WASHINGTON, Sep 24 – A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, ordering the administration to restore the news organizations’ press credentials while the court considers their legal challenge.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued the temporary restraining order early Thursday after hearing arguments in an emergency session the previous day. The order requires White House officials, excluding Trump himself, and their representatives to immediately return, reinstate and restore the hard-pass credentials held by employees of the three organizations. The order is set to remain in effect for 14 days unless the court changes it.
The Associated Press reported that the ruling did not immediately end the confrontation. Within hours, reporters from two of the outlets were still refused entry to the White House complex, raising questions about whether the administration had complied with the judge’s directive.
A CNN reporter said she was denied entry after the ruling, while Politico also said one of its reporters was blocked. The Associated Press reported that the White House had not immediately responded to a request for comment about the continued denial of access.
The dispute began last week when Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House, accusing them of what he described as “fake news.” The administration later presented a different justification in court, arguing that some of the outlets’ reporting created national security concerns.
The three organizations challenged the decision in federal court, arguing that the administration had retaliated against them because of unfavorable coverage and had revoked their journalists’ credentials without providing adequate notice or an opportunity to respond.
Kelly’s ruling represents an early legal setback for the administration, although it does not resolve the broader case. The judge said the outlets had met the legal requirements for temporary relief and were likely to succeed in demonstrating that their press credentials had been revoked without constitutionally required due process.
Judge questions administration’s national security argument
In his ruling, Kelly said the government needed to establish clear standards governing the conduct that could justify removing a journalist’s White House access. He found that the standards cited by the administration in letters to CNN, MS NOW and Politico were too vague to adequately explain why the reporters had lost their credentials.
The judge also expressed skepticism toward the administration’s claim that national security concerns were behind the decision.
Kelly noted that when Trump initially announced the ban, the president emphasized his complaints about the accuracy and tone of the outlets’ reporting rather than national security. The judge wrote that nothing in the record before the lawsuit indicated that national security had motivated the decision to revoke the organizations’ hard passes.
The administration has argued that the president has broad authority over access to the White House and that entry is a privilege rather than an absolute right. Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik repeated that position during Wednesday’s hearing, saying the president should be able to take immediate measures when national security is at issue.
The outlets’ attorney, Theodore Boutrous Jr., challenged that reasoning. He argued that the administration only began emphasizing national security after the organizations went to court, while Trump’s original statements focused on the outlets’ coverage of his administration.
The White House later supplied specific examples of reporting that officials said justified the restrictions. According to court filings, the administration cited CNN’s reporting about classified or sensitive construction details involving the East Wing bunker, MS NOW’s coverage of an alleged leak investigation and Politico’s reporting about funding for a proposed White House ballroom and related Secret Service security improvements.
Politico was also criticized over a June report involving comments from a senior administration official who spoke anonymously about the prospects for a preliminary agreement to end the conflict with Iran. The briefing had been conducted under anonymity rules established by the White House, and other news organizations also reported on the official’s remarks.
Kelly’s order did not make a final determination on whether any of those reports violated national security rules. Instead, the judge focused on whether the administration had followed the required legal process before taking away the journalists’ credentials.
The case also has a notable history involving Kelly. Trump nominated him to the federal bench in 2017. In 2018, Kelly ordered the restoration of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House access after the administration temporarily revoked his credentials following a confrontation with Trump during a news conference.
The latest ruling comes as the Trump administration’s relationship with major news organizations has become increasingly contentious. Trump has repeatedly criticized media organizations over coverage he considers unfair or inaccurate, while news organizations have argued that access to the president cannot be conditioned on producing favorable coverage.
Media pool remains suspended as White House access dispute continues
The legal fight has also disrupted the television press pool that provides footage from presidential events to broadcasters around the country.
CNN is one of five major television networks that participate in the rotating White House television pool, alongside ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News. After CNN was excluded from covering Trump because of the White House ban, the other networks suspended the pool operation in solidarity.
The five-network pool remained suspended after Kelly’s ruling. The judge’s order dealt with the White House access of CNN, MS NOW and Politico, but it did not specifically order the television networks to resume their shared pool operation.
The impact was visible Wednesday at Joint Base Andrews, where Trump formally welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping. Journalists from Fox News, CBS and NBC were present, but the networks were not providing the usual pool video coverage.
Other outlets, including NewsNation, Newsmax, Right Side Broadcasting Network, One America News and LindellTV, also had crews at the event.
The dispute has therefore extended beyond the three organizations directly named in the lawsuit. Other news organizations have argued that allowing the government to remove journalists based on their reporting could affect the broader system through which the White House is covered.
Before Wednesday’s hearing, several news organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The Associated Press was among the organizations urging the court to restore their access while the legal challenge proceeded.
Boutrous welcomed the judge’s decision, calling it a significant ruling concerning press freedom, due process and the rule of law.
For now, however, the practical effect of the order remains contested. Although Kelly directed the administration to restore the three outlets’ access immediately, journalists from CNN and Politico reported being turned away hours later. The conflicting developments leave the next stage of the dispute focused not only on the underlying constitutional challenge, but also on whether the White House will fully comply with the temporary order.
The 14-day restraining order gives the court additional time to consider the case. It does not represent a final ruling on whether the Trump administration permanently violated the Constitution by barring the three organizations.
The Justice Department is expected to continue defending the administration’s position, while CNN, MS NOW and Politico are seeking to maintain their access as the case moves forward. The dispute could ultimately require the courts to further examine the limits of presidential authority over White House press access and the protections available to journalists whose reporting is criticized by the president.