President Donald Trump’s escalating battle with the national media has exploded into a full-blown legal showdown after his administration barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the White House — a move prominent Republicans are now publicly defending.

Trump announced Friday that the three organizations would no longer be permitted inside the White House, accusing them of repeatedly publishing what he described as “fake news” and unfair coverage of his administration.

By Saturday, the threat had become reality.

Reporters from all three organizations were denied entry to the White House, with some saying their credentials had been deactivated or confiscated.

Now Republicans are lining up behind the president, arguing that news organizations do not have an automatic right to coveted access inside the White House complex.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., defended Trump during an appearance Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“There are literally thousands of media outlets in America,” Scalise said.

Scalise pointed to the obvious physical limitations of the White House press operation, arguing that only a fraction of America’s news organizations can operate from inside the complex and that the administration has authority over who receives that access.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, also defended Trump’s decision, pointing to what he described as years of inaccurate and unfair coverage of the president.

Other Republicans have made a similar argument: barring reporters from physically entering the White House does not prevent CNN, MS NOW or Politico from continuing to report on the Trump administration.

And Trump has indicated the crackdown may not end with those three organizations.

“Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” Trump wrote.

Asked about other organizations that could potentially lose access, Trump criticized The New York Times and The Washington Post but stopped short of announcing additional bans.

The media organizations targeted by Trump aren’t backing down.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking restoration of their White House access, arguing that the administration retaliated against them because it objected to their journalism.

The organizations are seeking a temporary restraining order that could quickly force the constitutional fight before a federal judge.

“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the organizations said in a joint statement.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has also pushed back.

WHCA President Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News anchor, called on the administration to restore the organizations’ access, arguing that allowing the government to exclude journalists because officials object to their reporting could establish a precedent affecting other news organizations.

And the criticism isn’t coming exclusively from Trump’s political opponents.

Some prominent conservatives have openly broken with the president over the decision.

Former White House press secretary and Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer argued that conservatives should confront media organizations they believe are biased rather than remove their access.

“Argue and defeat them,” Fleischer said. “Don’t ban them. Or one day they’ll ban us.”

Fox News contributor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly called excluding disfavored media organizations from the White House a “terrible precedent and practice.”

The showdown is the latest front in Trump’s continuing fight with the national press.

Early in Trump’s second term, the White House took control over decisions involving which journalists participate in the presidential press pool — a responsibility traditionally handled by the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The administration also previously restricted Associated Press access following a dispute over the organization’s decision to continue using the name Gulf of Mexico while acknowledging Trump’s executive order renaming it the Gulf of America.

That dispute also landed in federal court.

And there is significant history surrounding fights over White House press credentials.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, his administration revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass following a contentious exchange with the president.

CNN sued.

A federal judge subsequently ordered the White House to temporarily restore Acosta’s credentials while citing due-process concerns.

An even older case could also loom large over the current fight.

In the 1977 case *Sherrill v. Knight*, a federal appeals court held that once the White House establishes press facilities, decisions involving credentials are subject to constitutional protections and cannot be made arbitrarily.

That precedent could become a major issue as CNN, MS NOW and Politico attempt to convince a federal court that Trump’s latest restrictions crossed a constitutional line.

For Trump and his Republican defenders, the argument centers on whether any particular media organization is entitled to special physical access to the White House.

For the three news organizations, the issue is fundamentally different: they contend the government cannot selectively revoke access in retaliation for reporting it dislikes.

Now that fight is moving from the White House briefing room to a federal courtroom — where a judge could determine just how far a president can go when deciding which journalists are allowed through the gates.

The Biden family is facing another round of scrutiny — this time after a former Democratic insider revealed that Ashley Biden threatened her with legal action over allegations involving the 2024 presidential campaign.

Lindy Li, a former Democratic fundraiser with deep ties to the party’s donor network, says Ashley Biden threatened to sue her after Li began publicly alleging that Democratic officials and people close to former President Joe Biden concealed concerns about his condition while he was seeking reelection.

“They wanted to scare me. That was the goal,” Li told Fox News Digital.

Li, who previously raised money for Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democrats, details the confrontation in her new book, “Unburdened.”

According to Li, the clash erupted in February 2025 after she began speaking publicly about what she described as serious internal concerns surrounding Biden’s age and his ability to continue campaigning for another term.

Li has since become one of the Democratic Party’s most outspoken former insiders, alleging that senior figures failed to adequately confront concerns surrounding Biden before he ultimately abandoned his reelection campaign.

Ashley Biden strongly disputed Li’s allegations and threatened legal action in a since-deleted Instagram post, according to screenshots Li provided to Fox News Digital.

Li described the tone of the message as so aggressive that it “bordered on parody.”

According to Li, Ashley Biden called her a liar and asked whether she was “ready for a lawsuit.”

But the threatened courtroom showdown never happened.

Li said the Instagram post disappeared roughly a day later, and no lawsuit was ultimately filed.

Li also challenged Ashley Biden’s apparent claim that she did not know her. She provided Fox News with photographs showing the two women together on multiple occasions.

“Doesn’t even pass the smell test,” Li said.

Li’s accusations carry added significance because she was not simply an outside observer of Democratic politics.

Before her break with the party, she operated inside influential Democratic fundraising circles, working with major donors and Democratic National Committee officials while helping raise money for both Biden and Harris.

According to Li, everything changed when she began publicly questioning whether Biden should remain the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.

Li said she appeared on Fox News host Shannon Bream’s program on the same day Biden ultimately announced that he was ending his reelection campaign. During the appearance, Li argued that Biden needed to step aside.

“When I went on Shannon’s show to say Biden needs to step aside — and three hours later he did — my access immediately vanished and all my fears about speaking up were justified,” Li told Fox News.

Before that, Li said, she had been invited to White House events as frequently as every few weeks.

After she spoke out, she said those invitations stopped.

Li has characterized the abrupt loss of access as retaliation for her criticism. Fox News reported her account but did not independently establish that she was deliberately punished for speaking out.

The legal threat from Ashley Biden also prompted Li to consult attorneys.

According to Li, her lawyers did not believe a lawsuit was likely to move forward. She said one attorney suggested litigation could potentially open the door to discovery involving internal discussions about the former president.

Li maintains that her public statements about Biden and the Democratic Party were truthful and says she still does not know what specific statement Ashley Biden believed could form the basis of a legal case against her.

The episode adds another chapter to the continuing dispute over what Democratic officials and Biden’s inner circle knew about concerns surrounding the former president during the 2024 campaign — and how those concerns were handled publicly.

Biden ended his reelection campaign on July 21, 2024, following weeks of mounting pressure from fellow Democrats after his June debate against Donald Trump. He endorsed Harris shortly afterward, and she became the Democratic nominee before losing the November election to Trump.

But Biden’s withdrawal did not end the controversy.

Former aides, journalists and Democratic officials have since offered differing accounts of what senior figures knew, when they knew it, and whether concerns surrounding Biden were adequately disclosed to voters.

Li’s account now puts a deeply personal dimension on that broader dispute: a former Democratic fundraiser says that after she began speaking publicly about what she witnessed, the president’s own daughter threatened to take her to court.

The lawsuit never came.

Retiring Democratic Rep. Jared Golden is breaking ranks with his own party again — this time by endorsing a Republican in one of the most closely watched House races of the 2026 midterms.

Golden, who represents Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, announced his support Monday for Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, delivering a rare cross-party endorsement as Lawler fights to hold onto his Hudson Valley seat against Democratic challenger Cait Conley.

Golden made his case in an opinion piece published by The Journal News, arguing that his firsthand experience working alongside Lawler convinced him that the Republican deserves another term.

The endorsement is particularly notable because Democrats are actively trying to defeat Lawler and capture his seat as part of their broader effort to win control of the House.

Golden is going in the opposite direction.

Rather than automatically backing his party’s nominee, the retiring Democrat pointed to Lawler’s bipartisan record and their work together in Congress as the reasons he is supporting the Republican incumbent.

The endorsement is also the latest example of Golden separating himself from Democratic leadership.

Earlier this month, Golden crossed party lines on procedural votes connected to legislation affecting the lobster industry as well as a package of sanctions against Russia.

Now he is taking the considerably more unusual step of endorsing a Republican congressional candidate over a Democrat.

Golden specifically highlighted Lawler’s work on collective bargaining rights for federal employees and Affordable Care Act premium tax credits.

But one issue appears to have carried particular weight for the Maine Democrat: the lobster industry.

Golden and Lawler worked together on the Northeast Lobstermen Protection Act, legislation designed to extend the current regulatory framework governing the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries through 2035.

The legislation centers on a long-running dispute involving federal protections for the endangered North Atlantic right whale and the regulations imposed on commercial fishing operations in response.

For Maine, where the lobster industry represents an important part of the state’s coastal economy and identity, the issue has carried enormous political significance.

For Lawler, whose district is in New York’s Hudson Valley, there was far less obvious political upside.

That was precisely Golden’s point.

Lawler joined Golden in championing the legislation despite representing a district without Maine’s direct economic dependence on lobster fishing.

The House ultimately approved the measure in a bipartisan 219-196 vote on September 1. The legislation was subsequently sent to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Golden argued that Lawler’s involvement demonstrated the kind of cross-party cooperation he believes has become increasingly uncommon in Washington.

“He got no votes in this and no headlines back home,” Golden wrote. “He signed on because a historic American industry, thousands of fishing families, and the principle that federal rules should be built on facts were all on the line.”

The endorsement carries additional significance because Golden himself has developed a reputation for departing from his party on some high-profile votes and policy disputes.

He announced last year that he would not seek a fifth term in Congress, meaning he is making the endorsement during the final months of his House career.

Golden has said political hostility and dysfunction contributed to his decision to leave Congress, and his endorsement of Lawler centers heavily on his stated belief that lawmakers should be willing to work across party lines.

Lawler represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, a politically competitive Hudson Valley seat that both parties view as important in the fight for control of the House.

The district supported Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election even as voters returned Lawler to Congress, underscoring its competitive political makeup. Current race ratings have likewise treated the Lawler-Conley contest as highly competitive.

That makes Golden’s decision particularly consequential politically.

This isn’t an endorsement of a Republican running in a district Democrats have effectively conceded.

It’s an endorsement in a seat Democrats are actively trying to flip.

And it comes from a sitting Democratic member of Congress.

Golden’s decision therefore gives Lawler something relatively uncommon in today’s deeply divided political environment: a Democratic colleague publicly making the case for his reelection.

Golden’s reasoning ultimately comes down to what he says he personally witnessed while serving alongside Lawler.

The two lawmakers worked together on legislation that directly affected Golden’s constituents even though Lawler had relatively little immediate political incentive to become involved.

For Golden, that was enough to cross party lines once again.

This time, however, he isn’t simply joining Republicans on a congressional vote.

He’s asking voters in one of America’s competitive House districts to send one of them back to Washington.