Judge expands White House access to banned media outlets CNN, MS Now and Politico | Trump administration

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the White House to continue allowing journalists from CNN, MS Now and Politico access to the building as the media coalition’s lawsuit against the Trump administration plays out.

District Court Judge Timothy Kelly on September 24 granted a 14-day reprieve to news outlets, which six days earlier had been barred by the president, in an extraordinary move, from entering the White House grounds “because of their consistent ‘reporting’ of FAKE NEWS.”

“Defendants (except President Trump) and their agents, representatives, and any persons or entities acting in concert with them, shall not execute, implement, or enforce the September 18, 2026 order to revoke White House “hard pass” press credentials held by employees of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO, thereby maintaining the status quo since the Court’s entry of a temporary restraining order on September 24 2026,” the judge wrote in granting a preliminary request. injunction requested by the plaintiffs.

The organizations filed a lawsuit on September 21 seeking to overturn the ban, seen as a violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution. But that temporary restraining order expired Tuesday, bringing the media companies to court late last week to seek a preliminary injunction that would lift the ban while the trial continues, which could take months.

During arguments at the E Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse in Washington, Kelly appeared inclined to lift the ban indefinitely, telling a federal lawyer that his side had “a notification problem” that was “probably the biggest hurdle” they had to overcome.

The Trump White House did not notify affected media companies in advance that they were at risk of losing their press badges, which news organizations said were critical to their ability to cover the administration. Although the White House sent letters to media companies informing them of the ban, they did so after the fact, after access to the buildings had already been cut off, in violation of binding legal precedent.

In his ruling Tuesday, Judge Kelly wrote that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed not only in their due process claim, but also in their two First Amendment claims.” Although access to the White House is not guaranteed, case law dictates that once granted to journalists, it cannot be withdrawn for editorial or viewpoint-based reasons.

During arguments for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 8, media lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous told the judge that Trump made an “admission” — in an interview with Time magazine last week — that he banned media companies explicitly because of the content of their reporting, and not for other considerations, such as national security.

“The case has gotten stronger for the plaintiffs because of President Trump,” Boutrous told the judge.

The judge seemed to agree. “President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended to revoke the plaintiffs’ strict permissions to change their reporting on him, thereby strengthening the argument that his action here is sufficient to deter an ordinary staunch reporter from reporting in the same manner as she previously did,” he wrote.

Although the White House largely adhered to the judge’s earlier ruling restoring access on a temporary basis, reporters from CNN and Politico were at times blocked from performing “pool duties” — covering the president’s daily activities — because the administration interpreted the judge’s temporary restraining order as only requiring access to the White House complex, not smaller spaces like Air Force One or the Oval Office.

The judge required the media plaintiffs to post $1 bail.

In a statement, Boutrous said of the judge’s ruling: “When the President issued his ‘free press ban,’ he blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. Since then, the President has repeatedly, frankly and consistently admitted in public that he banned our clients from the White House to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to try to force journalists to cover him in the way he prefers.”

The court, he added, “was correct in enjoining the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on freedom of the press’ for the foreseeable future.”