US Vice President JD Vance was allegedly the anonymous senior administration official behind a Politico report that the White House later cited as an example to justify stripping the outlet of its press access, media newsletter Status reported Wednesday.
The identification adds a new element to the dispute over President Donald Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. The administration accused the outlets of publishing false or misleading reporting and, in Politico's case, pointed to six articles that it said had threatened national security or spread falsehoods.
One of those articles, published in June, quoted an unnamed "senior administration official" who assessed the likelihood of reaching a preliminary agreement with Iran at between 80% and 85%. According to Status, the official was Vance, who had spoken to reporters during a background briefing authorized by the White House. Status was not a participant in the call and therefore was not bound by the briefing's anonymity agreement, the publication said. The White House declined to comment on Status's identification of Vance.
The Washington Post separately established that the remarks did not originate from an unauthorized leak. The Post reviewed a White House invitation to the briefing and a recording of the call, reporting that a White House aide instructed participating journalists that the discussion was "on background, attributable to a senior administration official."
The Post did not independently identify the official as Vance. It updated its report after Status published its account, attributing the identification of the vice president to the media newsletter.
Vance reportedly behind White House press pool ban on CNN, MS NOW, Politico
The distinction is significant to the sourcing dispute because Politico's anonymity was imposed as a condition of the White House-organized briefing rather than independently granted by the outlet to a source who approached it privately. Other news organizations, including the Associated Press, Bloomberg, and CNBC, also reported comments from the same call while identifying the speaker only as a senior administration official, according to the Post.
The White House's letter to Politico was filed in federal court as part of the administration's defense of its decision to revoke the outlet's access. The letter accused Politico of failing to meet professional standards and cited its use of anonymous sources, publication of alleged falsehoods involving national security, and publication of sensitive or classified information. The June Iran report appeared on a six-item list of examples.
Trump announced the ban on September 18, accusing CNN, MS NOW and Politico of repeatedly reporting what he called "fake news." Reporters from the affected organizations were subsequently denied entry to the White House grounds and had their credentials deactivated.
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico then filed a federal lawsuit challenging the restrictions, arguing that the administration had violated their First Amendment rights and deprived them of due process.
The administration maintained in court that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an entitlement and argued that the president has authority to suspend media organizations' access. Vance separately defended the administration's action earlier in the week, saying the outlets remained free to report on the White House but were not entitled to what he described as special access.
The legal dispute shifted again on Thursday, when US District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the administration to immediately restore the three organizations' White House press passes and temporarily blocked enforcement of the ban for 14 days. Kelly said the record did not support the administration's argument that allowing the outlets back into the White House would endanger national security.
The ruling means CNN, MS NOW and Politico are set to regain White House access while their lawsuit proceeds, even as the circumstances surrounding the Politico article cited by the administration have raised a separate question over the White House's use of background briefings and its subsequent criticism of anonymous sourcing.