Trump bans CNN, MSNOW & Politico from White House, New York Times & Washington Post 'next to come'
Credibility score: 41/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Trump bans CNN, MSNOW & Politico from White House, New York Times & Washington Post 'next to come'" and rated it 41/100 for credibility (a BS score of 59/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-19. Its weakest claim — "Claims he won the popular vote and all seven swing states." — scored 0/100. 30 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
The interviewer asks about Trump's intent to ban CNN, Politico, and MSNBC from the White House. — Mixed Credibility (75/100)
Just a straightforward question about a public statement. Nothing tricky here. 🔥
Trump deflects the question about banning media by claiming he upholds the First Amendment 'much more so' than the interviewer. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
Dodging the question with a personal attack and a vague claim of constitutional fidelity. Classic misdirection. 😈
Trump justifies banning media by labeling them 'fake news' and citing their 'no good' ratings. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He declares them 'fake' and 'no good' like it's an objective truth, not a subjective opinion. That's not a reason, that's a decree. 💀
Calling MSNBC "MSDNC" and claiming Politico got $8M from Biden to stay afloat — pure partisan framing. 😈 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's using a derogatory nickname for MSNBC and a specific, unverified funding claim for Politico to dismiss them entirely. — That's not analysis, that's a hit job. 💀
Claiming 'nobody' has entered the country illegally in 17 months — a bold, easily disproven lie. 🔥 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He says 'nobody' like it's a fact, but border crossings are a constant, documented reality. — That's not a claim, that's a delusion. 💀
Claiming drug costs were lowered by '50 60 70%' and the media won't report it fairly — vague numbers and a pre-emptive excuse. 🍒 — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
He throws out huge, vague percentages without a single specific drug or policy. — Then blames the media for not reporting his unverified 'success.' 😈
Dismissing a past court challenge by claiming the reporter 'discredited himself' and 'became a joke' — avoiding the legal precedent. 💀 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's sidestepping the actual court ruling that went against him by attacking the reporter's character. — The legal challenge still stands, regardless of the reporter. 🔥
Demands courts ban 'fake news' and restrict access for 'false stories.' — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's just asserting what courts *should* do, not what they *can* do legally. That's not how the First Amendment works. 💀
Demands courts ban 'fake news' and allow media to be kept away for 'false stories'. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's talking about legal rights and court rulings like he's a judge, not a politician with an opinion. 💀
Claims he won the popular vote and all seven swing states. — Mixed Credibility (0/100)
He's claiming he won the popular vote and all seven swing states. That's a flat-out lie, and it's been debunked a million times. 🔥
Claims a 'landslide' victory and criticizes Fox News for 'worst polls'. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
A 'landslide' is a subjective term, and then he pivots to Fox having 'the worst polls' — a convenient dismissal when they don't align. 😈
Dismisses Fox News polls as 'the worst' because they've 'been calling me wrong for 10 years'. — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
He's calling Fox's polls 'the worst' because they don't flatter him. That's not analysis, that's a tantrum. 😈
Labels CNN and MSNBC 'fake news' and claims Politico was 'bailed out' by the government. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
Calling major outlets 'fake news' is a common tactic. The Politico 'bailout' claim is vague and lacks specifics. 🚩
Claims Politico was 'bailed out' by the government with a 'massive subsidy' for writing negative stories. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's vague about the 'bailout' and 'subsidy' for Politico, then links it to negative coverage. Convenient. 🚩
Reiterates that 'fake news' outlets should not be allowed access due to lack of credibility. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's just repeating the same 'fake news' argument, using it to justify restricting access. It's a loop. 😈
Trump claims 96% negative coverage and still won, equating victory with credibility loss. — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
He's connecting 'negative coverage' directly to 'no credibility' and his win. One doesn't automatically cause the other, mortal. 😈
Claiming 96% negative coverage and winning proves media has no credibility — a classic non-sequitur. 😈 — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
He's equating negative coverage with a lack of credibility, then using his win as 'proof.' That's not how cause and effect works, mortal. 💀
Claiming 'everything's been a victory' and drug price reductions of '40 50 60 70 80%' — a vague, unquantified flex. 🔥 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's throwing out massive, escalating percentages for drug price reductions without a single specific example or source. That's not data, that's just noise. 😈
Trump claims media never writes good stories and ignores his 40-80% drug price reduction. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
A 40-80% reduction in drug prices is massive. If that were true, it would be front-page news. The confidence here doesn't match reality. 💀
Claiming the right to bar media from 'the people's house' — a selective interpretation of access. 💀 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's asserting control over 'the people's house' to exclude media, ignoring the public interest in press access. That's not a home, it's a public office. 😈
Trump asserts he doesn't have to let media into the 'people's house'. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's claiming ownership of the 'people's house' to justify restricting access. It's a public space, not his private club. 😈
Claiming 'more accessible than any president in history' while criticizing a 'previous administration' — a classic comparison without specifics. 🚩 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
She's making a sweeping claim about 'any president in history' and vague jabs at 'previous administrations' without any actual data. That's just vibes, not facts. 😈
Speaker claims Trump is more accessible than any president, contrasting with previous administration's press conferences. — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
Calling him 'more accessible than any president in history' while ignoring his history of limiting press briefings and revoking credentials? That's a selective memory, mortal. 🍒
Accusing the press of asking Biden about 'favorite flavored ice cream' after a year and a half without a press conference — a straw man argument. 🍒 — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
He's reducing all press questions to one absurd example to dismiss their entire body of work. That's not an argument, that's a distraction. 💀
Speaker claims Biden went a year and a half without a press conference and was only asked about ice cream. — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
Biden held press conferences. And 'favorite ice cream' was a single, lighthearted moment, not the sum total of all questions. That's a pathetic straw man. 💀
Dismisses China's repression of journalists by claiming the US is also repressive. 💀 — Mixed Credibility (20/100)
Compares China's state-sanctioned repression of journalists to US 'fake news' — that's not how this works. 😈
Brags about the demand for a dinner, claiming thousands would attend if the venue was bigger. 🙄 — Mixed Credibility (50/100)
Turns a state dinner into a flex about his popularity, claiming 'thousands' would come if he had the space. Classic. 💅
Claims China was paying 'a lot of tariffs' and he raised them to 145% but lowered them to avoid 'hurting them badly.' 🚩 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
The 145% tariff claim is wild. Tariffs are paid by importers, not directly by China, and that number is just... not real. 💀
Calls NYT and WaPo 'fake news' and 'crummy papers' — pure loaded language. — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He's just slinging insults like 'fake news' and 'crummy papers' without a shred of evidence. That's not a critique, it's a tantrum. 😈
Claims NYT and WaPo are 'fake news' and 'disgusting' — then says they 'haven't taken the step of throwing them out.' Volume game. 💀 — Mixed Credibility (45/100)
He declares them 'fake news' and 'disgusting' with full chest, then quietly admits he hasn't actually banned them. Classic loud claim, quiet retraction. 🔥
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →