By Lucretia Hughes

WASHINGTON — Former President Barack Obama is facing accusations of hypocrisy after criticizing President Donald Trump for barring CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House while overlooking his own administration’s efforts to exclude Fox News and aggressively investigate journalists and their sources.

Speaking Friday at Colgate University, Obama questioned how the country would have reacted if he had removed Fox News from the White House during his presidency.

“I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘Fox News, you’re out of here,’” Obama said, later calling the idea “unimaginable.”

The remarks came after Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be permitted inside the White House because of what he described as their repeated publication of “fake news” and deliberately negative coverage of his administration.

Reporters from all three organizations were denied entry Saturday, and their White House press credentials were deactivated or confiscated, according to The Associated Press.

Obama’s criticism quickly drew attention to a similar confrontation during his own administration.

In 2009, the Obama White House attempted to exclude Fox News from a group interview with Kenneth Feinberg, who served as the Treasury Department’s special master for executive compensation. The administration abandoned the effort only after other television networks reportedly refused to participate unless Fox News was included.

Obama officials also openly questioned whether Fox News should be treated as a legitimate news organization, with senior adviser David Axelrod and then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel characterizing the network as an extension of the Republican Party.

The Obama administration’s actions against the press extended well beyond disputes over physical access.

In 2013, the Justice Department acknowledged secretly obtaining telephone records covering approximately 20 Associated Press phone lines as part of an investigation into the disclosure of classified information. The records involved calls made by reporters and editors in several offices, including the AP’s Washington bureau.

Federal investigators also obtained the communications records of Fox News reporter James Rosen during a leak investigation. A government affidavit described Rosen as a possible criminal co-conspirator because he communicated with a confidential source, although Rosen was never charged.

Former New York Times reporter James Risen faced years of legal pressure to identify a confidential source connected to his reporting about a failed CIA operation involving Iran. The Justice Department ultimately decided not to force him to testify about the identity of his source.

The Obama administration also brought more prosecutions against government employees and contractors accused of leaking classified information than all previous administrations combined at that time.

A 2013 Committee to Protect Journalists report described the administration’s campaign against unauthorized disclosures as the most aggressive since the Nixon era. Several government sources prosecuted during the Obama years received prison sentences, although available evidence does not support the broader claim that Obama directly jailed journalists merely for publishing unfavorable stories.

That distinction matters. Journalists were not imprisoned simply for criticizing Obama, but reporters were subjected to surveillance, secret records seizures and government pressure designed to uncover their confidential sources.

The controversy also highlights a broader debate over the difference between press freedom and guaranteed physical access to the White House.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press, but it does not automatically grant every reporter unrestricted access to the president or White House grounds. Courts have ruled, however, that established press credentials cannot be revoked arbitrarily or as punishment for a journalist’s viewpoint without due process.

Trump has defended his decision by arguing that organizations knowingly publishing false information should not receive privileged access to the White House.

“They purposely write negative news,” Trump said while announcing the restrictions. “They do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration.”

The affected organizations have condemned the ban and indicated that they may pursue legal action. They argue that excluding journalists because of unfavorable coverage constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Obama framed the dispute as a warning about the condition of American democracy. His critics, however, say the former president’s comments ignore an inconvenient record from his own eight years in office.

The central issue is no longer whether presidents have clashed with hostile news organizations. Presidents from both parties have restricted access, challenged unfavorable reporting and pursued investigations involving the press.

The issue is whether the public will apply the same constitutional standard regardless of which political party controls the White House. Obama’s attempt to present the exclusion of a hostile outlet as “unimaginable” is difficult to reconcile with the documented actions of his own administration.

Original article