CNN, MS NOW and Politico sue Trump, challenging White House ban

WASHINGTON, Sept 21 – CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued President Donald Trump and members of his administration on Monday, asking a federal court to block a White House decision that barred their journalists from the presidential complex.

The three news organizations argue that the restrictions violate protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are seeking a temporary restraining order that would restore their access while the broader legal dispute moves through the courts. A hearing on the request is scheduled for Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington.

The lawsuit comes days after Trump announced that the three outlets would no longer be permitted to access the White House. The president accused them of repeatedly publishing what he described as false or fabricated coverage of his administration.

The news organizations have disputed that rationale and said the government cannot decide which journalists receive access based on whether officials approve of their reporting. Their joint legal action has turned a long-running dispute between Trump and major news organizations into a direct constitutional fight over press access to the White House.

Lawsuit challenges White House decision as TV pool suspends coverage

The complaint argues that the administration’s decision was retaliation for the outlets’ reporting and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The organizations also contend that their journalists were denied access without adequate notice or due process.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico said the issue extends beyond their own ability to work inside the White House. They argue that restricting journalists because of their reporting could interfere with the public’s ability to receive independent information about the federal government.

The lawsuit names Trump and several administration officials in their official capacities. CNN White House correspondent Betsy Klein, MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner and Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett are also among the plaintiffs.

The case was assigned to Kelly, who was appointed to the federal bench by Trump in 2017. Kelly previously handled a dispute involving CNN correspondent Jim Acosta during Trump’s first administration. In 2018, the judge ordered the restoration of Acosta’s White House press credentials after the administration attempted to remove his access.

Trump defended the latest restrictions on Monday, saying the administration was not attacking the free press but was targeting what he called “FAKE NEWS.” He also described the outlets as a threat to national security, although he did not provide evidence publicly linking their reporting to a specific national security threat.

The White House has separately argued that access to the presidential complex is a privilege rather than an unrestricted right. The administration said the affected organizations could continue reporting from outside the White House grounds.

The dispute has already disrupted one of the most established systems for television coverage of the president.

CNN is one of five organizations that rotate responsibility for the White House television pool, alongside ABC, CBS, Fox News and NBC. The pool allows the networks to divide the substantial costs of presidential coverage, with the network assigned to a particular event producing video that is then made available to other broadcasters and news organizations.

CNN had been scheduled to provide pool coverage of Trump’s trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly on Monday. After the White House removed CNN from the presidential pool, the other four networks decided not to provide a replacement feed.

Bryan Boughton, who oversees the Fox News Washington bureau and is serving as chair of the television pool, informed the White House press corps that presidential events designated for pool coverage would no longer receive coverage under the existing arrangement.

The decision meant that television networks did not provide the usual shared video coverage of Trump’s presidential activities at a time when he was attending major international meetings in New York. Other forms of White House coverage continued, including reporting from the press room.

The disruption also exposed the limits of relying on White House-produced video as an alternative. During a ceremony for a new Marine One helipad on the South Lawn on Monday, the audio on the White House’s own live feed was reportedly inaudible.

The White House television pool is particularly important because a single camera operation can provide footage to a large number of broadcasters. Without the shared feed, individual organizations must make their own arrangements or rely on government-provided material.

Trump expands media confrontation as White House launches new stream

The lawsuit is the latest episode in Trump’s broader confrontation with news organizations during his second term. His administration has previously restricted access for individual journalists and media organizations, while Trump has repeatedly criticized outlets whose coverage he considers unfavorable.

In 2025, the Associated Press was removed from the White House press pool after the news agency declined to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. The AP challenged that restriction in court.

Trump also faced a legal battle with CNN during his first term after the White House attempted to remove Acosta’s press credentials. A federal judge ordered the credentials restored, allowing Acosta to return to the White House.

The current case is broader because it involves three major news organizations simultaneously and comes as the administration has reshaped the way journalists receive access to presidential events.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has expressed concern over the restrictions, arguing that journalists must be able to scrutinize government officials regardless of whether those officials approve of their reporting. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has also said it intends to support the news organizations in the legal dispute.

The confrontation intensified Monday when the White House launched a new streaming platform known as “Trump TV.” The service is designed to carry administration announcements, presidential remarks and other video material selected by the White House.

The launch provides the administration with a direct way to distribute video to the public without relying on traditional television networks. Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, criticized the move, saying it could allow the government to present information directly to the public while reducing the role of independent news organizations in covering presidential activities.

The first programming included archival material and footage highlighting Trump’s presidency. The service attracted only several thousand live viewers shortly after its launch on YouTube, according to reports.

The White House has portrayed its media strategy as an effort to counter coverage it considers inaccurate or unfair. Trump has repeatedly argued that major news organizations give his administration overwhelmingly negative coverage and has called for greater scrutiny of what he describes as false reporting.

The three outlets, however, argue that the government’s authority over White House access cannot be used as a tool to punish journalists for their reporting.

The legal dispute could therefore determine more than whether CNN, MS NOW and Politico regain access to the White House. It also puts a longstanding question about presidential press access before a federal judge: whether an administration can exclude established news organizations from government facilities because of disagreement with their coverage.

For now, the dispute has already affected the practical flow of presidential news. The television pool has stopped providing shared coverage of Trump’s presidential events, the three affected organizations are seeking immediate court intervention, and the White House has begun offering its own direct video channel.

The first major court test of the latest restrictions is expected on Wednesday, when Judge Kelly is scheduled to consider the request for a temporary restraining order.