Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said Wednesday that Karoline Leavitt, who served as press secretary in the Trump administration, would have counseled President Trump against his recent decision to bar several news organizations from White House access.
Speaking on The Hill's "Rising," Scaramucci said, "A John Kelly would have told him not to do that. I actually think a Karoline Leavitt would have told him not to do that, because it's going to backfire." He was referring to the exclusion of MSNBC, CNN, and Politico from White House grounds.
Scaramucci criticized the lack of internal pushback, stating, "It looks like there's a bubble around the president. They're more or less letting him do what he wants, or whatever the reactions may be. And there's nobody pushing back on him and saying, 'Here are the consequences.'"
The president's move to strip the three outlets of their hard press credentials is now facing a legal challenge. During a hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, indicated that "due process wasn't followed here," signaling potential trouble for the administration's action.
The three news organizations filed a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds after being denied access over the weekend. In a show of solidarity, the five major television networks that participate in the rotating pool covering the president's daily activities have withdrawn from that arrangement.
Trump has long had a fraught relationship with the press, frequently accusing outlets of dishonest reporting. On Monday, he denied that his actions amounted to an "assault" on the media, even as the legal battle loomed.
The case has drawn attention from media advocates and political figures. Some have pointed to the Newsmax CEO urging Trump to reverse the ban, while others have drawn parallels to past controversies. The judge's comments suggest the administration may struggle to justify the ban under existing legal standards.
Scaramucci's remarks echo a broader concern among some Republicans that the president's media strategy could alienate even his supporters. As the lawsuit proceeds, the White House has not indicated whether it will reconsider its position.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how future administrations interact with the press, particularly regarding access to the White House. Legal experts note that while the president has broad discretion in many areas, the First Amendment imposes limits on viewpoint-based restrictions.
For now, the three outlets remain barred, but Wednesday's hearing suggests the judiciary may not let the ban stand without a fight. The judge's pointed observation about due process could be an early sign of how the court will rule.
