Betsy Klein, a veteran CNN correspondent, described a similar experience that occurred about an hour later. She said that a White House security officer, whom she has known for years, informed her that her badge had been deactivated.

“I asked if he had any more details he could share with me,” Ms. Klein said in an on-air interview. “He said I should be referred to the White House press office for more information.”

Cheyenne Haslett, a reporter at Politico, was also denied access to the White House on Saturday morning, according to a note to staff from Jonathan Greenberger, Politico’s editor in chief, that was described in the publication’s Playbook newsletter….

First Amendment experts said Friday that Mr. Trump’s media ban was unlikely to survive a legal challenge, because the president explicitly connected his decision to bar CNN, Politico and MS NOW to the content of their reporting. That’s “textbook viewpoint discrimination,” Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said, referring to a kind of First Amendment violation that courts have historically disallowed.

In Mr. Trump’s first term, the White House lost a similar legal battle after it revoked the press pass for the CNN reporter Jim Acosta, whose credentials were later restored.

Erik Wemple and Michael M. Grynbaum at The New York Times (gift link): Trump Has Tried to Ban Reporters From Government Spaces Before.

The Trump administration has repeatedly moved to ban reporters from the White House and other government property.

In January 2025, Mr. Trump tried to bar Associated Press journalists from parts of the White House, including the Oval Office and Air Force One. The A.P. has sued to restore its access, but that case remains in litigation; in the meantime, A.P. photographers have had continued access to the Oval Office. Its print journalists have had more limited access.

Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, has also placed limits on reporters’ access to the Pentagon, including a requirement that all journalists be accompanied by an official escort while in the building. The Pentagon also closed the work space used for years by journalists with credentials to cover the military. The New York Times sued over the restrictions, and the litigation continues.

Dasha Burns, Will Steakin, and Adam Wren at Politico: Inside the White House media ban.

Donald Trump reupped his battle with the “FAKE NEWS” media on Truth Social Friday, banning CNN, MSNOW and POLITICO for reporting “LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States,” with “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

POLITICO called sources in and around the administration to find out why — after months of low approval ratings for the president and his signature issues — now?

In My Arms, by Tita Costa

Here’s what POLITICO learned.

Many senior staff were surprised by the directive, which happened while chief of staff Susie Wiles was out of town, and weren’t aware it was coming until they saw the post, according to three people close to the White House with knowledge of conversations in the West Wing.

One person said Trump previously tried to ban certain media, at one point even trying to put the press in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, but was talked down.

On Friday the press shop was blindsided and unsure of how to respond, with one aide simply pointing back to Trump’s Truth Social post.

Even so, they’re taking it seriously.

“It’s real and permanent as far as POTUS is concerned,” the person said.

Over a dozen current and former Trump White House White House officials POLITICO called, texted and Signaled — granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations — were also puzzled by the development. Other key White House officials reached out to us unsolicited to say it was a head scratcher.

Trump spoke with reporters in the Oval Office Friday shortly after the post at a pre-scheduled event on healthcare. He took questions, but didn’t offer much beyond decrying the “fake news,” adding that “cumulative stories” prompted the move.

Perhaps the incident will be filed away as one of Trump’s seemingly spontaneous eruptions that staff struggle to explain, from his fascination with genetics to his hatred for windmills.

But perhaps not. A second person close to the White House said there’s already been discussions about adding more outlets to the ban. Trump himself on Friday cited The New York Times and The Washington Post as possible additions.

Commentary on Trump’s Greenland Agreement

Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Jeffrey Gettleman, and Anton Troianovski at The New York Times (gift link): U.S. Has Reached Security Deal on Greenland, Trump Says.

President Trump said on Friday that his administration had reached a deal with Denmark and Greenland to expand the U.S. security presence in Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory, raising the possibility of a diplomatic solution to a U.S.-made threat that nearly upended the Western alliance.

The full contours of the deal Mr. Trump was describing were not immediately clear, but shortly after his announcement, leaders of Greenland and Denmark issued statements indicating they expected an agreement to be signed next week during the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The two sides described the agreement in very different terms. Mr. Trump claimed the United States had secured “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland, while the Danish prime minister said the deal “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Cat in a Cardboard Box by British artist Ruskin Spear (1911–1990)

That description would mean the agreement fell well short of Mr. Trump’s longstanding demand of total control over Greenland.

Instead, what Mr. Trump described on Friday was a deal that would prevent U.S. adversaries from having a base on Greenland and expand the U.S. military presence in the territory. In his social media post, Mr. Trump said that under the deal, “no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.”

Officials from Denmark and Greenland did not immediately confirm that the United States had received such veto power — a U.S. demand that they had strongly opposed in closed-door negotiations in recent months. And two people close to the negotiations said Mr. Trump’s declaration of permanent control over Greenland’s security exaggerated the degree of new powers the United States would get over the territory. The U.S. military will be working with its counterparts in Denmark and Greenland under the agreement rather than asserting control over them, a U.S. military official said.

Still, the apparent deal, reached after months of high-stakes confidential talks with officials from the United States, Greenland and Denmark, could mark an off-ramp to an issue that caused widespread concern among NATO allies earlier this year.

PBS News Hour: What’s in the Greenland agreement between U.S. and Denmark.

Geoff Bennett:

Late today, President Donald Trump announced a deal had been struck with Denmark and Greenland. Mr. Trump has long coveted the mineral-rich island which has been part of the kingdom of Denmark since the 1700s. On social media, Mr. Trump wrote that the deal — quote — “gives the United States permanent control over security and all other needs in Greenland, completely addressing all of our many U.S. concerns. There will be no cost to the United States.”

With us here to unpack this late-breaking development is Nick Schifrin.

So, Nick, what’s in this deal?

Nick Schifrin:

Geoff, reminder that the U.S.-Greenland pressure has caused a rift between the United States and Europe and really led to questions in Europe about whether the United States was an ally. And so this was a huge deal when the president started this.

And I have talked to U.S. and European officials just in the last few minutes, and both sides seem to be happy. That’s the real headline here. So let’s look at what’s exactly in this deal.

The top line is this. It provides U.S. permanent basing, access and overflight rights. What does that mean? The U.S. can create new bases on Greenland. It can fly over Greenland and it can keep that ability no matter what Greenland chooses for its own political future in any kind of self-referendum.

Number two, it bans non-NATO bases. That means no Russia, no China bases are allowed on Greenland. There’s also this part, the third part, a screening mechanism for investments. That means no Chinese or Russian investments.

And, in return, this last point that is really key for Greenland and Denmark, the Greenland population can choose its political future. That means that they can choose to be independent, which some people on Greenland want to be. And no territory of Greenland is transferred to the United States.

And that, again, was the core of the rift. The president didn’t say, we want a little bit more access to Greenland. He said, we want Greenland. And that is a real — was a real threat to European sovereignty. And that’s why the Europeans tonight are breathing a sigh of relief, in addition to the U.S. officials saying this is a good deal.

Oliver O’Connell, Max Matzaand, and  Adrienne Murray at BBC:  Nato welcomes Greenland deal as Trump says it will give US ‘permanent security control.’

The US and Denmark have announced a deal on Greenland’s security, resolving a diplomatic dispute sparked by President Donald Trump’s threats to seize it by force.

Nato said the deal would help stabilise the region, as Trump said Denmark would grant the US “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in the semi-autonomous Danish territory.

A New Day (2021) by Catalan artist Ramiro Fernandez

The leaders of Denmark and Greenland welcomed the deal to “strengthen security”, which they said was expected to be signed next week, but did not outline its contents.

The deal comes after months of threats by Trump to “take” Greenland over national security concerns, citing its strategic location for defence purposes and its mineral wealth.

No text of the agreement has been released. Trump said the deal came with “no cost to the United States” and would grant it the ability “to do what is necessary” to “secure and defend the security of Greenland”, in a post on Truth Social.

He said it included a rule that no US adversary could maintain a military presence in Greenland or “make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval”.

A Nato spokesperson said the military alliance welcomed the deal, which would “help advance security, stability and cooperation in this vital region”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was “pleased that there is a prospect of a good agreement” for all three parties, which was expected to be signed at the UN General Assembly next week.

The deal “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area” while also recognising “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination”, she said in a joint statement with Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen.

The agreement would still need to go through “the necessary parliamentary procedures to enter into force” once signed, the statement noted.

Iran War Developments

Rachel Dobkin at The Independent: More troops have died in the Iran War than Trump’s administration has revealed: report.

More American troops have died in the Iran War than President Donald Trump’s administration has revealed, according to a new report.

At least 22 service members have been killed in the conflict, five U.S. officials familiar with the Pentagon’s internal casualty accounting data told The Washington Post.

The estimate accounts for four more than the 18 military fatalities posted on a public government database known as the Defense Casualty Analysis System, according to the Post….

Country Life, by Louis Wain

A sixth U.S. official who spoke to the Post said 23 troops have died in the Middle East during the war, but noted that not all of the undisclosed fatalities are directly tied to the conflict.

As of Friday, the Pentagon’s database showed seven hostile and seven non-hostile deaths during the U.S. military campaign against Iran, which it has dubbed “Operation Epic Fury.”

An additional four hostile deaths were listed in a separate category called “Overseas Operations” that started on July 7 — around the time when a fragile ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran collapsed.

It appears that this may be an effort to avoid paying death benefits for the “non-hostile” deaths.

Eric Schmitt at The New York Times (gift link): Cost of Iran War Estimated at $43.6 Billion.