A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore White House press access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico, temporarily reversing a ban that had escalated a dispute between the US president and several major news organisations into a constitutional court battle.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the administration to immediately reinstate the outlets’ White House hard-pass credentials after finding that the revocation of the passes likely violated their constitutional due-process rights.
The temporary restraining order is set to remain in effect for 14 days unless the court changes it.
The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW and Politico after their journalists were prevented from entering the White House and had their press credentials disabled or confiscated.
The dispute began on September 18, when President Donald Trump announced that the three organisations would be barred from the White House. Trump accused them of publishing what he described as “fake news” and said other media organisations could face similar treatment.
How the White House ban unfolded
The announcement was followed the next day by the physical enforcement of the restrictions.
CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW correspondent Akayla Gardner were among those turned away from the White House complex on September 19.
Their press passes had been deactivated, while Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett was also denied entry and had her credentials confiscated.
The three organisations said they would challenge the decision and continue covering the administration.
The dispute was significant because White House press credentials provide journalists with regular access to the executive branch and its officials, including events and briefings that cannot easily be covered from outside the complex.
The ban also disrupted the television press pool, which relies on participating news organisations to share coverage of presidential events.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico take the dispute to court
On September 21, CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision.
The organisations argued that the ban infringed their First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and the press, while also challenging the manner in which their credentials had been withdrawn.
The case was assigned to Kelly, a federal judge who previously handled a dispute involving CNN and White House access.
That earlier case dates to 2018, when the Trump administration revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House hard pass following a confrontation between Acosta and Trump during a news conference. A federal judge ordered Acosta’s credential restored after CNN challenged the decision.
The latest case therefore places the question of presidential control over White House press access before a judge with previous experience in a similar dispute.
The administration’s argument
The Trump administration has maintained that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an unrestricted right.
Government lawyers also sought to justify the restrictions by pointing to the administration’s concerns about the media’s conduct and, according to reporting on the case, national-security and sensitive-information considerations.
The legal dispute, however, focused not only on whether the administration could control access but on how it exercised that authority.
Kelly’s ruling centred on due process. The court indicated that journalists holding White House hard passes were entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before their credentials were suspended or revoked.
That distinction is important: the order does not amount to a final ruling on the entire lawsuit or permanently prevent the White House from regulating press access.
Instead, it temporarily restores the status quo while the underlying constitutional arguments are litigated.
The wider fight over White House press access
The confrontation is part of a broader series of disputes between the Trump administration and news organisations over access, reporting and the government’s treatment of the press.
The current dispute has also affected the traditional White House television press pool. Several major broadcasters suspended aspects of their participation after CNN was removed from a scheduled reporting assignment, raising concerns about how pooled presidential coverage could operate if individual news organisations were excluded.
The episode has also revived memories of the administration’s earlier conflicts with the Associated Press over its editorial decision to continue using the term “Gulf of Mexico” rather than the administration’s preferred “Gulf of America” terminology.
In that dispute, the AP challenged restrictions on its access, arguing that the government was retaliating against the organisation because of its editorial choices.
Together, the cases have placed a recurring question before US courts: how far can a president go in controlling access to government facilities without using that power to punish or discriminate against journalists because of their reporting?
What happens next
Kelly’s order gives CNN, MS NOW and Politico temporary relief rather than ending the case.
The 14-day restraining order keeps their White House access in place while the court considers the broader legal dispute.
The administration could continue defending its restrictions or seek further review, while the three media organisations are expected to pursue their constitutional claims.
For the White House, the case is therefore about more than three press passes. It raises the legal limits on the executive branch’s ability to determine which news organisations can regularly operate inside the centre of US government.
For the media organisations, the case tests whether access traditionally granted to the White House press corps can be withdrawn when a president objects to the way his administration is being covered.
And for the courts, the immediate issue is whether the government followed the constitutional process required before taking that access away.
