‘Hypocrite’ Obama Slams Trump Media Ban Despite His Own Fox News Clash

Former President Barack Obama blasted President Donald Trump’s decision to bar three major news organizations from the White House, saying such a move would have been “unimaginable” during his own presidency.

But Obama’s remarks are drawing renewed attention to his administration’s contentious history with Fox News — including a 2009 attempt to exclude the network from a round of interviews with a senior administration official.

The two episodes are not identical, however, and Trump’s latest action goes considerably further.

Speaking Friday, September 18, during a conversation at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, Obama criticized Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House access. Colgate confirmed Obama appeared on campus as part of its Family Weekend programming.

“My imagination could not foresee some of the stuff that is going on right now,” Obama said.

“I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, you know what, Fox News, you’re out of here,” he added. “It’s unimaginable.”

Video of Obama’s remarks was posted by C-SPAN on X.

Obama went on to argue that public acceptance of restrictions on news organizations raises broader questions about Americans’ understanding of democratic institutions.

His comments came hours after Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be permitted inside the White House.

Trump accused the three organizations of repeatedly publishing what he described as “fake news” and said the decision reflected years of coverage rather than any single article or broadcast. He also suggested additional news organizations could eventually face similar restrictions.

The threat quickly became reality.

On Saturday, September 19, reporters for CNN, MS NOW and Politico arrived at the White House and discovered their credentials had been deactivated. CNN reporter Betsy Klein, MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner and Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett were among those denied entry, according to reports from The Associated Press and Reuters.

The affected organizations condemned the decision and indicated they could pursue legal action.

Obama’s criticism, however, revived scrutiny of his own administration’s aggressive relationship with Fox News during his first year in office.

In October 2009, the Obama administration repeatedly questioned whether Fox should be treated in the same manner as other major news organizations.

Then-White House communications director Anita Dunn described Fox as operating largely as an arm of the Republican Party, while other senior Obama officials publicly questioned the network’s status as a traditional news organization. Contemporary reporting from CBS, PBS and the Pew Research Center documented the increasingly hostile relationship.

That dispute eventually moved beyond rhetoric.

On October 22, 2009, the Treasury Department arranged a series of interviews with Kenneth Feinberg, who was overseeing executive compensation at companies receiving federal bailout money.

Fox News was initially excluded from the interviews even though the other members of the five-network television pool were invited.

The Washington bureau chiefs for CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC refused to participate unless Fox was included.

Faced with the united opposition, the administration reversed course and Fox participated in the interviews. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press documented the confrontation at the time.

That incident makes Obama’s latest Fox News comparison more complicated, but there is an important difference.

The 2009 dispute involved an effort to keep Fox out of one set of interviews with a particular administration official. Fox was not stripped of general access to the White House grounds, and the effort collapsed after other networks protested.

Trump’s 2026 action involves the broader revocation of White House access for reporters working for three entire news organizations.

The Obama administration also faced separate press-freedom controversies later in his presidency.

In 2013, the Justice Department came under intense criticism over investigative tactics involving journalists during leak investigations, including efforts to obtain news organizations’ records.

The backlash prompted Attorney General Eric Holder to order a review of Justice Department policies involving the media.

The department subsequently adopted stronger protections, saying subpoenas, warrants and other investigative measures involving journalists should generally be considered extraordinary steps and used only after reasonable alternatives had been exhausted.

The controversy surrounding Trump’s current ban is now likely to move into familiar First Amendment territory.

A major precedent is the 1977 federal appeals court ruling in Sherrill v. Knight.

That case did not establish an unlimited constitutional right for every journalist to enter the White House. But the D.C. Circuit ruled that once the government establishes press facilities for journalists, access cannot simply be denied arbitrarily, and journalists denied credentials are entitled to procedural protections.

More recently, the D.C. Circuit reiterated in a 2025 decision involving White House press access that the press area is considered a nonpublic forum. That means the White House may impose reasonable access rules, but those restrictions must remain viewpoint-neutral rather than being imposed because officials dislike a journalist’s reporting.

That distinction could become central if CNN, MS NOW or Politico challenges Trump’s order in court.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has also condemned the restrictions, arguing that independent news organizations must be able to scrutinize government officials regardless of whether those officials approve of their coverage.

For Obama, meanwhile, the controversy has created an uncomfortable historical comparison.

His administration never imposed the type of broad White House ban now facing CNN, MS NOW and Politico. But its 2009 fight with Fox News shows that battles over presidential power and media access did not begin with the current dispute — and that attempts to single out disfavored outlets have generated backlash from journalists across administrations.