Judge blocks Trump's White House ban targeting CNN, MS NOW and Politico

A federal judge has halted an effort by the White House to bar correspondents from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, ruling that the administration's actions likely infringed on the journalists' constitutional rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday that preserves press access for the three media organizations while legal proceedings continue. In a 26-page ruling, Kelly determined that stripping reporters of their permanent White House credentials, known as hard passes, appeared to violate protections under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Kelly observed that rescinding press passes in response to undesirable coverage would naturally intimidate journalists. He stated that the measure could deter an ordinary reporter from continuing their standard reporting practices and noted that losing credentialed access significantly impairs how correspondents perform their daily duties.

The dispute began the previous month after President Trump declared on social media that the three organizations would no longer be permitted on the grounds, accusing them of consistently publishing deceptive reports. Following the directive, Secret Service personnel confiscated credentials and turned away reporters arriving at the complex.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed suit on Sept. 21, arguing that the exclusion was retaliatory and that journalists were denied basic due process by not receiving prior notice or a chance to appeal. The administration later notified the outlets of formal credential revocations, citing journalistic standards and national security risks linked to specific articles. However, many of the flagged reports had been authored by staff members who did not hold White House passes.

Kelly previously issued temporary emergency relief based on due process arguments, but his broader ruling addressed the First Amendment implications and scrutinized the shifting explanations offered by the government. The judge noted that the administration's legal team pointed to national security concerns that the president had not raised when first introducing the ban. Instead, the president's initial statements focused on negative coverage, and subsequent references to security appeared to blend protected journalistic scrutiny with broader grievances about unfavorable reporting.

Theodore Boutrous, the attorney representing the three organizations, welcomed the preliminary injunction. He stated that the administration had blatantly ignored constitutional boundaries by attempting to force favorable coverage through credential revocations.

The White House had previously signaled that an adverse ruling would be appealed through the Justice Department. The case follows earlier administrative conflicts with press corps members, though the wholesale ban against multiple major organizations represented a significant legal test regarding executive branch authority over press access.