A federal judge on Tuesday (Oct 13) ordered the Trump administration to allow journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico to access the White House while a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s press ban moves through the courts. US District Judge Timothy Kelly directed the administration not to enforce its September 18, 2026, decision to revoke the White House “hard pass” press credentials held by employees of the three news organisations. The ruling extends protections for the outlets as the legal battle continues and sets the stage for a potential government appeal.Kelly’s earlier order blocking the ban was due to expire on Tuesday.<h2>Why did Trump ban the three media organisations from the White House?</h2>Trump has repeatedly defended the decision to restrict the outlets, pointing to what he described as their “negative” or “one-sided” coverage of his administration.In court filings, however, the Justice Department presented an additional justification, arguing that the decision was linked to national security concerns. It cited reporting by the organisations on the Iran war, construction of a ballroom in the White House’s East Wing and the midterm Republican convention.The news organisations have argued that the ban interferes with their ability to report on the president and risks discouraging other media outlets from pursuing critical coverage.<h2>Judge questions government’s rationale</h2>During a hearing last Thursday, Kelly questioned the differing explanations offered by Trump and government lawyers for the decision. The judge described it as “unusual” for the decision-maker to have publicly cited one set of reasons for an action while the government subsequently advanced another explanation in court.Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the president has discretion to remove reporters or news organisations from the White House. He also said CNN had been on notice for years, pointing to Trump’s repeated description of the network as “fake news”.“Trump doesn’t mind negative press stories if he deserves them,” Velchik told the court.<h2>Media organisations challenge the ban</h2>Ted Boutrous Jr., the lawyer representing the three news organisations, argued that Trump had personally made the decision and had repeatedly explained his reasons in public. “We know what he decided. He said it over and over again,” Boutrous said, adding that the president had issued the ban himself.Boutrous also questioned the basis for the decision, saying the only explanation he could come up with was that the president had “woke up on the wrong side of the bed” and decided to impose the restrictions.The latest order keeps the three organisations’ White House access in place as the case proceeds.

A US federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico while their lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s press ban continues. All you need to know.

A federal judge on Tuesday (Oct 13) ordered the Trump administration to allow journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico to access the White House while a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s press ban moves through the courts. US District Judge Timothy Kelly directed the administration not to enforce its September 18, 2026, decision to revoke the White House “hard pass” press credentials held by employees of the three news organisations. The ruling extends protections for the outlets as the legal battle continues and sets the stage for a potential government appeal. Kelly’s earlier order blocking the ban was due to expire on Tuesday. Why did Trump ban the three media organisations from the White House? Trump has repeatedly defended the decision to restrict the outlets, pointing to what he described as their “negative” or “one-sided” coverage of his administration. In court filings, however, the Justice Department presented an additional justification, arguing that the decision was linked to national security concerns. It cited reporting by the organisations on the Iran war, construction of a ballroom in the White House’s East Wing and the midterm Republican convention. The news organisations have argued that the ban interferes with their ability to report on the president and risks discouraging other media outlets from pursuing critical coverage. Judge questions government’s rationale During a hearing last Thursday, Kelly questioned the differing explanations offered by Trump and government lawyers for the decision. The judge described it as “unusual” for the decision-maker to have publicly cited one set of reasons for an action while the government subsequently advanced another explanation in court. Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the president has discretion to remove reporters or news organisations from the White House. He also said CNN had been on notice for years, pointing to Trump’s repeated description of the network as “fake news”. “Trump doesn’t mind negative press stories if he deserves them,” Velchik told the court. Media organisations challenge the ban Ted Boutrous Jr., the lawyer representing the three news organisations, argued that Trump had personally made the decision and had repeatedly explained his reasons in public. “We know what he decided. He said it over and over again,” Boutrous said, adding that the president had issued the ban himself. Boutrous also questioned the basis for the decision, saying the only explanation he could come up with was that the president had “woke up on the wrong side of the bed” and decided to impose the restrictions. The latest order keeps the three organisations’ White House access in place as the case proceeds.

A US federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico while their lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s press ban continues. All you need to know.

Judge indefinitely blocks Trump from banning CNN, MS NOW, Politico from White House

CNN, Politico and MS NOW reporters were back inside the White House on Thursday, hours after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore their access, ruling that the ban was likely unconstitutional. US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to restore the outlets’ White House press credentials for 14 days. He said the news organizations were likely to succeed in showing that their access had been revoked without adequate due process. The three outlets had initially been turned away again Thursday morning despite the judge’s order.&nbsp;&nbsp;Their lawyers sought an emergency hearing, accusing the White House of having "repeatedly violated" the ruling by refusing to allow their journalists onto the grounds. The hearing was later called off after the outlets’ access was restored. The White House said press passes and confiscated badges had been returned by 9:45 am, and reporters from all three organizations subsequently regained entry.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-s-in-a-name-canada-gives-trump-s-naming-game-a-taste-of-his-own-medicine-1790277408829">What’s in a name? Trump’s 'Lake America' move gets a tit-for-tat response from Canada</a>&nbsp;Trump had initially justified the ban by accusing the outlets of publishing ‘fake news’. The administration later cited national security concerns as a reason for excluding the journalists. But Judge Kelly questioned that explanation in his ruling, noting that Trump had not cited national security when he first announced the ban. The judge wrote that "The record lacks factual support for defendants' contention that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security," according to the court ruling.&nbsp;The legal dispute temporarily disrupted White House media coverage as Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping ahead of a state dinner. CNN, Politico and MS NOW sued the Trump administration after their access was revoked on September 18. They argued that the decision violated their constitutional rights and sought an immediate restoration of their press credentials. The Justice Department defended the administration’s decision, arguing that the outlets’ reporting had raised national security concerns and that access to the White House was subject to presidential control.&nbsp;Other major television networks, including Fox News, NBC, CBS and ABC, had pulled out of certain White House coverage in solidarity with the banned outlets. Their plans to resume regular coverage were not immediately clear. The dispute is the latest confrontation between the Trump administration and news organizations over access to the White House and press freedoms.&nbsp;&nbsp;More than 50 media organizations, including Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, had filed an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit. The temporary restraining order remains in effect for 14 days unless it is extended or otherwise modified by the court.

CNN, Politico and MS NOW regain White House access after a judge blocks Trump’s media ban and questions the administration’s national security claim

CNN, Politico and MS NOW reporters were back inside the White House on Thursday, hours after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore their access, ruling that the ban was likely unconstitutional. US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to restore the outlets’ White House press credentials for 14 days. He said the news organizations were likely to succeed in showing that their access had been revoked without adequate due process. The three outlets had initially been turned away again Thursday morning despite the judge’s order. Their lawyers sought an emergency hearing, accusing the White House of having "repeatedly violated" the ruling by refusing to allow their journalists onto the grounds. The hearing was later called off after the outlets’ access was restored. The White House said press passes and confiscated badges had been returned by 9:45 am, and reporters from all three organizations subsequently regained entry. Also Read: What’s in a name? Trump’s 'Lake America' move gets a tit-for-tat response from Canada Trump had initially justified the ban by accusing the outlets of publishing ‘fake news’. The administration later cited national security concerns as a reason for excluding the journalists. But Judge Kelly questioned that explanation in his ruling, noting that Trump had not cited national security when he first announced the ban. The judge wrote that "The record lacks factual support for defendants' contention that the revocation of plaintiffs' hard passes will in fact protect national security," according to the court ruling. The legal dispute temporarily disrupted White House media coverage as Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping ahead of a state dinner. CNN, Politico and MS NOW sued the Trump administration after their access was revoked on September 18. They argued that the decision violated their constitutional rights and sought an immediate restoration of their press credentials. The Justice Department defended the administration’s decision, arguing that the outlets’ reporting had raised national security concerns and that access to the White House was subject to presidential control. Other major television networks, including Fox News, NBC, CBS and ABC, had pulled out of certain White House coverage in solidarity with the banned outlets. Their plans to resume regular coverage were not immediately clear. The dispute is the latest confrontation between the Trump administration and news organizations over access to the White House and press freedoms. More than 50 media organizations, including Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, had filed an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit. The temporary restraining order remains in effect for 14 days unless it is extended or otherwise modified by the court.

CNN, Politico and MS NOW return to the White House after a judge blocks Trump’s media ban, ruling the outlets were likely denied due process

CNN, Politico and MS NOW back in White House after judge blocks Trump’s media ban

A US federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether President Donald Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House complied with existing court rulings, but he did not immediately decide whether the news organizations should regain access. US District Judge Timothy Kelly held a hearing in Washington to consider a request from the three outlets for a temporary restraining order that would restore their White House access while their legal challenge proceeds. The outlets filed the lawsuit on Monday, arguing that the ban violates First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and a free press, as well as due process rights.&nbsp;Kelly pointed to two previous rulings by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning journalists' access to the White House. He said those precedents establish that journalists are entitled to due process before their press credentials can be revoked. The judge also questioned whether the White House had provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision before their access was withdrawn.&nbsp;"The government said those cases ... were wrongly decided," Kelly said. “Maybe they were wrongly decided, maybe they weren't. But as a ⁠district court judge I have to apply them. I think it is fair to say the process the circuit laid out in those two cases wasn't followed here.” Kelly said he would issue a ruling later on the request for a temporary restraining order rather than making an immediate decision at the hearing. An attorney representing the news organizations argued that the outlets were denied advance notice and an opportunity to contest the decision before their access was revoked.&nbsp;"By ejecting and banning the plaintiffs from ​the White House without a semblance of due process here, defendants have imposed what really amounts to an unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishment," attorney Theodore Boutrous said. Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer, defended the administration's position, saying letters sent to the news organizations on Tuesday provided sufficient explanation for the revocation of their press credentials.&nbsp;Kelly, however, questioned that argument because the letters were delivered after the access had already been revoked and after the lawsuit had been filed. "I don't know how a letter ​that they got after the pass was revoked could provide them with the notice of the kind of standards that they would have to conform their conduct to, since it's a piece of paper they got ​saying, 'You've already violated this.'"&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/open-ai-anthropic-ceo-urges-caution-over-rapid-ai-development-at-un-security-council-call-for-extreme-care-1790193276828">Open AI, Anthropic CEO urges caution over rapid AI development at UN Security Council, call for 'extreme care'</a><h2>National security argument</h2>In a filing before the hearing, the Justice Department argued that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an entitlement and maintained that the president has authority to suspend access for news organizations. The department also supported Trump's contention that national security concerns justified the restrictions. The three outlets have accused the administration of unlawfully discriminating against them because of their editorial viewpoints.&nbsp;"The viewpoint discrimination is probably the clearest case in history. I mean, the president said, 'I don't like what you're publishing. I'm taking away your press pass based on that,'" Boutrous told the hearing. "They are using national security as this talisman, these magic words," Boutrous said. “It is just a pretextual, post hoc effort to justify just a blatant violation of due process.” Trump announced the ban on Friday through his social media platform, arguing that the news organizations "shouldn't be able to constantly write ​or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the ​President of the United States."&nbsp;The administration subsequently sent letters to the outlets accusing them of creating national security risks through their reporting. The letters cited coverage involving US missile stockpiles, construction of Trump's White House ballroom and attendance at the Republican Party's recent midterm convention. "The president has set out notice of his determination that he personally made to identify this ​particularity and not exhaustive list of reporting incidents. He has provided a process for plaintiffs to contest these particular incidents,” Velchik told the judge. But Boutrous said, "It's not ​due process when there is ⁠a prejudgment of the issues."<h2>Earlier CNN press-pass case</h2>The dispute also echoes a 2018 case involving CNN correspondent Jim Acosta. Kelly ordered the White House to restore Acosta's press pass after it had been revoked following a contentious news conference with Trump. At the time, Kelly ruled that the White House had failed to use fair and clear procedures in revoking Acosta's credential, describing the process as “shrouded in mystery.” Trump later criticized Kelly on social media and expressed regret over appointing him to the federal bench in 2017 during Trump's first presidential term.&nbsp;&nbsp;The latest case has also drawn support from press freedom organizations and other news outlets. A coalition filed a legal brief on Wednesday supporting CNN, MS NOW and Politico, arguing that journalists should not lose access because of perceived editorial viewpoints. The brief was signed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters, the Washington Post and Fox News, among others. The judge's eventual ruling on the temporary restraining order will determine whether the three organizations regain White House access while their broader legal challenge continues.

US Judge Timothy Kelly questions Trump's White House ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico, citing due process precedents as the outlets seek restored access

A US federal judge on Wednesday questioned whether President Donald Trump's decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House complied with existing court rulings, but he did not immediately decide whether the news organizations should regain access. US District Judge Timothy Kelly held a hearing in Washington to consider a request from the three outlets for a temporary restraining order that would restore their White House access while their legal challenge proceeds. The outlets filed the lawsuit on Monday, arguing that the ban violates First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and a free press, as well as due process rights. Kelly pointed to two previous rulings by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning journalists' access to the White House. He said those precedents establish that journalists are entitled to due process before their press credentials can be revoked. The judge also questioned whether the White House had provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision before their access was withdrawn. "The government said those cases ... were wrongly decided," Kelly said. “Maybe they were wrongly decided, maybe they weren't. But as a ⁠district court judge I have to apply them. I think it is fair to say the process the circuit laid out in those two cases wasn't followed here.” Kelly said he would issue a ruling later on the request for a temporary restraining order rather than making an immediate decision at the hearing. An attorney representing the news organizations argued that the outlets were denied advance notice and an opportunity to contest the decision before their access was revoked. "By ejecting and banning the plaintiffs from the White House without a semblance of due process here, defendants have imposed what really amounts to an unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishment," attorney Theodore Boutrous said. Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer, defended the administration's position, saying letters sent to the news organizations on Tuesday provided sufficient explanation for the revocation of their press credentials. Kelly, however, questioned that argument because the letters were delivered after the access had already been revoked and after the lawsuit had been filed. "I don't know how a letter that they got after the pass was revoked could provide them with the notice of the kind of standards that they would have to conform their conduct to, since it's a piece of paper they got saying, 'You've already violated this.'" Also Read: Open AI, Anthropic CEO urges caution over rapid AI development at UN Security Council, call for 'extreme care' National security argument In a filing before the hearing, the Justice Department argued that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an entitlement and maintained that the president has authority to suspend access for news organizations. The department also supported Trump's contention that national security concerns justified the restrictions. The three outlets have accused the administration of unlawfully discriminating against them because of their editorial viewpoints. "The viewpoint discrimination is probably the clearest case in history. I mean, the president said, 'I don't like what you're publishing. I'm taking away your press pass based on that,'" Boutrous told the hearing. "They are using national security as this talisman, these magic words," Boutrous said. “It is just a pretextual, post hoc effort to justify just a blatant violation of due process.” Trump announced the ban on Friday through his social media platform, arguing that the news organizations "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States." The administration subsequently sent letters to the outlets accusing them of creating national security risks through their reporting. The letters cited coverage involving US missile stockpiles, construction of Trump's White House ballroom and attendance at the Republican Party's recent midterm convention. "The president has set out notice of his determination that he personally made to identify this particularity and not exhaustive list of reporting incidents. He has provided a process for plaintiffs to contest these particular incidents,” Velchik told the judge. But Boutrous said, "It's not due process when there is ⁠a prejudgment of the issues." Earlier CNN press-pass case The dispute also echoes a 2018 case involving CNN correspondent Jim Acosta. Kelly ordered the White House to restore Acosta's press pass after it had been revoked following a contentious news conference with Trump. At the time, Kelly ruled that the White House had failed to use fair and clear procedures in revoking Acosta's credential, describing the process as “shrouded in mystery.” Trump later criticized Kelly on social media and expressed regret over appointing him to the federal bench in 2017 during Trump's first presidential term. The latest case has also drawn support from press freedom organizations and other news outlets. A coalition filed a legal brief on Wednesday supporting CNN, MS NOW and Politico, arguing that journalists should not lose access because of perceived editorial viewpoints. The brief was signed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters, the Washington Post and Fox News, among others. The judge's eventual ruling on the temporary restraining order will determine whether the three organizations regain White House access while their broader legal challenge continues.

A US judge questioned Trump's White House media ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico, citing due process precedents but delaying a ruling on access

US judge questions Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House

US Justice Department lawyers defended President Donald Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, arguing that the move was legally justified over concerns linked to national security and journalistic conduct.&nbsp;The Trump administration made the argument in a filing before a federal district court in Washington, DC. Reporters from the three news organisations had their White House press credentials, also known as hard passes, revoked, preventing them from accessing the White House grounds.&nbsp;“Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Justice Department lawyers wrote.&nbsp;The administration argued that the ban does not violate the First Amendment, citing what it described as two “compelling reasons” for restricting access. These included enforcing “minimum standards of professionalism” among journalists and protecting classified information.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-demands-cec-gyanesh-kumar-s-arrest-calls-for-fresh-bengal-polls-with-old-voter-list-1790169827052">Mamata demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar's arrest, calls for fresh Bengal polls with old voter list</a><h3>White House cites national security concerns</h3>The Justice Department said the president expects journalists to follow basic reporting standards, including seeking comments before publishing reports.&nbsp;“The President believes basic journalistic standards require calling, asking for comment, and providing a reasonable opportunity for a response,” they said. “At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.”&nbsp;The department also submitted letters from the White House press office to the court. The letters, dated Tuesday, informed CNN, MS NOW and Politico that Trump had decided to revoke the hard passes of their journalists.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-bans-cnn-ms-now-and-politico-from-white-house-over-fake-news-1789761825030">Trump bans CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House over ‘FAKE NEWS’</a>&nbsp;According to the letters, the outlets had “exhibited behaviour in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.”&nbsp;The White House has given the three organisations until 5 p.m. Friday to respond to the allegations.<h3>News outlets challenge Trump's decision</h3>The Justice Department's filing came ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. During the hearing, a judge will consider whether the White House should restore the media organisations’ credentials and access.&nbsp;CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued Trump and senior administration officials on Monday. The three organisations described the decision as a “direct assault on the First Amendment” and a “blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.”&nbsp;The legal challenge follows Trump’s announcement that the three outlets would be barred from the White House. He accused them of repeatedly publishing what he called “FAKE NEWS”.&nbsp;Trump announced the decision in a post on Truth Social and said the ban would take effect immediately. He also warned that “other Fake News Media Outlets to follow”.&nbsp;“I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico... from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!” Trump said.

The US Justice Department has defended President Donald Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, citing national security and standards of professionalism and decorum.

US Justice Department lawyers defended President Donald Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, arguing that the move was legally justified over concerns linked to national security and journalistic conduct. The Trump administration made the argument in a filing before a federal district court in Washington, DC. Reporters from the three news organisations had their White House press credentials, also known as hard passes, revoked, preventing them from accessing the White House grounds. “Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right,” Justice Department lawyers wrote. The administration argued that the ban does not violate the First Amendment, citing what it described as two “compelling reasons” for restricting access. These included enforcing “minimum standards of professionalism” among journalists and protecting classified information. Also Read: Mamata demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar's arrest, calls for fresh Bengal polls with old voter list White House cites national security concerns The Justice Department said the president expects journalists to follow basic reporting standards, including seeking comments before publishing reports. “The President believes basic journalistic standards require calling, asking for comment, and providing a reasonable opportunity for a response,” they said. “At a bare minimum, it is a significant violation of decorum to publish classified and sensitive national security information.” The department also submitted letters from the White House press office to the court. The letters, dated Tuesday, informed CNN, MS NOW and Politico that Trump had decided to revoke the hard passes of their journalists. Also Read: Trump bans CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House over ‘FAKE NEWS’ According to the letters, the outlets had “exhibited behaviour in violation of the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including by trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information.” The White House has given the three organisations until 5 p.m. Friday to respond to the allegations. News outlets challenge Trump's decision The Justice Department's filing came ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. During the hearing, a judge will consider whether the White House should restore the media organisations’ credentials and access. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued Trump and senior administration officials on Monday. The three organisations described the decision as a “direct assault on the First Amendment” and a “blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.” The legal challenge follows Trump’s announcement that the three outlets would be barred from the White House. He accused them of repeatedly publishing what he called “FAKE NEWS”. Trump announced the decision in a post on Truth Social and said the ban would take effect immediately. He also warned that “other Fake News Media Outlets to follow”. “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico... from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!” Trump said.

The US Justice Department has defended Donald Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, citing national security and standards of professionalism and decorum.

White House access is 'privilege': DOJ cites national security for Trump media ban

white-house-media-ban

White House Media Ban, News on White House Media Ban, stories on White House Media Ban, articles on White House Media Ban, White House Media Ban stories at Wion, White House Media Ban news, White House Media Ban latest news

white house-media-ban

Judge indefinitely blocks Trump from banning CNN, MS NOW, Politico from White House

CNN, Politico and MS NOW allowed back into the White House after judge’s ruling

US judge delays ruling on Trump’s White House ban of CNN, MS NOW and Politico

White House access 'privilege': DOJ cites national security for Trump media ban