Obama’s “Unimaginable” Claim Backfires

Madelyn Dunham speaks into a microphone — Photo: Everett Collection / Shutterstock

Barack Obama mocked President Trump’s press ban even though his own White House once tried to sideline Fox News from key interviews.

Story Highlights

President Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House access over “fake news” claims.
Obama said it would have been “unimaginable” if he had told Fox News to “get out of here”.
Records show Obama staff sought to exclude Fox News from interview access in 2009 before backing down.
Courts have warned the White House against viewpoint-based bans once press access is opened.

What Triggered The Clash: Trump’s Ban And Obama’s Jab

President Trump announced on September 18, 2026, that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico would be barred from the White House due to what he called “fake news” coverage of his administration. Reporters from those outlets soon faced denied access and seized credentials, marking a sharp expansion of a long-running fight over media bias and press access. Barack Obama then weighed in, saying it would have been “unimaginable” had he told Fox News to “get out of here,” a line that drew strong reactions across the spectrum.

Trump has argued for years that some outlets publish stories that are purposely negative or false. He framed the ban as a consequence for repeated misreporting, not as a blanket attack on the press. Supporters see it as overdue pushback against activist journalism that smears conservatives. Critics call it retaliation that crosses a constitutional line. The split reflects a deeper struggle over whether access is a privilege earned by fair dealing, or a right once the White House opens its doors to the press.

Yes, There’s History: Obama’s 2009 Fox News Fight

Obama’s swipe at Trump revived memories of 2009, when the Obama administration sought to keep Fox News out of a multi-network interview pool, only to reverse course after other networks objected. Emails from that time showed a staff request to “skip Fox,” and later comments confirmed a willingness to exclude Fox from newsmaking interviews, even if only for a time. That episode did not become a permanent ban, but it undercuts claims that Democratic administrations would never attempt such exclusions.

Conservatives remember that period well. They point to the effort to box out Fox as proof that selective access games did not start with Trump. They also note that government pressure on disfavored outlets, even brief, sends a chill. Obama’s recent line about how “unimaginable” it would be to eject Fox lands as revisionist to many on the right. The record shows attempts to sideline Fox happened, even if they were walked back under media pushback.

What The Law Says: Access Rules, Not Viewpoint Retaliation

Federal courts have warned that once the White House opens facilities to journalists, it cannot deny access on arbitrary or viewpoint grounds. Judges have ordered access restored when bans appeared tied to content or perceived viewpoint, emphasizing standards and due process for press passes. That does not mean the White House must answer every question or grant every interview, but it does mean rules must be neutral, published, and fairly applied, not a moving target for political payback.

Legal fights over access are not new, and they do not cut only one way. Courts have recognized the president’s ability to choose interview subjects and manage limited space. But they have also signaled that punishing a news outlet for its viewpoint crosses the First Amendment line. If Trump’s ban is defended as neutral policy, it will turn on the written standards. If it is tied to content, courts may again step in to block it, as they have in other press-access disputes.

Why This Matters To Readers: Bias, Fair Play, And Consistency

Americans want honest reporting, not coordinated spin. When a president pushes back on hostile coverage, many cheer. But when any White House, left or right, uses access as a weapon, it risks trampling the First Amendment and invites courtroom defeats. Obama’s team tried boxing out Fox and retreated under pressure. Trump’s team says it is drawing a line against false reporting. The real test is whether the rules are viewpoint neutral and applied the same to everyone.

For conservatives, the hypocrisy stands out. Obama now acts shocked at the idea of ejecting a network he once tried to sideline. For everyone, the core principle remains: free speech and a free press check government power. Demand fairness from newsrooms. Demand clear, even-handed rules from the White House. If standards are public and neutral, access fights cool. If they look like payback, courts, and the public, will push back hard again.