes even plainer what is at the heart of these cases, whether it is the misuse of the FCC against broadcasters or the expulsion of journalists from the Pentagon — that the administration will come after you if it doesn’t like what you report. The president’s words are once again the best evidence of his malignant purpose.”
“The government should not be in the business of censorship but rather devoted to protecting the constitutional right to a free press for all Americans,” said CPJ Américas Regional Director José Zamora. “President Trump’s arbitrary banning of CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House news coverage illustrates that he is neither interested in a free press nor protecting constitutional rights. His administration’s weaponization of government agencies and access to target critical coverage must end, and journalists must be allowed to do their jobs free from retaliation.”
In a Friday Truth Social post, President Trump attacked news coverage of his administration as “fiction and lies,” but he did not specify what coverage he was referring to before announcing the ban, multiple outlets reported.
Immediately after the post, sources told CPJ that there were no signs that White House officials had followed through with the president’s directive.
In a statement posted on X, CNN analyst Brian Stelter posted that a spokesperson for the outlet said they “stand fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting.” The outlet added, “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”
Last year, President Trump barred The Associated Press and excluded The Wall Street Journal from traveling in the press pool after the outlets refused to change references to the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. CPJ joined an amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) outlining how the Trump administration’s decision violates the First Amendment.
Since taking office for a second time last year, the Trump administration has weaponized agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the authority and influence of federal law enforcement to threaten media outlets and target individual journalists with subpoenas over unfavorable news coverage. Such weaponization has included visa rules that unreasonably limit the abilities of foreign journalists and make their reporting from the U.S. dependent on repeated government approval.
CPJ’s email to White House communications director Steven Cheung did not receive an immediate reply.
President Trump’s grabs for power kept falling short, and he appeared ready to turn to a familiar target.
He had relentlessly pressured the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to affix his name to its facade, only to be blocked by the courts. He had gone to extraordinary lengths to bully the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates, only to have his handpicked Fed chairman join his colleagues in voting unanimously to raise borrowing costs.
Despite his attempts to talk his way out of it, the war against Iran continues to be immensely unpopular with Americans concerned with Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy and high gasoline prices. The Supreme Court, including justices he appointed, blocked Mr. Trump’s attempts to restrict mail-in voting.
And with the midterm elections looming, the president’s political authority appears to be ebbing after years in which he dominated not just his party but also the national discourse.
Mr. Trump acted on his latest barrage of threats against the press on Saturday morning, when reporters for the outlets were denied access to the White House and had their badges confiscated.
On Friday evening, Mr. Trump had accused the three outlets of running “purposely negative stories” that were untrue, though he provided no details. The Trump administration has not said what led to his decision, which many First Amendment groups called unconstitutional and unlikely to survive a court challenge.
Condemnation from leading news outlets was nearly universal, including from many that compete directly with CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
“No news organization — or person — should be retaliated against by the government over the words they use,” said Lauren Easton, a spokeswoman for The Associated Press, which filed suit over restrictions that Mr. Trump tried to impose on its White House access last year.
The New York Times, The Washington Post and press associations also released statements calling the ban an attack on free speech and the free press.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, I don't think we know specifically what exactly the president was looking at or reading on Friday afternoon that led to this action. But obviously, we know the conditions that the president was operating in. He is incredibly frustrated by these losses that he experienced over the last week at the Supreme Court, at the Federal Reserve, in Congress, without war powers vote, he seems to be diminishing in his power to influence events and influence the people that he put into some very important jobs across the government. We also know who was in the White House on Friday afternoon and who wasn't. Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, was not in town on Friday. Vice President Vance was in Iowa. He doesn't have a press secretary. Karoline Leavitt left several weeks ago. And I think all of that seems to have created the conditions for the president to take the step. He's been talking about it for a long time. You know, there's no indication that if those people were in the building on Friday that he would not have taken this step. But obviously, the president is trying to distract, in a lot of ways from a series of setbacks. He feels extraordinarily frustrated about his political position at the moment, has been getting some pretty dire briefings on the state of the politics in the midterms, and that seems to have created the conditions for him to go and do this on Friday.
ZELENY: I mean, obviously, CNN and other news organizations have responded aggressively. We'll see if legal action comes. But this is just a brief part of CNN's statement here, said: We have a right under the U.S. constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. And this ban -- this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right. Carl, I was thinking back and looking back yesterday at a story in "The New York Times" from 2016 that our friend Jim Rutenberg had at the time. And candidate Trump said yes, he banned some people during the campaign, but he wouldn't do it as president. Of course, that's ten years on. Just in your history of Washington here, presidents don't like the press. They fight back and forth. How is this different?
CARL HULSE, NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: I mean, shutting them out, actually, you know, there's usually say, well, I'm not going to talk to the press or I'm not going to acknowledge that actually keeping them out of the building. I mean, the president seems to have forgotten this is sort of a public building, too, in a way, in the way he has treated it in numerous respects. He thinks it's his to do what he pleases. Definitely a tantrum here and a classic case of shoot the messenger. You know, one thing I've been thinking about here, though, it's funny, there's nothing that gets reporters to work harder than telling them they can't cover something. You know, it's just like once you do that. And I think we've seen that at the Pentagon, right, where they have pushed people out. We sued to get some more access, and reporters just are going to be determined to do their job anyway.
ZELENY: And, Tia, to Kevin's point earlier, if we just sort of take stock of the week, that was it was fairly extraordinarily here, the headlines tell the story. "Washington Post", gas prices are about to take a big jump. Mortgage rates are climbing a week before the midterms. Everything is getting more expensive. Do you believe that this distraction is something that voters are focusing on? Do actual rank and file voters care about press access, or are these actual issues going to drive the midterm elections?
TIA MITCHELL, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: I do think rank-and-file voters care about press access. I think a lot of people, as they become aware of what the president did over the weekend, they are troubled by it because rank and file voters want to protect the First Amendment. Now, is it the first thing on their agenda as they decide who to vote for in November? Probably not. However, I do think this feeds into a narrative that President Trump continues to focus on the wrong things. He continues to create distractions for himself, away from the economy, away from the cost of gas and the price of goods. And that really troubles voters. They say this is another example of him doing anything but addressing what we elected him to actually do two years ago.
ZELENY: We talked a lot about gas prices, the national average. But the reality is midterm elections are done in a state-by-state basis. Take a look at these Michigan numbers. They really caught our attention here. The -- before the Iran war, a regular gallon of gas $2.99. It's now $4.89. Before the Iran war, diesel $3.89. Now, $6.68. This is coming at a time obviously of harvest season beginning. The trade question is always looming. Carl, do you think these gas prices are the true barometer of this election?
HULSE: It's brutal, the gas prices. And it's a killer issue for the Republicans. And they know it. And they can't really sluff it off on anything other than administration actions. I've been out in the country. I was in Colorado, I did sort of a farm and trade related piece, and the diesel is just killing these guys. I mean, all their equipment runs on it. Most of their pickups run on it. And you know, you just watch the numbers on the signs at the gas station and it kind of looks a little bit like Vegas. You know, it's rolling. So, it's a -- it's a huge concern. It has decided midterms many times. It looks like it will again.
KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah, well, Yamiche, all of this is the backdrop against which President Trump announced that unprecedented ban of three major news outlets: CNN, Politico, as well as MS NOW. What has the reaction been that you’re tracking?
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, we have to first, I think, start with what the White House Correspondents Association is saying, which is that this is violating the First Amendment. And that the Constitution lays out that the American people, through the press, need to be able to scrutinize and hold people of power, including the president, to an account through the press. That being said, and they’re urging, by the way, the president to reverse this because they said any news outlet by these standards could be attacked and could be banned by the president, you also have inside the White House -- people were caught off guard, Kristen. When I talked to my sources, senior White House officials, a number of officials from the press office to communications where this is going to directly impact them, they just did not know this was coming. That said, a senior White House official did tell me the president did have some senior staff around him when he sent out this online post. But there wasn’t a strategy here. There wasn’t a plan here. And then you think about the fact that the president announced this, Kristen, right before an event where he was going to be talking, and wanted to talk about, trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs. So in that conversation about the economy where he was set to have this big meeting, that whole event becomes about the media ban. So there’s a real question about, and I’m asking my sources, how is this undermining what the president’s trying to do and the message on the economy? And the president is now having to deal with this and talk about this ban, and it’s a real conundrum and very problematic for the president’s messaging on the economy, Kristen.
SARA FAGEN: I think, I agree with Yamiche on this. My experience in campaign politics, the reason you might do this politically is that you’re trying to attract these Trump voters who are disengaged, only show up for him. And that could work. But I have never seen in my years in politics processed arguments motivate voters. And so on one hand, when you’re talking about substance, prescription drugs, lowering gas prices, lowering grocery prices, that appeals to most people who want to vote. Talking about this insidery process, who’s in, who’s out usually does not actually get you anything.
KRISTEN WELKER: Jamelle, how do you see this?
JAMELLE BOUIE: I see it much the same way. I just want to emphasize something. The idea that the president believes he has the authority to ban the press from the White House I think speaks to the extent to which this president does not understand himself to be a servant of the American people. For me, this is watching someone who sees the White House almost as its own personal domain. Right? You can ban whoever you want from your home. But on a fundamental level, the White House does not belong to President Trump. The Oval Office does not belong to President Trump. It belongs to the entire American people. And banning any press from the White House, from the Oval Office, is an indication that this president just does not understand that he is not some sovereign figure. He is a limited official in a constitutional democracy.
KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah, one of the big questions, it may energize the MAGA base, Sara, as you’re saying. But what, if any, impact will it have on those voters in the middle who are going to make all the difference in November? Thank you all so much for a fantastic conversation. Really appreciate it.
In a frontal assault on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump ordered reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico barred from the White House for publishing “negative stories” about him. He announced the ban Friday afternoon on social media. When reporters from the three outlets arrived for work Saturday morning, they were turned away at the security gate and their press passes were confiscated.
The president suggested that the two leading US newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, might also be banned from the White House.
Making his hatred of press freedom explicit, Trump said, “It’s sick. I mean, there’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories. Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine. But I don’t have to let them into my—into the people’s house.”
The last verbal slip was revealing of Trump’s real attitude to the presidency: the White House is his house. It does not belong to the American people. The government exists for his own self-aggrandizement, both financially and politically. He embraces the monarchical principle going back to Louis XIV of France—L’État, c’est moi (the state, it is me).
Asked by other reporters to explain his action, Trump replied, “Because they’re fake news … You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. When you look at CNN, it’s just fake. That’s why their ratings are no good. When you look at MS NOW … it’s fake news.”
“And when you look at Politico,” he continued, “the stories they wrote are fake. So there’s a lot of news and there may be others to join them, and maybe they can get better. But our country has to have honest news.”
This from a president who lies incessantly, claiming the US economy is booming, that the affordability crisis is a “hoax,” and that he is hugely popular, despite record mass protests and plunging poll numbers, which threaten a Republican debacle in the midterm elections, only six weeks away.
All three of the targeted media outlets issued statements of protest, and by Sunday all three were reported to be preparing legal challenges. But the giant corporations that own them are confining their response to the courts. The White House Correspondents’ Association, whose current president is a Fox News correspondent, issued a statement of support for the banned outlets and nothing more. While the exclusion was the leading topic on most Sunday television interview programs, no section of the corporate media has suggested collective action, such as a joint boycott of White House briefings and press “availabilities.” Every other outlet has kept its seat.
The day before, Trump had announced that he was banning the organizations because, he said, they report “fake news.” Others could be next, he warned.
We are well used to this kind of civic thuggery from this president and his administration. It is contrary to our Constitution, our values, our historical practices. It is alien, because we have never had a president with Trump’s anti-democratic conception of the power of that office.
The White House is his house. Access to it is his to grant. Any criticism of his performance in office is a punishable offense. The powers entrusted to the president can be used to punish the offender.
Trump’s personalization of the office collides with a much older American tradition, albeit one that was always imperfectly honored. Yes, American presidents have abused power and attacked journalists before. But there was a shared ideal of what power ought to be in America, an aspiration that began with the Founders, and especially with the magnificently republican example of George Washington.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Hey there. Yes, now that President Trump's media ban is in effect, the three newsrooms targeted by the president are preparing to defend their rights in court. Now, here's what this network, CNN, said in a statement on Saturday, quote, we have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government, and this ban is an illegal assault on that fundamental right. And MS NOW said in a statement, quote, the network intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy. On Saturday, reporters from MS NOW, CNN, and Politico had their press passes confiscated, and now there are questions about whether CNN will be able to fulfill its pool responsibilities on Monday.
So, let me explain what that means. CNN is one of five members of the U.S. T.V. pool. The five major networks in the U.S. take turns providing 24/7 coverage of the president, especially when he's traveling or he's in smaller settings like the Oval Office where there's not room for the entire White House press corps. So, the pool plays a really essential role, and CNN's next turn as pool representative is on Monday. So, it's going to be interesting to see if the other four major networks show solidarity with CNN and take a stand. Based on my reporting thus far, my sense is that they will.
Throughout the day on Saturday, I heard from news outlets that usually love to compete with one another but are, in this case, standing together, showing solidarity with CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. The White House Correspondents Association also issued a strong statement on Saturday, saying that Trump's ban, quote, violates the First Amendment. I've noticed many Trump detractors on social media calling for a total boycott, saying the wider American news media should turn off the cameras and deny Trump the attention he wants. But I have to say, at the same time, White House reporters want access to Trump and his aides. They want to be able to see what's going on at the White House. They want to be able to inform the public about what's going on. So, that's what this is really ultimately all about, and press freedom groups are united in saying that Trump is trying to restrict the public's right to know, and that that's an unconstitutional and unacceptable infringement. Here's what the group Reporters Without Borders said on Saturday, saying this is all about control, quote, the president is once again spewing lies about fake news to try to control who covers him and where. And here's the National Press Club in a statement saying the president doesn't have that power, quote, the First Amendment does not permit the government to pick and choose which journalists are allowed to do their jobs. And that is what the case law indicates. Courts have ruled in the past that if the White House decides to let some reporters in, then it cannot block others because of their perceived point of view. Now, I'm told that lawyers for the three affected news organizations are working through next steps, and that there will be legal action in the days to come, because this is a very important test for free speech and First Amendment rights in the United States.
STOUT: Adam Rose is the deputy director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He joins us live from Los Angeles. Adam, thank you for joining us here on the program. As reported, U.S. President Donald Trump is banning three media organizations from the White House, including CNN. Can a U.S. president do this?
ADAM ROSE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FOUNDATION: Well, thank you for having me, Kristie. And if I look a little bleary-eyed, your viewers may know it's early in the morning here in the United States, but, really, it's the exhaustion of keeping up with the pace of press freedom violations from this administration. You ask a very practical question here about whether or not this can be done. Now, the law exists in two separate but very unequal places. The reality is that this administration has made any number of attempts to exclude press from access, whether it's to the White House or to the Pentagon, and repeatedly journalists will have lawsuits filed and win. The courts will uphold the First Amendment. They will uphold the right of press access in these situations, and as Brian was just talking about, the way that that is supposed to be applied when there's a limited amount of space. It's not supposed to be the government picking and choosing.
Now, the other place the law exists is in the street, as we say, or in this case, the White House, the people's House. The reality is journalists are not going to barge past the Secret Service. So, we potentially, in that case, could have some sort of constitutional crisis. I don't expect that imminently, but I do expect this to play out in court over the days and weeks ahead in very complicated maneuvering on both sides.
STOUT: Now, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and press in the United States. Give us a history lesson here. Tell us more about what it's designed to protect and how.
ROSE: Sure. Well, the First Amendment is only 45 words, and that includes five different major rights, not just the freedom of the press. So, a lot of interpretation has happened over the generations since it was written almost 250 years ago. It was actually in the 1780s when pen hit paper for that particular amendment. And at that time, we need to think about who they were trying to protect. It wasn't necessarily CNN. They couldn't have envisioned CNN or MS NOW, Politico, Fox News, or the New York Times, or any of these major media outlets the way that we have mass media today. Instead, they were thinking about Thomas Paine and his pamphlets, which were periodically published. They were thinking about Benjamin Franklin and his twice weekly Pennsylvania Gazette. Not only were they thinking about these as sporadic publications, they were thinking about the content of what they are publishing. And let's not forget that that content was calling for the violent, radical overthrow of the government, which indeed happened. Now, Politico, MS NOW, and CNN are nowhere near that revolutionary or that radical. They're quite tame by comparison. So, the idea of the First Amendment is to protect speech regardless of that opinion, and in fact, especially if it is adversarial to the government. That's by design.
STOUT: Now, this latest ban from the U.S. president is likely to face constitutional legal challenges. Tell us what happens next, and what does the timeline look like for this ban to be challenged?
ROSE: Well, everything is sort of catching people off guard right now. I mean, you know, when it was announced over Truth Social the other night, you know, people didn't, even though in the administration, exactly how it would play out. And so when journalists from those outlets showed up in the last 24 hours, they were not allowed in, their credentials were seized, and people could have guessed that from the post that Donald Trump put on social media. But the reality is that there's going to be, in the next few days, and probably by first thing Monday morning, filings by these outlets and their legal representation to demand a injunction from a court or hopefully even a temporary restraining order, which would move even faster, insisting that the pool move forward as it normally does. Now, this is the sort of thing where the federal courts move at their own pace. So, it's not something that is going to necessarily happen within a matter of minutes the first thing Monday morning, but I don't think it's going to take a matter of days either. STOUT: Got it. And President Trump has also threatened to ban additional news organizations. So, are you concerned about a chilling effect that maybe other smaller media outlets would self-censor out of fear that they could be next to lose access?
ROSE: Well, even the largest of the large have self-censored in their own ways. And we can think about how this has already happened in the last year with the Associated Press and how they would not call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, which Trump wanted to rename it, and as a result, they lost access. More recently, we've seen issues with the largest companies on this planet capitulating to Donald Trump renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America. Now, there's all sorts of chilling effects that can happen here. One of the biggest concerns that we have, of course, is that this doesn't just impact you know, large outlets, but it does impact them as well. So, let's focus very, you know, seriously on CNN, which is among the largest of the large, and outlets like CBS, ABC, Fox, all of these others which will potentially have to rethink how they approach the president, lest they feel that they're targeted. And I should mention that we're talking about major corporate media, and one of the really important notes here is that CBS is currently owned by David Ellison, and his dad, of course, is Larry Ellison, briefly last year the richest human being on the planet. They are actively trying to take over CNN and to take ownership of CNN. So, this is the time for people like David Ellison, like Larry Ellison, to speak out and to say, hey, we need to protect the people we want to employ at CNN and the people we already employ at CBS. So, it's a very legitimate impact right now on CNN, but there's certainly a chilling effect, I think, on CBS employees as well.
JONATHAN KARL: At the end of this week of losses and setbacks, Trump made an extraordinary move. He banned three major news organizations from the White House. Over the weekend, journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and “Politico” had their press passes revoked, their access to the White House denied. Trump was perfectly clear why he did it. He doesn't like their reporting. “It's sick,” Trump said. “I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories.” A country that allows people to write, quote, “negative stuff” or anything else that may irritate those in power is called America. The freedom to do so is enshrined in the very First Amendment to our Constitution. And that's where we begin. I'm joined now by Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney for FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an organization that has consistently defended attacks on free speech from both the left and the right. Conor, thank you for being here. Is this going to fly? Is this ban on these press organizations going to fly?
CONOR FITZPATRICK, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION CHIEF SUPERVISING ATTORNEY: No, Jon. The law in this area is clear, and it's been clear for 50 years. In 1977, in a case called "Sherrill versus Knight," the courts held that the White House cannot exclude reporters simply because they don't like their reporting. That has been the law for Democratic presidents. It has been the law for Republican presidents. That law was reaffirmed just last year in the Associated Press case. So what's going on here is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
KARL: So how is it going to play out in the courts?
FITZPATRICK: In the courts, I would expect the courts to very quickly enjoin the -- these three organizations from being ejected from the White House. The precedent on this point is clear. It is nonpartisan. It is unequivocal.
KARL: And why should Americans care whether or not reporters are allowed to go and do their job in the building?
FITZPATRICK: A free press that feels free to criticize our leaders is core to who we are as a country. One of the reasons we split from England was because the British governors and the crown did not let us criticize King George III and his staff. It is core to who we are as a people that we allow the press and open and free press to hold the powerful to account.
KARL: And let's look at what the White House Correspondents Association, Jacqui Heinrich, who is also a FOX News White House reporter and the president, current president of the WHCA, said. She said, "This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the rights of the American people to receive a full and independent account of these activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation's highest office."
FITZPATRICK: That's exactly right. And the key thing here is, Jon, the government isn't supposed to like the press. The press isn't there to make the government happy. The press is there to inform the people, to provide its commentary as it deems appropriate, but it is not there to be a mouthpiece of the government. This isn't Russia, this isn't China, this is America.
KARL: There was something else that Trump said. He said it a couple of different ways, suggesting, first of all, there may be other news organizations that will be added to this ban and that he might bring back those who he has banned if they basically change their, you know, do the right thing. I mean, this seems to be not just targeted at these news organizations, but intimidating others. The chilling effect we've heard in First Amendment cases.
FITZPATRICK: That's exactly right, Jon. It seems that the very clear message here is that report the news in the way we want you to report the news about this administration, or we're going to kick you out. And for those of -- for those who are watching today who maybe don't have a lot of sympathy for the organizations that have been kicked out, I would ask think about a future Democratic administration. Ask yourself if you would be OK with them kicking out FOX News or Newsmax or the "Wall Street Journal," because once you open the Pandora's box of censorship, you can never close it again.
KARL: All right, Conor Fitzpatrick with FIRE, thank you very much for joining us.
FITZPATRICK: Thank you.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico said on Monday that they would sue the Trump administration for barring them from the White House grounds, saying it was a violation of their First Amendment rights to cover the president.
[. . .]
The news organizations said in a joint statement that they had informed the U.S. government they would be filing a lawsuit on Monday.
“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” they said. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
More U.S. service members have died in the Middle East during President Donald Trump’s war with Iran than the administration has disclosed publicly, a bombshell new report has revealed.
Six Defense Department insiders familiar with the agency’s internal casualty accounting data told The Washington Post that there have been at least 22 military fatalities—four more than the 18 reported by the Pentagon on its Defense Casualty Analysis System.
Andre Damon (WSWS) also covers the story:
At least 22 US troops have died in the US war against Iran, the Washington Post reported Friday, four more than the official death toll of 18.
The Post cited six US officials it described as familiar with the Pentagon’s internal casualty accounting data. Five of them put the number of military dead at 22 or more, the Post reported, and the sixth said 23 troops and three American contractors had died since the war began on February 28. The Post wrote that the names of the undisclosed dead, and the dates, places and causes of their deaths, “remain unclear.”
The Pentagon refused to answer the Post’s questions about the uncounted deaths.
The administration is concealing the number of American dead in an illegal war of aggression that it began, together with Israel, in open defiance of international law. The US-Israeli war had killed at least 3,527 people in Iran by August 28, according to a count Al Jazeera compiled from health ministries and other official bodies.
The majority of the US population opposes the war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll taken September 11-14, seven weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, found that 59 percent of respondents disapprove of the US military strikes on Iran.
Chump, who lied to get out of the draft during Vietnam, is now disrespecting those who serve by lying about the number of troops killed. He sent them into his war of choice and yet he can't honor them by noting their deaths? Instead, like the coward he is, he hides their deaths. That is outrageous and it's outrageous that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has gone along with it.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Warren: “Was Secretary Kennedy lying when he said he would make those deals available to us?”
Warren: “Show me the receipts.”
Washington, D.C. — At a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) questioned Chris Klomp, President Trump’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on President Trump’s secret deals with drug companies.
President Trump has bragged about the administration’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) agreements with pharmaceutical companies, claiming that it has reduced prescription drug prices by as much as 600%, which Senator Warren noted would “mean companies should be paying you to take their drugs.” But the deals for prices on that website have still not been released by President Trump or by Big Pharma.
In April 2026, at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Warren pressed HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the deals struck with pharmaceutical companies. When pressed on whether he would publicly disclose the deals, Secretary Kennedy — with Mr. Klomp sitting right behind him — confirmed, “I’m happy to make the deals available.” But Secretary Kennedy has broken this promise.
“Mr. Klomp, was Secretary Kennedy lying when he said he would make those deals available to us?” asked Senator Warren. When questioned about Kennedy’s failure to share these deals with Congress, Klomp refused to explain why the contracts have not been released.
“Show me the receipts,” said Senator Warren. “Five months ago, the Secretary promised that he would deliver those contracts. It’s been five months, and we don’t have them.”
Senator Warren noted that pharmaceutical companies that have made these agreements have represented them in earnings reports as unlikely to affect their financial outlook. Earlier this month, the biotech company Insight Corporation wrote that it does not expect its deal with the Trump administration to “have a material impact on its future financial outlook.” One analyst described Pfizer’s deal as “immaterial,” and Novartis and Roche have made the same representations about their own deals.
The senator also questioned what giveaways Big Pharma companies may have received in exchange for striking these secret deals with the Trump administration. “I want to know what was given away in these contracts,” stated Senator Warren, including whether drug companies received tariff relief, exemptions from drug pricing demonstrations in Medicare, fast-track FDA approval, and higher prices abroad instead of lower prices in the U.S.
“I want to see what the deal is, and until then, you can stop telling us it was all great for the American people, but you just refused to show us the receipts. That’s not how oversight works,” concluded Senator Warren.
Transcript: Hearings to examine the
nominations of Gerard Klomp, of Utah, to be Deputy Secretary, and Ge
Bai, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary, both of the Department
of Health and Human Services, James Gadwood, of Maryland, to be Chief
Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant General
Counsel in the Department of the Treasury, and Andrew A. De Mello, of
Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court for a term of
fifteen years.
Senate Finance Committee
September 15, 2026
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Last year, President Trump and the Republicans slashed health care for millions of Americans. It caused premiums to skyrocket. Americans are now paying the price. And President Trump’s one answer is to say, “Check out the Trump RX website” and the supposedly great deals that he has made with big pharma. So I want to take a look. These deals are secret, but from what we can see, they don’t look so great. That’s why in April, when Secretary Kennedy was here, I asked him if he would make the deals available to the committee. And Mr. Klomp, since you were the Secretary’s chief counselor, you were sitting right behind him when he said, “I’m happy to make the deals available, except for proprietary information and trade secrets.” Now that was five months ago. Since then, I have sent two letters to Secretary Kennedy, asking him to make good on that commitment, but he has not kept his word.
Mr. Klomp, was Secretary Kennedy lying when he said he would make those deals available to us?
Mr. Klomp: Senator Warren, I do not believe he was lying. I believe that we need to make an important distinction between operative policy and internal deliberative materials. The principles of the deals, the frameworks, the results of them, in fact, from a pricing perspective, are fully available—
Senator Warren: I’m sorry, let me just start here. You signed a contract with each of these pharmaceutical companies, right?
Mr. Klomp: Correct.
Senator Warren: I taught contract law for 30 years. I want to see the contracts, and that is what I asked the Secretary for, and the Secretary said he would deliver those contracts. He might cross out certain proprietary information, trade secrets. I’m fine with that. I want to understand the numbers, and the only way I can do that is with the contracts. So where are the contracts?
Mr. Klomp: Senator, the numbers, for example, are freely available. You can see exactly the results of every contract on TrumpRX today.
Senator Warren: No, there are no contracts that are available that I can see who made how much money on what deal. I have your general summary, but that’s not what I asked the Secretary for, and it’s not what the Secretary promised to deliver. In fact, HHS continues to keep every one of these deals secret at the same time the president brags that he has lowered prices by 600%, which would mean, of course, that companies are paying you to take the drugs. Aside from that outlandish claim, if these deals were in fact so good, so profitable for the United States, then I would expect that they would lower Big Pharma’s profits. But what executives are telling their investors is not so much. Earlier this month, the biotech company Insight Corporation wrote in its earnings report that it does not expect its deal with the Trump administration to “have a material impact on its future financial outlook.” An analyst described Pfizer’s deal as “immaterial.” And Novartis and Roche have said the same thing about their own deals.
Mr. Klomp, you and Secretary Kennedy are keeping these pharma deals secret, the companies are saying they are immaterial, and you still want the American people to believe that they are somehow a really great deal for our country? That we’re getting great prices here?
Mr. Klomp: Senator Warren, billions of dollars have already been saved in out-of-pocket transactions through GLP-1s—
Senator Warren: Then show me the receipts.
Mr. Klomp: —infertility, or otherwise.
Senator Warren: Show me the receipts. Why are you hiding these contracts?
Mr. Klomp: We’re not hiding anything. In fact, in the Inflation Reduction Act, you inserted the same provisions as Congress, recognizing that if trade secrets, proprietary information were to be shared, that would compromise the government’s ability to negotiate anything.
Senator Warren: I’m sorry, let me just stop you right there. You say you’re not hiding anything. Five months ago, the Secretary promised that he would deliver those contracts. It’s been five months, and we don’t have them. I would regard that as hidden. So where are the contracts that are so great and going to show how much money you have saved?
Mr. Klomp: Senator Warren, I know that you care deeply about lowering prescription drug prices for Americans.
Senator Warren: I do.
Mr. Klomp: I agree with you strongly on this point. I know that you wouldn’t want to do something that would compromise the U.S. government’s ability to continue negotiating, which we are actively negotiating with other countries—
Senator Warren: No, these are contracts that are already written that I want to see.
Mr. Klomp: But our negotiations—
Senator Warren: And that Kennedy sat there, said he would do. You sat right behind him. Everybody nodded, and nobody did it. Look, I want to know what was given away in these contracts. I want to see whether these drug companies got tariff relief. Did they get exemptions from drug pricing demonstrations in Medicare? Did they get fast-track FDA approval? Did they get the U.S. government not pushing for lower prices here but for higher prices in other countries? I want to see what the deal is, and until then, you can stop telling us it was all great for the American people, but you just refused to show us the receipts. That’s not how oversight works.
Senator Warren has led efforts to push back against Big Pharma and use every tool available in government to lower drug prices:
- In August 2026, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his refusal to release the Trump administration’s secret pricing deals with drug companies and for breaking a promise he made to Warren in a recent hearing. Senator Warren also released a new response from Secretary Kennedy that raises doubts about the accuracy of the Trump administration’s claims of cost savings from the secret pharma deals.
- In May 2026, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), alongside Representatives Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) and Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), reintroduced the Patients Before Monopolies (PBM) Act with expanded bipartisan support, indicating growing momentum for a policy that will prohibit joint ownership of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacies, a gross conflict of interest that enables these companies to enrich themselves at the expense of patients and independent pharmacies.
- In April 2026, Senator Elizabeth Warren pressed Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on multiple commitments she secured during an exchange in a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
- In April 2026, at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Elizabeth Warren pressed Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on TrumpRx, revealing how President Trump’s marquee drug pricing effort often provides higher prices for Americans while boosting Big Pharma’s bottom line.
- In April 2026, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a member of the Senate Finance Committee; Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee; and 18 Senate Democrats introduced new legislation to force the Trump Administration to disclose the terms of deals signed with more than a dozen of the largest pharmaceutical companies and conduct an independent analysis to determine whether American families will see lower prices from the deals.
- In February 2026, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced the Break Up Big Medicine Act to address rampant consolidation in the health care industry that drives up prices, squashes competition, and fuels corporate greed.
- In November 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led 25 Senate Democrats in slamming the Trump administration for its failure to address rising health care costs for American families.
- In June 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) wrote to AbbVie, Pfizer, Amgen, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson, calling them out for taking advantage of tax loopholes created by President Trump’s 2017 tax bill and lobbying for even more tax giveaways.
- In March 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren, along with Senate Finance Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), pressed Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his promises to “clean up corruption” and “stop the revolving door between industry and government,” following reports that Kennedy attended multiple “million-dollar” dinners with Big Pharma executives at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club.
###
