The White House cited a Politico story based on an unnamed official’s comments as part of its case for banning the outlet from the White House. But the administration’s own role in those comments has raised questions about its explanation for the ban.
On Tuesday, the White House pointed to six Politico stories that it said “threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods,” The Washington Post reported. One was a June article quoting an unnamed administration official.
The White House suggested Politico relied on unauthorized leaks. But the official gave the comments during a background briefing the White House had authorized, according to the subscription newsletter Status.
Status reported that the official was Vice President JD Vance.
Trump announced in a social media post Friday that he was banning not only Politico, but CNN and MS NOW because he didn’t like their reporting. A judge early Thursday ordered that Trump temporarily restore access while legal action continues.
The administration’s case against Politico centered heavily on a June report regarding U.S. negotiations to end conflict with Iran. Trump publicly condemned the article, alleging a “senior administration official” had leaked classified information to reporters.
However, The Post reported that the White House was fully aware of the official’s identity, as the comments were delivered during an official White House press briefing conducted on background.
The revelation triggered a swift social media backlash, with critics directing sharp criticism at Trump and Vance and mockingly suggesting the vice president himself should be barred from the White House.
“So if Trump’s defense in the banning of Politico and others in the federal lawsuit is they are a National Security risk, wouldn’t that make Vance the main source of being a National Security risk? Shouldn’t he be “banned” instead from the White House?” a Threads poster pointed out.
“The call is coming from inside your house,” another user joked.
This commenter said simply, “clown show.” Another was just as concise: “Well, this is embarrassing…”
U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled that Trump probably violated the Constitution when he banned the outlets because he didn’t like their reporting.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from violating the freedom of the press. That means journalists and media organizations can report and publish news without fear of government censorship or retaliation.
Trump said in announcing the ban on the three outlets that it was over “fake news” and national security threats. That’s also what Justice Department lawyers argued Tuesday, after the outlets filed a joint lawsuit against Trump’s action.
“Defendants may lawfully deny access to Plaintiffs because the President has concluded they fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of professionalism,” the DOJ argued according to USA Today.
Agency lawyers also added that the president thinks those standards translate into “calling, asking for comment, and providing a reasonable opportunity for a response.”
But Kelly said he found no evidence the ban resulted from national security concerns.
In the DOJ’s response to the outlets’ lawsuit, it cited examples of stories it says “threatened national security.”
USA Today reported those stories include security details around Trump’s new ballroom, the levels of U.S. munitions stockpiles, and Trump’s war on Iran.
Well this is embarrassing..
JD Vance Outed as Anonymous Source Behind Story Trump Used to Justify Banning Politico: Report https://t.co/a3w7xRCXT5 via @@YahooNews
— Larry
(Not indicted, not on the list) (@Dolphinlarry) September 24, 2026
