Former Trump White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham offered a startling theory Wednesday about how President Donald Trump could keep three news outlets banned from the White House even if the Supreme Court eventually rules against him.

“I’m no lawyer, so let me start there,” Grisham said on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

“But I just think that if he takes it to the Supreme Court and they rightfully side with the media, I think he could get to a point where he's like, ‘Nope, let's kick them out, and anybody who kicks him out, I'll just give you a pardon.’”

The striking scenario from Grisham, who also served as first lady Melania Trump’s chief of staff, came as a federal judge considers a request from CNN, MS NOW and Politico to restore their reporters’ White House access.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly did not immediately rule Wednesday on the news outlets’ request to restore their White House press passes. They sued after Trump barred them because of coverage he declared was “fake news.”

Grisham told Burnett Wednesday that she also recalled hearing Trump disparage American journalists while speaking with authoritarian leaders.

“I heard him on two different occasions, in a [bilateral] with China and in a [bilateral] with North Korea,” she said.

Grisham said at one point she had “physically fought” North Korean guards to get American reporters into one meeting.

“He told them on both occasions — the dictators, that is — that the press, ‘Aren’t they animals? They’re animals. They’re crazy. You have the right idea,” she said. “He absolutely wants to have a presidency more on the side of dictators."

“That’s incredible,” Burnett added.

An Iowa court dismissed President Trump's lawsuit against veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register on Wednesday, marking another legal defeat in Trump's ongoing campaign to punish a survey that badly missed his 2024 election margin.

The result was reported out in a press release by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the legal advocacy group defending Selzer and the Register.

Judge Scott Beattie ruled the lawsuit tried to twist Iowa law far beyond its actual limits, effectively treating constitutionally protected speech as if it were a punishable offense.

Selzer's attorney, FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, said the outcome vindicated what his team had argued from day one. "We're pleased that the court recognized what we've said all along: This lawsuit was laughable from the beginning and never should have been brought," Corn-Revere said.

The suit stemmed from Selzer's final pre-election Iowa poll, which showed Kamala Harris leading by three points, a result that ended up far off from Trump's actual win in the state. Trump's legal team argued the inaccurate poll amounted to consumer fraud under Iowa law, but FIRE countered that commentary on an election is core protected speech, and that "fake news" is a political insult, not a legal claim, while genuine fraud requires proof of intentional deception for financial gain.

Notably, Trump filed the suit just hours before a new Iowa anti-SLAPP law took effect, a law designed specifically to shift the cost of baseless litigation onto the person who filed it. A separate, similarly-themed class action against Selzer, which also included Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Trump appointee Brad Zaun as plaintiffs, was already dismissed by a federal court back in November.

Selzer has maintained throughout the dispute that she published her full methodology, data crosstabs, and analysis publicly after the election, standing by the transparency of her work even as the results proved embarrassing.

"Polling is a social science, not clairvoyance, and no responsible pollster can guarantee an election outcome," Selzer said. "I am grateful that Judge Beattie's ruling recognizes these principles and reaffirms the fundamental freedom to pursue and publish the truth without political interference."