gshc2020.com

Journalists from MS NOW, CNN and Politico were denied access to the White House grounds on Saturday, one day after President Donald Trump said he is banning the three outlets over their coverage of him.

White House reporter Akayla Gardner said MS NOW journalists were blocked from the grounds for the first time Saturday morning.

"Yesterday our journalists were able to stay here working on the White House grounds," she said. "This was the first action we know of them actually denying us entry into the White House."

"The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars," MS NOW said in a statement. "MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy."

MS NOW said it will "continue to report on the President, the administration, and the issues that impact the American people."

CNN reported later Saturday that its journalists were denied access to the White House.

"CNN's mission to report on the U.S. government will continue regardless of any attempts to restrict physical access to the White House and other government buildings, or any other attempts to impede our journalism," CNN said in a statement. "We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault under that right."

The news organization reiterated it "stands fully behind our White House team."

Politico's editor-in-chief, Jonathan Greenberger, emailed the newsroom: "A few minutes ago, our colleague Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House to do her job as a POLITICO reporter. Secret Service denied her entry to the complex and confiscated the pass that allows her access to the White House. We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights."

When asked to respond, the White House referred CNBC to the president's comments yesterday.

On Friday, Trump said in a Truth Social post that those outlets "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America."

"Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow," he added.

Later that day, in the Oval Office, the president said he was imposing the ban in response to "cumulative stories" by the three outlets.

"You get sick of it," he said.

In 2018, Trump's White House briefly tried to suspend a CNN reporter's press pass, and it is currently being sued over an attempted ban of Associated Press journalists from certain spaces.

The AP said on Saturday that it supports the banned media outlets. "No news organization — or person — should be retaliated against by the government over the words they use," it said in a statement.

The White House Correspondents' Association called on the Trump administration to immediately restore the journalists' access, saying the action violates the First Amendment.

"The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably," WHCA president Jacqui Heinrich said in a statement. "That's why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting."

Trump said Friday that the effort to bar news outlets is worthwhile, even if it does not hold up in court.

"I think it's good to point it out whether it survives or doesn't," Trump said.

Arthur Spitzer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, told CNBC that Trump's move to ban what the president himself has called "the free press" is likely unconstitutional.

"He's plainly discriminating against them because they don't like the way they report the news, and the government isn't supposed to do that," Spitzer said, referring to Trump. "Certainly, our view is the president cannot control, or try to control, the news by banning outlets from official events because he doesn't like the way they're reporting on him."

Spitzer represents the ACLU in a case related to Trump's ban of AP journalists from certain government spaces, including the Oval Office and Air Force One.

— CNBC's Kevin Breuninger and Dan Mangan contributed to this report.

Disclosure: CNBC and MS NOW are divisions of Versant Media. %!s()

England won by eight wickets, won series 3-0

Scorecard

England steamrollered Sri Lanka in the third T20 to complete a 3-0 series clean sweep and return to number one in the world rankings.

Watched by new Test coach Stephen Fleming, England once again outclassed the tourists to conclude a one-sided series played on the fringe of autumn.

England's pace bowlers were outstanding in dismissing Sri Lanka for a paltry 124, then the home side chased the target in 9.4 overs.

Jamie Overton conceded only 15 runs in his four overs, including taking a wicket. Sonny Baker's improvement continued with 2-17 and Jofra Archer recovered from an expensive start to return 2-23.

England's fielding was sharp, best demonstrated by Liam Dawson's direct hit to run out Eshan Malinga.

The target was never likely to pose a challenge to an England batting line-up that remains powerful despite Phil Salt and Jacob Bethell being absent injured.

Though opener Aneurin Donald was out for 13, Jos Buttler and Harry Brook strolled the pursuit with a second-wicket stand of 85.

Brook was run out for 33, leaving Buttler to wrap it up with a six that left him unbeaten on 61.

The victory by eight wickets was concluded with 62 balls to spare - the most for England in a home T20 international.

The success was England's 23rd win in 26 completed T20s since Brook took charge in the summer of 2024. They have reclaimed their number one ranking from India.

The pity for this group is a rare lengthy wait until the next global T20 tournament. The next men's T20 World Cup is not until 2028, the same year T20 cricket makes its debut in the Olympics.

England are instead building towards a 50-over World Cup in southern Africa in the autumn of 2027. Three one-day internationals against the Sri Lankans begin in Durham on Tuesday.

A feature of England's success in this format has been captain Brook's heavy use of spin bowling. On this occasion the spinners took a backseat – Adil Rashid and Dawson sent down only four overs between them.

Instead, it was the seamers to the fore, even without the variations of Sam Curran, another England player absent injured.

Baker endured difficult debuts in all three international formats, yet in this series has started to show his potential.

After Archer's first over went for 15, Baker had Lahiru Udara sky to wicketkeeper Buttler. He later returned to wrap up the innings, taking the final wicket when Dilshan Madushanka skied to Brook.

Archer was a spectator for some time after his initial struggle. When he returned, he got the dangerous Kamindu Mendis to pull to deep mid-wicket for 35.

Archer's second wicket was curious – Wanindu Hasaranga out hit-wicket attempting a slog, his bat almost placed on top of the bails.

Overton was the pick, returning his most economical figures when bowling his full allocation of four in a T20 international.

Though Tom Banton dropped a catch slipping on the greasy outfield, England's fielding was otherwise exceptional.

Brook took a sharp catch at mid-wicket to remove Pathum Nissanka for 36, Rashid was alert enough to run out Charith Asalanka and Dawson's direct hit was the coup de grace.

At the age of 29, Donald has been given an international opportunity in this series as a replacement for Salt.

He has shown only glimpses of his excellent domestic form, returning a high score of 21. On this occasion, he tried to wallop the spin of Tharindu Rathnayake over long-on and was stumped by a distance.

In Buttler and Brook, the captains past and present, England have two men in supreme form. Buttler is England's best white-ball batter of all-time, while Brook is on the way to being one of their greats.

Such is their quality, the second-wicket pair turned the remainder of the chase into little more than a glorified net.

Sri Lanka were scruffy – they conceded 17 runs in wides. The hapless nature of the visitors' display was epitomised when Brook should have been caught off Madushanka, only for keeper Kamil Mishara and point fielder Nissanka to look at each other as the ball dropped to the ground.

There was no need for Brook to attempt a single that Hasaranga fielded in his follow-through, the bowler hitting direct with a throw at the non-striker's end.

Buttler won it in the following over, clubbing 18 from four Malinga deliveries, with two maximums hammered over the leg side. %!s()

The crowd filled streets in the Foggy Bottom neighbourhood of the capital on Friday evening, bringing traffic to a standstill as demonstrators made their way to the “Hands Around the Kennedy Center” protest. Many carried signs and some wore costumes, while boos rang out when Trump was mentioned during the programme.

At one point, some protesters linked hands around the building, whose marble facade remained partly concealed by scaffolding and tarpaulins.

Among the most iconic buildings on Washington’s Potomac waterfront, the Kennedy Center has become a battleground over Trump’s bid to assert control over the institution since he returned to office last year, replacing its board with his own appointees and installing himself as chairman.

Chris Raleigh, co-founder of Hands Off the Arts, which organised the rally, said in an interview with The Associated Press news agency that he hoped the turnout would show that people were prepared to push back against Trump’s plans for the building.

The demonstration comes just days after the Trump-installed board voted to close the centre for repairs that are expected to last up to two years. That came hours after District Judge Christopher Cooper quashed the board’s latest attempt to restore Trump’s name to the building.

Last December, the new board added Trump’s name to the building’s facade after the Kennedy Center said its Board of Trustees had unanimously voted to rename the institution in his honour.

A federal judge blocked those efforts in May, ruling that the board had exceeded its statutory authority by unilaterally renaming the Kennedy Center and adding Trump’s name to its facade without congressional approval. Congress had designated the centre as a memorial to the late 35th US President John F Kennedy.

In August, the board tried again to inscribe Trump’s name on the building, this time with wording along the lines of “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump”.

The federal judge scotched the move in September, ruling that it violated his May injunction.

Trump has since declined to rule out demolishing the building, while a federal judge on Thursday ordered the Kennedy Center to give 30 days’ notice before undertaking any major structural changes, including demolition.

Speaking to reporters in North Carolina on Wednesday, Trump argued that his administration deserved recognition for rescuing the Kennedy Center and that without the repairs, the building risked falling into disrepair and ultimately being forced to shut down.

Raleigh said he, like others, is concerned that Trump could move ahead without first notifying the court.

“Look at the East Wing,” he said. “We got up one morning and there was a giant hole there.” %!s()

As a result, concerns have emerged about a retreat from standards intended to protect the public by offering a baseline of conduct for law enforcement officers. The American public is right to worry. Loose hiring standards can put reckless individuals in positions of power.

But ensuring commitment to higher standards in law enforcement recruitment alone cannot solve the police violence problem in the US.

Individual misconduct

Research on police misconduct, which has considerably expanded in the wake of Black Lives Matter and related movements, offers useful parameters to guide how we approach the question of hiring standards.

Studies have shown that most cases of use of force are concentrated among a relatively small proportion of officers, at least in the limited departments that track such incidents. That means there are officers who are repeat offenders and have the tendency to engage in such misconduct.

So can risk individuals be identified before they are hired?

One study of more than 12,000 police applicants found that specific responses on pre-employment psychological evaluations were associated with subsequent excessive force complaints and complaints alleging racial misconduct.

However, another study of 642 first-year police officers found that markers for anti-social and borderline behaviour could predict the likelihood of engaging only in certain types of abuse – namely sexual misconduct.

There is also research that suggests abusive policing and officers’ psychological wellbeing may be intertwined, and that the harms of misconduct may extend beyond targeted civilians, possibly even to the offending officers themselves.

In a sample of 137 active-duty US police officers, approximately 11 percent self-reported engaging in abusive policing. Abusive policing was associated with greater PTSD symptoms even after accounting for adverse childhood experiences and workplace trauma.

The implication of all this is that hiring standards based on psychological profiling should neither be dismissed as irrelevant nor treated as a fully reliable way to eliminate all future risk. Standards should be evaluated according to what they actually predict, what they exclude, and what risks arise when they are removed.

Structural violence

But improper selection of law enforcement recruits is only part of the problem.

The US has an exceptionally high rate of police violence compared with other wealthy democracies. For example, the rate of police killings is 33.5 per 10 million in the US, compared with 9.8 in Canada, 1.3 in Germany, and 0.5 in England and Wales.

That cannot plausibly be explained simply by whom we happen to hire. American law enforcement gives officers extraordinary authority to detain, search, use force and, in some circumstances, take a life.

Those powers operate within institutions that have repeatedly struggled with racial bias, unnecessary antagonism of marginalised communities, and abuses of authority. There is also inadequate accountability for law enforcement misconduct, including through qualified immunity and other legal protections that can make it difficult to hold officers personally liable for certain constitutional violations.

The problem, in other words, is not simply that some individuals enter policing who should not. It is also the system into which they enter, and the organisational cultures, incentives, and practices that can shape how they use the power they have been given.

Reducing police misconduct requires system-wide reform, including greater accountability not only for individual officers but for the agencies and institutions responsible for policing.

Effective policing depends in part on public cooperation. Global research across dozens of countries has linked perceived fairness, procedural justice and trust in police to people’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement.

The credibility of hiring standards can be part of trust-building initiatives, but they must also include broader efforts to strengthen trust and legitimacy among marginalised communities by reducing racial profiling, unnecessary uses of force, and inequitable enforcement of laws.

The challenge is not simply to identify the “wrong” candidates and exclude them, but to build institutions in which selection is accompanied by effective training, supervision, and accountability. Ultimately, the institutions entrusted with extraordinary powers have to be structured to protect the people they serve.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. %!s()