Judge blocks Trump media ban and orders White House press access restored

HEADLINE: Judge blocks Trump media ban and orders White House press access restored

The Trump administration blocked three news organizations from the White House and stripped them of their credentials, despite a federal judge's court order overturning the president's media ban hours earlier. Reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were denied entry on Thursday morning after U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to immediately return reporters' press passes.

White House blocks reporters despite court order

Laura Barrón-López, who covers the White House for MS NOW, told the network that she showed her pass to Secret Service agents to get past a barricade and then entered a press area where she was denied entry. After scanning her pass and entering her PIN, the machine began flashing red. A Secret Service agent told her that her pass was "still being disabled," according to her account. She stated that it remained unclear whether the administration was explicitly defying the court order or whether there was a system lag.

The legal dispute began after President Donald Trump announced a ban targeting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico on September 18, 2026. The three news organizations sued the administration in federal court in Washington, arguing the ban violated their First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press, as well as their due process rights. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued his order shortly after midnight on September 24, 2026, granting a 14-day temporary restraining order that blocked officials from enforcing the ban and ordered the immediate restoration of press credentials.

Judge Timothy Kelly rejects national security rationale and due process violations

Judge Kelly rejected the government's assertions that the ban was motivated by national security concerns. He noted in his ruling that nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. The judge further wrote that the record lacks factual support for defendants’ contention that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes will in fact protect national security or that national security will be endangered if the court orders their passes reinstated while this litigation proceeds.

The Justice Department had argued in court filings that access to the White House is a privilege and that the president has the authority to revoke it for reasons including professionalism and decorum. In letters sent to the outlets, the administration cited specific reports it claimed threatened national security or spread falsehoods, including CNN's coverage of White House infrastructure, MS NOW's reporting on a leak investigation, and Politico's analysis of Secret Service spending. However, Kelly pointed out that the journalists who authored those stories did not hold hard passes. In cases where the administration cited articles about construction at the White House — such as work on a new ballroom — the judge noted that in most cases the stories were written by journalists who did not hold card passes, and in remaining cases, the administration did not demonstrate reason to believe that the reporter's possession of the hard pass was integral to the stories identified.

Kelly also criticized the process used to revoke the credentials, noting that the outlets were not given prior notice or an opportunity to respond. He wrote that Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before their hard passes were revoked. Citing precedents from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kelly emphasized that journalists are entitled to procedural due process before their passes can be revoked. When the administration suggested that earlier court decisions should be overturned, Kelly responded, according to IJR: Maybe, but this Court is bound by D.C. Circuit precedent, full stop.

White House defense and public statements

Trump had framed the ban as a response to fake news, stating in a social media post that the outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES. Judge Kelly noted that the president's public statements focused on the outlets' alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity rather than security concerns, suggesting a potential viewpoint-discriminatory motive. Earlier in the week, Trump criticized the judge, saying, This is a judge who’s not a particularly fair judge.

The Justice Department maintained that the ban was justified under the president's authority to manage access, arguing in a filing that the outlets failed to satisfy minimum requirements of professionalism by relying on anonymous sources and publishing classified or sensitive information. The administration also cited declarations from Defense Department officials supporting the ban, but the judge pointed out those officials had no direct knowledge of how reporters operate in the White House or the facts at issue.

Ted Boutrous, the lawyer representing the news organizations, lauded the decision, stating in a comment reported by CNN and IJR: "This is a strong ruling vindicating freedom of the press, due process, and the rule of law." The Justice Department has indicated it will appeal the ruling, and the White House has yet to formally comment on the order.

Press pool disruption and broad media coalition

The ban generated immediate logistical consequences for the White House television press pool. CNN's exclusion from the group, which includes CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News, prompted the other networks to suspend the pool's coverage of Trump's travels, disrupting the distribution of footage from events such as the president's trip to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Press freedom groups and media organizations rallied behind the banned outlets. Forty-nine media organizations, including CBS News, The New York Times, Reuters, the Washington Post, and Fox News, filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the ban violates decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence by targeting journalists based on their editorial views.

The legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of broader friction between the Trump administration and the press. Trump has frequently criticized news organizations, and his administration has launched legal action against several outlets, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC. Some of those lawsuits have resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements, while litigation against the BBC remains ongoing.