Another day, another loss in federal court for Donald Trump.
The President, seemingly from nowhere, launched a fresh war against the media last weekend by banning journalists from CNN, MS Now (formerly known as MSNBC), and from the White House – something the news outlets claimed violated their constitutional rights.
In court, Trump’s lawyers tried to claim that the media had been banned from the White House because of pressing national security concerns. It did not go down well: unsurprisingly, the administration failed to show why journalists – who had worked from the building for years – might create a threat to the President’s safety.
Could drinking in the stands be coming back?
Andy Burnham has described laws which prevent drinking alcohol in view of the pitch at football stadiums as “discrimination” and suggested a change could be trialled.
PM says football fans ‘singled out’
The Prime Minister told reporters: “I don’t think it’s fair for football fans to be singled out.”
The Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) said the “outdated” legislation should be reviewed, while police chiefs have urged against relaxing the law and want to meet Burnham to “explain the challenges”.
Why the ban was brought in
The law was first brought in in 1985 for English and Welsh football grounds under Margaret Thatcher’s government.
- At the time, then-home secretary Leon Brittan said that alcohol was a “major contributory factor in violent and disorderly behaviour” at football matches.
Not an official policy
The BBC reported that Government sources said Burnham was giving an opinion he has long held, rather than making an official policy announcement.
The Government is not taking the PM’s comments as a sign that he is looking to change the law.
4 min read
3 min read
Changes could make policing harder
A UK Football Policing Unit (UKFPU) spokesman said changes could pose “challenges” to policing.
“Other sports simply don’t see the violence and criminal behaviour from their supporters that football does, albeit a minority, with alcohol often playing a significant part in violent and disorderly behaviour,” he added.
AI hacks Australian government – what to know
The Australian government has revealed that an autonomous AI agent hacked a government website in what may be the first known incident of its kind.
A research task gone wrong
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters in New York yesterday that the AI agent, which was developed by OpenAI, was carrying out a research task on health and medical statistics when it accessed both public and non-public health data.
- Australia’s deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, said that as part of its research, it approached the Medicare portal for information, but when it was denied, it hacked the portal to get the information anyway.
OpenAI slow to inform Australian government
Albanese said the AI company had taken “way too long” to inform the Australian government about what had happened, with it only being made aware on 10 September. The incident occurred in June.
OpenAI says it is still investigating, but found no evidence that patient records had been accessed and remains “committed to transparency”.
2 min read
5 min read
Albanese calls for ‘urgent global guard-rails’
The announcement came less than a day after the Australian PM co-signed a joint statement with 21 other countries, including Germany, Spain and Canada, pressing for “urgent global guard-rails” on frontier AI models, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Channel migrants set to be processed in ex-Navy sea fort near Portsmouth
A former military sea fort could be converted into a processing site for small boat arrivals in Hampshire as migrants make more dangerous journeys across the English Channel to reach the UK.
What to know
The i Paper understands the Government has prepared contingency proposals to deal with arrivals further down the South Coast from Kent.
No final decision has been made by the Government on converting Fort Blockhouse in Gosport, near Portsmouth. It is also understood it would be a temporary facility.
4 min read
4 min read
Anti-asylum protests
An aborted attempt to use Fort Blockhouse to land 50 asylum seekers sparked protests in the town on Tuesday. Police were forced to protect coaches carrying asylum seekers after hundreds of anti-migrant protesters massed at the site.
- Six arrests were made. Police are also “conducting enquiries” after far-right activist Daniel Thomas filmed himself slashing the side of a dinghy with a rescue crew member still on board.
Criticism of the plans
- Zoe Huggins, Conservative leader of Gosport Borough Council, described the fort as unsafe and logistically not viable.
- She said that access on and off the peninsula by two narrow roads created an “easy target” for protesters to blockade coaches transporting migrants, as happened in the Portsmouth riots earlier this month.
- Huggins said that they had heard about the plans through “informal channels”, adding: “It is outrageous that Government can review arrangements like this without talking to the local council.”
The Government response
A public planning inquiry into the proposals is due to be held after Gosport Borough Council and Caroline Dinenage, Conservative MP for Gosport, called for greater transparency from ministers.
A Government spokesperson said: “The Border Security Command works around the clock to protect our border and will continue to detain, check and process every small boat arrival.”
The nine doomsday essentials you will be officially told to stockpile at home
People will be advised to stockpile a number of items to prepare for war or other emergencies as part of the UK government’s biggest public awareness campaign for decades.
Why you should make an emergency stockpile
While there is no new or imminent threat to Britain from war, the ongoing “grey-zone” activity by Russia, the biggest El Niño weather event for centuries and the risk of an AI-linked accidental power cut, have all raised concerns the British public should be better prepared.
Here are the nine items in the Government’s suggested emergency stockpile list.
2 min read
3 min read
Torches, power banks and radios
Battery or wind-up torch
It is recommended to get a torch as they are safer than candles.
Portable power bank
For charging your mobile phone in a power cut.
Battery or wind-up radio
To get updates during a power breakdown – a car radio can be used, but in severe weather it might be safer to stay inside.
Batteries, first aid kits and hand sanitiser
Spare batteries
For torches and radio and a backup battery for any medical equipment you rely on.
A first aid kit
This should contain items like waterproof plasters, bandages, a thermometer and antiseptic.
For hygiene purposes when the water is off.
Bottled water, non-perishable food and baby supplies
Bottled water
A minimum of 2.5-3 litres of drinking water per person per day is recommended by the World Health Organisation for survival.
Non-perishable food
This shouldn’t need to be cooked. Remember food for your pets and a tin opener.
Baby supplies
Make sure you have nappies and baby formula.
Judge overturns Trump’s White House media ban
A court has issued a temporary restraining order against Donald Trump’s banning of three news organisations from the White House press pool.
The context
CNN, MS Now and must have their access restored for 14 days after a District of Columbia court ruled the move “likely violated their constitutional due process rights”.
- The three media outlets began a legal challenge after their journalists had their White House passes withdrawn. The Trump administration justified the move in court, claiming the organisations published false information and threatened national security.
Why the court overruled Trump
Judge Timothy Kelly ruled the outlets were “likely to succeed” in proving the White House had not exercised “adequate due process” in enforcing the ban.
- Kelly cast doubt on the administration’s arguments that the bans were for national security as Trump did not mention this in his original announcement.
- He also pointed out that “in most cases,” the stories that the Trump administration had taken issue with were written by journalists who “did not even hold card passes”.
- In its original filing, the White House cited statements from officials of the Department of War supporting the ban, but Kelly said they had “no direct knowledge of how reporters operate in the White House, or about any of the facts at issue here”.
The Trump exodus is growing. His allies are running scared
US commentator
With midterm elections a few weeks away, some Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the US President and his unpopular war.
On Thursday morning, district court judge Timothy J Kelly ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore the journalists’ access to the White House, expressing scepticism over whether an “interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation” behind the revocation of their passes.
The statement was cutting, particularly from a judge who was appointed to the bench by none other than Trump himself.
The President had seemed aware he was on to a loser with this issue, telling reporters earlier in the week that he was likely to lose in court, and – as he often does – blaming the judge for that, even in advance of the hearing.
Trump had certainly made things difficult for himself by making it clear when he arbitrarily banned the outlets that he was doing so because he was unhappy with their reporting. The President, who has long railed against the “fake news media”, suggested they might be allowed back in if “they can get better”.
The US media enjoys powerful protections from the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression and religion, and which contains specific protections for journalists. Beyond that, previous court rulings had found that White House reporters had rights under the Fifth Amendment – which guarantees US citizens due process – against having their passes arbitrarily withdrawn.
If Trump was looking for a fight with the media – perhaps as a distraction from his conflict in the Middle East, or his plunging popularity at home – this was an odd one to pick, as it’s a fight he seemed certain to lose in court.
Indeed, as more details emerged about the supposed grounds for Trump kicking the reporters out of the White House, it started to look even worse for the President.
The White House issued a list of stories that it said had led to the outlets being banned from the premises. In the case of one CNN reporter, though, one of the stories was months old, and her press credentials had been renewed by the Trump White House after it was published, raising the question of why it had caused no problems then if it was apparently so egregious now.
Some of the stories that supposedly used anonymous sources leaking potentially classified information turned out to be the result of authorised briefings on background – a term for a situation in which outlets are allowed to use the information but not name the official who told them.
The outlet even suggested that one of the authorised off-the-record sources for one of the “offending” articles was Vice President JD Vance, meaning the President was trying to ban media outlets for reporting information his own deputy had given them, with permission.
If Trump’s team was hoping to suggest that the journalists’ reporting threatened US national security, they had no actual evidence to back up that case, which was not exactly a surprise given that most of the stories appeared to originate from authorised briefing calls.
Given that both the facts and the legal precedents were on the media’s side, the judge ruled in their favour. Perhaps Trump will appeal this, too, and set himself up for yet another Supreme Court showdown, that even with this court he would probably lose.
It is the latest in a string of setbacks Trump has faced when he has tried to cite national security as a reason he should get whatever he wants.
The old White House bunker was located under the East Wing, which Trump demolished to make way for his ballroom. When that ballroom faced legal challenge, Trump was assured that construction on the new bunker could continue during that case, because it was necessary for national security. With his characteristic opportunism, Trump began claiming that the entire ballroom was a military complex, making outlandish claims about how it would double as a drone hub and a base for snipers.
Trump took this even further with his planned triumphal arch, suggesting the monument – which would be uplit at night to avoid collisions with planes – would also house snipers and drones, and would be used as an ammo storage site. Why ammunition should be stored in a national monument located next to a cemetery, he was unable to say.
The President seems to believe the idea that saying “national security” will – like “open sesame” in the stories – get him whatever he wants. When it comes to getting annoying journalists out of his White House, at least, he has been disappointed once again.
Key context
- Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the US Department of Justice, said in court that the White House had revoked press passes for news outlets MS Now, and CNN because “access to the White House is a privilege, not a right”, claiming the organisations had published information that could harm national security
- The three media outlets launched joint legal action, claiming the ban “threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference”. Forty-nine news organisations – including CBS News, and Fox News – filed a legal brief in support of the lawsuit, and major TV networks suspended White House pool coverage in protest
- Federal judge Timothy Kelly said in his judgment: “The sorts of stories defendants identify in the letters to plaintiffs are routine. And as discussed further below, the court is sceptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes.”