OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump Rails Against CNN's Kaitlan Collins at UN

6 sources · updated 2026-09-24
Left 67% Center 0% Right 33%
2 left · 0 center · 1 right

What happened

On Tuesday morning at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, President Donald Trump told CNN chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins, "You should not be here covering me," after she asked, citing a poll that two-thirds of Americans do not think the United States is winning, when the U.S. war with Iran would end. Trump said he was "surprised" CNN was present and that she had said the network would not cover him; Collins replied that the United Nations had allowed CNN in, and later said on air that CNN never said it would stop covering him and "will continue to cover the president despite their efforts to block CNN from the White House grounds." Last Friday Trump announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House over what he called false stories; it took effect Saturday when Secret Service officers confiscated those outlets' press passes, and on Monday the three sued in U.S. District Court in Washington alleging First Amendment and Due Process violations. Four of five networks in the White House television pool consortium said they would suspend pool coverage of Trump's New York trip because CNN was blocked from its assigned slot. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who in November 2018 ordered restoration of then-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's White House credentials, directed the Justice Department to respond Tuesday and set a Wednesday hearing; Trump said he expected Kelly to rule against him because the judge is "not a particularly fair judge."
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 2
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: President Trump and President Donald Trump
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 2
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 2
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 23, 13:47 UTC by The Hill, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage is more complete on the legal stakes, because it places Trump's UN rebuke on the same day a federal judge ordered the Justice Department to defend his White House ban. CNBC reports the outlets' First Amendment and due process claims and has Trump calling Judge Kelly "not a particularly fair judge." Right-leaning coverage notes a lawsuit at most, without the judge, the hearing, or those claims. Left-leaning coverage puts Collins's prompt in the scene: she had asked when the war with Iran would end before he turned to her presence. Right-leaning coverage, as in Breitbart, leads with Trump roasting her for covering him and never states what she asked. Did CNN ever say it would stop covering the president, the claim Trump used to tell Collins she should not be there?
Bottom line

If you only read the roast, you missed CNBC's account that a judge had Trump's Justice Department answering a CNN access suit the same day he told Collins she should not be at the UN.

The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
  • Judge Kelly ordered the Department of Justice to respond Tuesday to the outlets' injunction request and scheduled a teleconference hearing for Wednesday legal rulingin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning sources described Trump as having lashed out at, snapped at, and ripped Collins while railing against media "sleazebags," framing the episode as an attempt to decide which outlets may cover him even off White House grounds. They highlighted Collins's insistence that CNN would keep reporting "despite their efforts to block CNN from the White House grounds" and the outlets' statement that they sued "to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes." Coverage stressed the Justice Department's deadline to defend the ban, the pool's suspension, Trump's remark that Judge Kelly is "not a particularly fair judge," and White House talking points to congressional Republicans that the First Amendment "does not entitle certain outlets and members of the press to a hard pass, briefing room seat, or place in the press pool" and that "fabricating facts or reporting verifiable falsehoods from inside the White House complex is an intentional breach of professional decorum."
The Right View
Right-leaning sources cast Trump as roasting or zinging Collins for covering him after CNN, Politico, and MS NOW were banned for "'reporting' FAKE NEWS." Breitbart quoted his line that CNN "shouldn’t be covering" him and that she had said it would not, then his comments that it was an honor to be at the United Nations and "Our country is doing really, really well," and noted Collins had shared the pool chair's statement that the TV pool would not cover designated events because the White House prevented CNN from its assigned duties. OAN said Trump slammed Collins and other reporters as "fake news" after the ban, "prompting many to decline to cover official events," and headlined the episode with the words "Sick, treasonous and demented!"
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that a president may not exclude news organizations from covering official and international events based on dislike of their reporting, resting on the outlets' First Amendment lawsuit, Collins's denial that CNN ever refused coverage, the U.N.'s admission of the network, and the 2018 Acosta credential restoration by the same judge. The right's strongest argument is that White House and pool access is not a constitutional right and may be withdrawn from outlets the administration accuses of fabricating stories, resting on Trump's "FAKE NEWS" justification, talking-points language that the First Amendment does not confer a hard pass, and the networks' own withholding of pool coverage. The central unresolved tension is whether physical access to the president at government and U.N. events is a First Amendment entitlement the executive cannot condition on the content of coverage, or a privilege that can be denied to organizations the president labels as reporting falsehoods.

6 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.