A federal judge in the United States has ordered the Trump administration to restore White House access for journalists working for CNN, MS NOW and Politico after President Donald Trump announced a ban on the three news organisations.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly issued the order on September 24, 2026, following a legal challenge brought by the three media organisations. The judge directed the administration to immediately restore their press passes and temporarily prevented officials from enforcing the ban for 14 days. He also indicated that the restrictions were likely to violate constitutional protections.
The dispute began after Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from the White House. Trump had criticised the outlets over their reporting and accused them of publishing what he described as false or misleading information. The affected organisations rejected the move and challenged the restrictions in federal court.
The three media organisations argued that the ban violated the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They also argued that the administration had failed to provide adequate due process before their journalists’ access was revoked. The case was assigned to Judge Kelly, who had previously dealt with a dispute involving White House access for a CNN reporter during Trump’s first administration.
During the hearing, Kelly questioned whether the administration had followed the required process before removing the journalists’ access. The judge referred to earlier court decisions concerning White House press credentials and due process. Those precedents indicate that journalists may be entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before their access is suspended or revoked in certain circumstances.
The judge’s latest order is significant because it restores access while the broader legal dispute continues. The ruling is an interim measure and does not represent a final determination on every constitutional issue raised by the case.
The Trump administration defended the restrictions during the proceedings. Justice Department lawyers argued that access to the White House is a privilege rather than an unrestricted right. The government also cited national security concerns and argued that the president has authority to determine which journalists can access the White House complex.
The administration's position was that the affected outlets had failed to meet standards expected of journalists with access to the White House. Government lawyers also argued that concerns about the publication of sensitive or classified information justified restrictions on continued access. The Justice Department asked the court not to grant the media organisations’ request for immediate relief.
Judge Kelly, however, ordered the immediate restoration of access and temporarily blocked enforcement of the ban. Reuters reported that the judge rejected the administration's national security justification at this stage and found that the media organisations had grounds for their constitutional claims.
The dispute has raised broader questions about the relationship between the White House and the press. While presidents have authority to manage access to areas with limited capacity, such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, courts have also considered whether government officials can exclude journalists from generally available press facilities because of their reporting or viewpoint.
Reuters reported before the ruling that legal experts viewed the ban as facing significant constitutional difficulties, particularly because government restrictions based on the viewpoint of a news organisation can raise First Amendment concerns. At the same time, the legal framework allows presidents greater discretion over access to tightly controlled spaces where capacity is limited.
The current dispute also follows earlier conflicts between the Trump administration and media organisations over access. The Associated Press previously challenged restrictions imposed after the organisation declined to adopt the administration's preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. That litigation involved questions about access to certain White House spaces and the government's ability to regulate participation in restricted events.
The latest case involving CNN, MS NOW and Politico is different in scope because the September 18 announcement covered the three organisations broadly. Their journalists were subsequently denied access to the White House and their press credentials were deactivated or confiscated.
The case has also drawn attention from press freedom organisations. The Knight First Amendment Institute filed an amicus brief supporting the three media organisations in their legal challenge. Other journalism groups have argued that allowing the government to exclude outlets because of unfavourable coverage could have wider implications for press access.
The White House and Justice Department have maintained that the administration is not targeting legitimate journalism but is exercising authority over access to government property and protecting sensitive information. The media organisations, by contrast, have argued that the restrictions were connected to their reporting and therefore raise constitutional concerns.
The judge’s decision does not permanently settle that disagreement. His order provides temporary relief while the legal challenge proceeds. The administration remains able to present its arguments in further proceedings, while the news organisations will continue to defend their claims concerning the First Amendment and due process.
The immediate consequence of the ruling is that CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists are to regain access to the White House under the terms of the order. Enforcement of the ban has been blocked for 14 days, giving the court and the parties additional time to address the legal issues.
The decision is being closely watched because it involves two competing principles: the government's authority to regulate access to the White House and constitutional protections for journalists covering the executive branch.
The First Amendment does not provide journalists with unlimited access to every government facility or event. However, courts have previously considered whether access decisions can be used to penalise journalists or organisations because of their reporting. Due process requirements can also become relevant when existing press credentials are revoked.
For now, Judge Kelly's order means that the three organisations will regain White House access while the dispute continues. The broader constitutional questions, including the extent of presidential authority over press access and the administration's stated national security justification, remain part of the ongoing legal proceedings.
The case therefore represents an important legal dispute over White House press access, rather than a final ruling establishing that every aspect of the administration's media access policy is unconstitutional.