Sean Spicer Rips CNN’s Abby Phillip Over Trump Media Ban

Sean Spicer and CNN anchor Abby Phillip traded sharp words online after the former White House press secretary accused the network of showing a “double standard” over President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

The public feud erupted Saturday, September 26, after Spicer weighed in on a discussion about whether former President Joe Biden had also restricted journalists’ White House access during his administration.

Spicer argued that outrage over Trump’s move was selective.

“Yes, Biden stripped the press passes of 440 independent journalists,” Spicer wrote on X while responding to a clip featuring Phillip and New York Post reporter Lydia Moynihan.

But that comparison quickly became the center of the dispute.

Phillip responded by pointing to fact-checking that found Biden’s 2023 policy was significantly different from Trump’s decision to single out three news organizations.

“Lol @Seanspicer, Google is free!” Phillip wrote.

So what actually happened?

In 2023, the Biden White House changed the eligibility requirements for permanent White House credentials known as “hard passes.”

Those passes allow journalists to enter certain White House press areas without needing an escort. Existing passes expired, forcing reporters to reapply under newly established requirements.

The rules required applicants to meet several conditions, including working for a news organization, obtaining accreditation through a congressional or Supreme Court press gallery, maintaining a Washington-area address and having used White House access for work within the previous six months.

The number of journalists holding hard passes subsequently dropped substantially. One reported count showed 442 fewer credentials, while court filings put the reduction at roughly 500.

However, fact-checkers found that the journalists were not simply banned from the White House.

Reporters without permanent credentials could still request temporary day passes, although those passes involved additional restrictions and required escorts.

A federal appeals court later upheld the Biden-era credential rules, finding them to be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

Spicer nevertheless argued that the 2023 changes unfairly affected independent journalists.

“Name another time when the WH ‘expired’ all the badges and then changed the criteria to ensure independent journalists could not qualify,” he wrote.

He then directed his criticism at Phillip and CNN.

“The only reason you care now is because it’s CNN,” Spicer wrote. “When it’s someone else, your concern for press freedom & the 1st Amendment is harder to find than a Trump supporter on CNN.”

The exchange comes amid a much larger legal battle over Trump’s attempt to remove CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds.

Trump announced the ban on September 18, saying on Truth Social that the three organizations were being barred “effective immediately” because of what he described as their repeated publication of “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.

He also warned that other media organizations could face similar action.

Journalists from the three organizations were subsequently denied entry to White House grounds.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico responded by suing the Trump administration on September 21.

The organizations argued that removing their journalists because of their reporting violated constitutional protections under the First Amendment as well as their Fifth Amendment due-process rights.

The administration has defended the restrictions and argued that White House access can be limited, including on national-security grounds.

The dispute quickly produced a major development in federal court.

On September 24, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the White House to temporarily restore access to journalists from all three organizations.

Kelly issued a 14-day temporary restraining order while the lawsuit continues.

Importantly, the ruling did not represent a final decision that Trump’s entire media policy violates the First Amendment.

Instead, Kelly found that the news organizations had demonstrated a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the government revoked their credentials without adequate due process.

“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” Kelly wrote.

The judge also expressed skepticism about the administration’s argument that national security justified the restrictions, noting that Trump publicly focused on what he considered inaccurate or negative coverage when announcing the ban.

Reporters from CNN, Politico and MS NOW were eventually allowed back onto White House grounds following the order.

Kelly’s involvement also carries some history.

The Trump-appointed judge dealt with another major White House press-access dispute during Trump’s first term. In 2018, Kelly ordered the administration to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House credential after it had been revoked.

The current fight remains unresolved.

Reuters reported September 25 that although the administration complied with the temporary order restoring access, litigation over whether the White House can permanently exclude the three organizations is continuing.

That unresolved court battle is what makes the Spicer-Phillip argument more than another social-media feud.

Spicer’s broader argument is that journalists and major media organizations did not react strongly enough when Biden tightened credential requirements in 2023.

Phillip’s counterargument is that the situations are materially different: Biden established new eligibility rules affecting the credential system broadly, while Trump explicitly named three news organizations and said he was banning them because of reporting he considered false.

For now, the federal court order means CNN, MS NOW and Politico can once again access the White House — but the larger legal fight over how much authority a president has to restrict news organizations is far from finished.