Judge Temporarily Restores White House Press Access

A federal judge has temporarily ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access for reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico for 14 days while their lawsuit proceeds. Judge Timothy Kelly found the outlets were likely to show that the administration had not provided adequate due process before revoking their hard passes, potentially violating their constitutional rights. The ruling also questioned the administration’s claim that the ban was necessary for national security, noting that President Donald Trump had not cited national security when he first announced the decision. The judge said the court record did not show that reinstating the passes would endanger security. He also found that, in most cases, the stories cited by the administration had been written by journalists without hard passes, and that officials had not shown pass-holding was essential to the other stories. The defence officials cited by the administration, the judge said, lacked direct knowledge of White House reporting practices or the relevant facts. Despite the order, access was not immediately consistent: some reporters were admitted while others from the three organisations said they were turned away. The White House had not commented, and further legal action remained possible. The outlets’ lawyer described the ruling as a vindication of press freedom, due process and the rule of law. The ban had also prompted major television networks to withdraw from White House pool duties in protest, while 49 media organisations filed a brief supporting the lawsuit. The article places the dispute in the context of Trump’s frequent criticism of news organisations and his administration’s legal actions against several outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. Some of those cases have resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements; the BBC lawsuit is ongoing.

Reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico regained access to the White House on Thursday afternoon, several hours after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore their press credentials. The outlets had been barred after President Donald Trump criticized their coverage as “fake news” and later claimed it posed a national-security risk. The organizations said the ban targeted them because of their reporting and violated the First Amendment. They also reported that a Secret Service agent had confiscated journalists’ credentials, prompting them to seek an immediate court hearing when they remained unable to enter the grounds on Thursday morning. The White House said the passes were available for pickup around 9:45 a.m. ET; the delay nevertheless raised questions about whether the administration was complying with the court order. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order lasting 14 days. He found that the outlets were likely to show their hard passes had been revoked without due process and said the White House’s stated standard for objectionable reporting was too vague. Kelly, who was nominated by Trump, also expressed skepticism that national security was the real reason for the revocations. The ruling did not resolve a separate dispute involving the rotating press pool. Major networks had suspended pooled coverage of Trump events unless CNN was allowed to participate, and they continued withholding footage after the hearing. The administration argued that White House access is a privilege, not a right. The outlets’ lawyer said the ban caused irreparable harm during significant news events, including Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit, and argued that the national-security rationale emerged only after the lawsuit was filed. The article also reports that an Iowa judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and its former pollster over coverage of the 2024 presidential race. The judge warned that the case could discourage reporting and debate on public affairs; the White House said it would appeal. Other press-related litigation involving Trump, including cases against the BBC and Wall Street Journal, remains ongoing.

A federal judge ordered the White House to restore press access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico, ruling that President Donald Trump’s ban on the outlets was likely unconstitutional. The 14-day temporary restraining order requires the administration to reinstate the journalists’ hard-pass credentials while litigation continues. Judge Tim Kelly rejected the Justice Department’s request to delay the order, saying the record did not support the administration’s claim that revoking the credentials would protect national security or that restoring them would endanger it. The ruling came as Trump hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping for a high-stakes meeting. Despite the order, some journalists from the three outlets were still denied entry to the White House on Thursday. MS NOW reporter Laura Barrón-López and a producer had their passes confiscated, while another MS NOW producer was admitted. Politico and CNN also reported that some of their staff were blocked even as other journalists from those outlets entered. It remained unclear whether the uneven access reflected a delay in reactivating credentials or noncompliance with the court order. CNBC sought comment from the White House. Trump announced the ban on Sept. 18 in a Truth Social post, criticizing what he called “cumulative stories” by the outlets and warning that other “Fake News Media Outlets” could also be banned. The outlets argued that the ban violated their First Amendment rights. Their attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., welcomed the court’s decision as a defense of press freedom, due process and the rule of law. The article notes that Kelly was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2017 and that CNBC and MS NOW are divisions of Versant Media.

CNN, MS NOW (formerly referred to in the article as MSNBC), and Politico journalists regained access to the White House on Thursday after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to lift its ban on the outlets. The ban, issued on September 18, was challenged in a lawsuit by the three news organizations. District Judge Tim Kelly found the ban likely unconstitutional and ordered that his ruling remain in effect for 14 days while the litigation proceeds. Kelly rejected the government’s argument that barring the outlets was necessary for national security, saying the record did not support that claim. He also noted that President Donald Trump had initially justified the ban by alleging the outlets’ reporting was untruthful and negative. The judge said prior rulings from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit required due process before White House press passes could be revoked, and that the outlets did not appear to have received a proper opportunity to contest the decision. The journalists were initially denied entry on Thursday morning, but the outlets later reported that access had been restored. Their attorney, Theodore Boutrous Jr., described the ruling as a vindication of press freedom, due process, and the rule of law. The Justice Department had argued that White House access was a privilege rather than an entitlement and that the president could deny it. The outlets argued they were targeted because of their coverage and that the ban violated the First Amendment. In solidarity, other media organizations, including DW, had suspended pooled coverage of Trump events. The article also notes that Kelly, nominated by Trump in 2017, had ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018.

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico while their lawsuit challenging the ban proceeds. The ban, issued on September 18, was imposed after President Donald Trump criticized the outlets’ reporting as insufficiently truthful and negative. District Judge Tim Kelly said the government’s decision was likely unconstitutional and ordered the restoration to remain in effect for 14 days. Kelly rejected the administration’s argument that barring the journalists was necessary for national security, saying the record did not provide factual support for that claim. He also cited earlier rulings by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which held that White House press credentials may be revoked only with due process. The outlets, Kelly said, did not appear to have been given an adequate opportunity to contest the decision. The news organizations sued, arguing they had been targeted because of the content of their coverage and that the ban violated the First Amendment’s protections for speech and press freedom. Their attorney described the ruling as a strong defense of press freedom, due process and the rule of law. Despite the order, CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters remained barred from the White House in the hours after it was issued, and Politico said a reporter’s credentials had been confiscated. The Justice Department had argued that White House access is a privilege rather than an entitlement and that the president can deny it to news organizations. In solidarity with the affected outlets, other media organizations, including DW, had suspended pooled coverage of Trump events. The ruling follows a similar 2018 case in which Kelly ordered access restored for a CNN journalist.

France 24 reports that a federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s ban preventing three news organizations from accessing the White House grounds. The judge ordered that CNN, MS NOW and Politico have their access restored, with the order issued early Thursday, September 24, 2026. The report describes the ruling as temporary, so it does not establish a final outcome in the dispute or explain what further proceedings may follow. The brief available text does not identify the judge, specify the legal reasoning, or describe the circumstances that led the White House to bar the outlets. It also gives no details about how the restriction had been applied, how long it had been in effect, or whether the administration had responded to the order. The story’s central point is therefore the immediate judicial intervention: a federal court order requires the White House to restore access for the three named media companies, at least temporarily. The supplied page includes a video-player notice and related headlines, but no additional article text beyond this short report. As a result, conclusions about the broader legal dispute, the administration’s rationale, and the outlets’ reactions cannot be drawn from the provided material.

Reporters from Politico, CNN and MS NOW remained barred from the White House on Thursday, even after US District Judge Tim Kelly ordered the Trump administration to restore their access immediately. Kelly found that the ban, announced by President Donald Trump on September 18, was likely unconstitutional. The three news organisations sued to challenge the decision and, after being denied entry again, asked Kelly for an emergency follow-up hearing. Trump had accused the outlets on social media of reporting “FICTION and LIES,” while Justice Department lawyers defended the ban on national security grounds. The dispute is described as a major setback for Trump in his broader conflict with the media. The article also notes that Kelly, a Trump appointee, had previously ordered the White House to temporarily reinstate a CNN reporter’s access during Trump’s first term. The ban prompted a rare show of solidarity among broadcasters. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC halted their shared White House pool coverage, saying the public has a vital interest in accurate, independent information and that an administration should not restrict an outlet because it objects to its reporting. The White House Correspondents’ Association and nearly 50 news organisations also submitted a court brief urging the bans to be reversed. Trump further criticized CNN’s presence while speaking to a reporter at the UN General Assembly in New York, saying the network should not be covering him there. Meanwhile, the White House launched “Trump TV,” a streaming channel it said would provide videos and remarks around the clock. The article places these events in the context of Trump’s longstanding attacks on news outlets that have aired critical coverage, including his repeated characterization of the press as the “enemy of the people.”

A US federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore White House press access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Judge Tim Kelly ruled on Thursday that the outlets were likely to succeed in arguing that President Donald Trump’s ban on them was unconstitutional. The order followed a lawsuit filed by the three news organisations after Trump announced the ban on September 18, 2026. Kelly directed the administration to return the outlets’ press passes immediately and barred officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days. He also rejected the government’s claim that the restrictions were motivated by national security concerns. The ruling is described as a major setback for Trump in his conflict with the media. The article reports the immediate, temporary effect of the judge’s order and the reasoning offered at this stage. It does not provide further detail about the lawsuit, the government’s arguments beyond its national-security justification, or what may happen after the 14-day period. The central issue is whether the administration can exclude particular news outlets from White House access, with the judge finding the ban likely unconstitutional while the case proceeds.

Politico, MS NOW and CNN reporters were denied entry to the White House on September 24, even though a federal judge had ordered the Trump administration to restore their access. The denial came hours after US District Judge Tim Kelly issued a temporary order blocking President Donald Trump’s ban on the outlets for 14 days. Kelly said the revocation of the journalists’ White House credentials likely violated their constitutional due process rights and questioned the administration’s national security rationale. He noted that Trump had linked the ban to what he described as false or negative coverage of his administration. Politico reported that its reporter’s credentials had been confiscated. An MS NOW reporter said she was also prevented from entering, and CNN said some of its staff were turned away from the grounds. MS NOW correspondent Laura Barrón-López, speaking outside the White House complex, said it was not clear whether the refusal to admit her defied the court order or resulted from a problem with the entry system. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The three news organizations sued Trump and other administration officials on September 21, arguing that the ban violated First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press, as well as due process rights. Trump had announced the ban in a social media post on September 18. Their attorney, Theodore Boutrous, welcomed Kelly’s ruling as a defense of press freedom, due process and the rule of law. A coalition of press freedom groups and dozens of news organizations, including Reuters, filed a brief supporting the outlets. The article presents the continued denial of access as an unresolved clash between the court’s order and the White House’s actions.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s arrival in the United States for a state visit received unusually little live television coverage on Sept. 23, amid a dispute between the Trump administration and several news organizations. President Donald Trump personally greeted Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, at Joint Base Andrews, departing from the usual practice of welcoming foreign leaders at the White House. The ceremony included military music, national anthems and a flyover by two B-1 bombers, but most Americans did not see it broadcast live. Major television networks had suspended live filming and broadcasts of presidential events since Sept. 21 to protest the administration’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. Reporters instead provided written accounts, while CNN and Fox briefly discussed the arrival without video. Several newspapers published still photographs, though The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal had not reported the event within 45 minutes. The White House also did not stream the ceremony on its website, despite promoting the popularity of its official mobile app. The extent of television coverage for the remainder of Xi’s visit remained uncertain while a legal challenge proceeded in Washington. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said he expected to rule soon on whether to temporarily restore the outlets’ White House access. The news organizations argued that the administration had retaliated against them for unfavorable reporting and had revoked their credentials without notice, explanation or a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision, violating press freedoms and due process. The Justice Department argued that White House access is a privilege, not a constitutional right, and urged the judge to deny emergency relief. It also defended the ban on national-security grounds, accusing the outlets of publishing false claims and sensitive or classified information. The article presents Xi’s low-key arrival as a consequence of both the media boycott and the unresolved fight over press access.

The White House continued to deny access to journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Thursday, September 24, 2026, despite a federal judge’s order directing the administration to restore their press credentials. The District Court judge in Washington ordered the White House to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the passes while the outlets’ lawsuit proceeds. The judge found that the three organizations were likely to succeed in arguing that the ban violated their First Amendment rights, which protect freedom of the press, and that the White House had not provided sufficient advance notice before imposing it. The outlets sued the administration on Monday after the White House barred their reporters from its grounds. In court, administration lawyers argued that excluding them was necessary to protect national security. President Donald Trump said the outlets “purposely publish” negative news about his administration. Politico and MS NOW reported that their journalists were still refused entry on Thursday morning; the White House had not immediately commented. The ban had already prompted major US television networks to suspend their pooled White House coverage in protest. The article said it was unclear whether pool journalists would conduct their work as usual on Thursday, when Trump was due to host Chinese President Xi Jinping for a reciprocal state visit. The dispute is described as another escalation in Trump’s long-running contentious relationship with the media. He has repeatedly criticised news organisations for coverage he considers unfavourable, calling them “fake news”. The article also recalls that last year he barred the Associated Press from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other areas after the agency said it would continue using the name Gulf of Mexico rather than Gulf of America, as Trump’s executive order had directed.

The White House again denied entry to reporters from Politico and MS NOW on Thursday, even after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore access for news organizations whose journalists had been barred from the presidential complex. The outlets reported that their reporters were turned away after their press credentials were confiscated. Earlier that day, US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order directing the administration to restore access for Politico, CNN and MS NOW for at least two weeks while litigation continues. Reporters from all three organizations had been restricted from entering the White House, and their press passes seized, on Saturday. The latest denials involved Politico and MS NOW; the article does not say whether CNN reporters were also refused entry on Thursday. The reported action therefore came despite the court’s instruction to immediately restore access, and the article describes it as a renewed barrier to those reporters’ entry. It does not provide a response from the White House or further details about the legal dispute. The central issue is the administration’s compliance with a temporary court order concerning press access to the White House. The order is limited to at least two weeks, pending further litigation, rather than a final resolution of the dispute.