By Abdul-Hakim Shabazz
IndyPolitics.org
September 23, 2026
Can you imagine an elected official literally banning media he or she doesn’t like from their news conferences and other media events? Well, I can, because it was me five years ago.
In October 2021, Attorney General Todd Rokita held a press conference on robocalls. It was billed as credentialed media only, with an RSVP required. I RSVP’d and showed up with the Statehouse media badge I’d carried for years. A staffer at the door told me I wasn’t credentialed. On the way over, his press secretary had emailed suggesting I watch the livestream. Afterward, the office described me as a gossip columnist rather than an actual journalist.
I asked in writing for the criteria the AG’s office used to issue media credentials. I also filed a public records request for them. I’m still waiting on both.
So in February 2022, the ACLU of Indiana filed Shabazz v. Rokita in federal court in Indianapolis. About five weeks later, the case ended in a stipulated dismissal: Rokita agreed to let me in on the same terms as everyone else. There was no judgment, no finding, and no fees for my side. The General then wrote an op-ed saying the dismissal freed up office resources. OK.
Fast forward to 2026.
On Friday, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he was “banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW … and Politico” from the White House, “effective immediately.” By Saturday morning, the Secret Service was taking hard passes from reporters at the gate. On Monday, those outlets sued in federal court in Washington. Reading their complaint over coffee this morning felt like rereading my own, only with better lawyers.
The two cases share a structure. A credentialed reporter is shown the door by an official who doesn’t like the coverage. There are no written standards, no notice, and no hearing, and the reporter is offered a livestream as a consolation prize. Both complaints make the same point about that livestream. The real work happens before and after the podium: the hallway question, the aide who stops to clarify a number. You can’t do that from your couch.
There are two big differences.
The first is candor. In my case, we had to infer the motive. We pointed to the fact that in 2018 Rokita had objected to me moderating a U.S. Senate debate, because he wanted conservatives, not “liberal” media figures. The “not a journalist” line gave him cover, because on paper that’s an argument about status, not viewpoint. The President offered no such cover. He called the move “the ban on the free press.” When asked for a specific reason, he said it was “cumulative stories over the last two years.” He complained the coverage was “one-sided” and “never good.” Lawyers wait their entire careers for a defendant to explain his motive that clearly.
The second is scale. I was one guy barred from one office. This is three national outlets locked out of the entire complex, more than 60 hard passes at two of them alone, and a promise of “other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”
Now the sober part, because I don’t buy my own press, and I don’t buy anyone else’s either. The networks are on strong ground over the hard passes and the grounds. D.C. Circuit precedent going back to the 1970s says you can’t pull a reporter’s pass without standards and due process. They are on weaker ground over the press pool. Last year, the same circuit let the White House keep the Associated Press out of the Oval Office and Air Force One, reasoning that those spaces aren’t a public forum at all. Expect the government to lean heavily on that.
I also don’t expect Trump to fold the way Rokita did. Asked whether the ban would survive in court, he said it “depends on the judge you get.” That means this case may produce the ruling mine never did.
When I sued, people asked if it was personal. It wasn’t. My point then was that if an official can ban one reporter for coverage he dislikes, he can ban any of them. At the time that sounded like a hypothetical. It doesn’t anymore.
Same suit, different day.
Abdul-Hakim Shabazz is the editor and publisher of IndyPolitics.org and an attorney licensed in Indiana and Illinois. He was the plaintiff in Shabazz v. Rokita, and he still hasn’t received those credentialing criteria.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
