President Donald Trump’s war on biased media erupted Monday when the White House yanked a Wall Street Journal reporter from a Scotland trip press pool, as the Daily Mail reports. The move followed a salacious report claiming Trump penned a risqué birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. This administration isn’t playing games with outlets peddling what it calls fake news.
The White House barred the Journal reporter after the outlet published a story about a 2003 letter, allegedly signed by Trump, featuring a hand-drawn naked woman and a suggestive birthday greeting to Epstein. The administration slammed the report as “fake” and “defamatory.” The Journal’s press pool privileges for Trump’s Scotland trip were promptly revoked.
Trump is jetting to Scotland on Friday for a five-day visit to his Turnberry and Aberdeen golf courses. He’s also set to meet U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to hash out a potential trade deal. The Journal’s absence from the press pool underscores the administration’s tight grip on media access.
The White House Correspondents’ Association cried foul, calling the Journal’s removal “deeply troubling.” “Government retaliation against news outlets based on the content of their reporting should concern all who value free speech,” said WHConnecting president Weijia Jiang. Her pearl-clutching ignores the administration’s right to counter what it sees as slanderous attacks.
Jiang also demanded the Journal’s reinstatement to the press pool for the Scotland trip. Her plea reeks of entitlement from a media class used to unchecked access. The White House, however, prioritizes loyalty to truth over coddling reporters.
Trump’s team didn’t stop at barring the Journal; they filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the outlet and its owner, Rupert Murdoch. The suit, slapped with labels of “false” and “malicious,” seeks a jury trial and hefty damages. It’s a bold swing at a media giant, but the courts may not play ball.
The lawsuit landed with Judge Darrin Gayles, a Barack Obama appointee, which could spell trouble for Trump’s legal gambit. Seeking $10 billion in damages, the suit accuses the Journal of defamatory reporting over the Epstein letter. Yet, navigating a courtroom under a skeptical judge might cool Trump’s righteous fury.
The White House justified the Journal’s ouster, with spokesperson Karoline Leavitt telling Politico, “Due to the Wall Street Journal’s fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board.” Leavitt added that countless news organizations vie for Trump’s coverage. The administration’s cherry-picking of press access shows who’s really running the show.
This isn’t the first time Trump’s team has flexed its muscle over the press pool. In February, the Associated Press got the boot for refusing to adopt Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. That move, like the Journal’s ban, signals zero tolerance for media defiance.
The Associated Press remains locked out of restricted White House events, with an appeals court ruling still pending. The Trump administration’s control over the press pool, once managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association, has shifted firmly to the executive. This centralization ensures only compliant outlets get the golden ticket.
The Wall Street Journal report detailed a supposed “bawdy” 50th birthday card from Trump to Epstein, ending with, “Happy Birthday -- and may every day be another wonderful secret.” The inclusion of a hand-drawn naked woman raised eyebrows, but the White House dismissed it as pure fiction. The Journal’s gamble on this story backfired spectacularly.
Trump’s Scotland itinerary includes high-stakes talks with Starmer, where a U.S.-U.K. trade deal is on the table. His golf courses in Turnberry and Aberdeen serve as a backdrop for this diplomatic push. The media circus, however, threatens to overshadow the mission.
The White House’s decision to exclude the Journal reflects a broader battle against perceived media bias. Leavitt’s claim that “every news organization in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump” isn’t just bravado -- it’s a jab at outlets desperate for relevance. The administration’s selective press pool is a calculated checkmate.
The $10 billion lawsuit, while audacious, faces a steep climb in court. Judge Gayles, with his Obama-era roots, may not take kindly to Trump’s aggressive legal play. Still, the suit sends a clear message: mess with Trump, and you’ll pay a price.
The White House Correspondents’ Association can wail about free speech, but their outrage feels hollow when media outlets publish unverified bombshells. Trump’s administration is rewriting the rules of press access, and the Journal’s ouster is just the latest chapter. In a world of woke narratives, this president’s fighting back with unapologetic gusto.
