Setback for Trump: Court Blocks Plan to Restrict Press Access at White House

A federal judge has delivered a new judicial setback to the Trump administration by indefinitely extending the ban on barring reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from accessing the White House. This ruling maintains the status quo that existed before the presidential veto, allowing the case to proceed through the courts.

Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction to replace the 14-day temporary restriction he had initially imposed on September 24. This new order will remain effective as long as the litigation is ongoing.

Judicial Rationale and Implications

Judge Kelly determined that the three media outlets are "likely to succeed" in their constitutional claims regarding freedom of speech and due process. Without the court's protection, they would "likely suffer irreparable harm." The judge noted that the White House provided no warning to the plaintiffs about the risk of losing their press credentials before Trump's declaration on Truth Social.

He also dismissed the government's national security arguments, stating they emerged "after the fact" and were unsupported. Kelly emphasized the real impact of the measure: "The ban threatens to completely sever the plaintiffs' access to the White House's press area—a space open to many of their competitors—thereby limiting their ability to observe firsthand what happens there, report on those activities immediately, and attempt to engage with government officials."

Additionally, he denied the government's request to suspend his decision pending an appeal. The order safeguards a total of 78 reporters across the three organizations. However, Kelly clarified: "No one should interpret the court's decision as suggesting that President Trump's concerns about media accuracy and impartiality lack merit."

The order does not require the administration to allow these media outlets to cover Oval Office events or travel on Air Force One.

Media Reaction

Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the three media companies, praised the ruling. "When the president issued his 'ban on the free press,' he flagrantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment. The harm this ban caused to our clients, to the First Amendment, and to the public at large is profound," he stated.

Neither the Department of Justice nor the White House has commented on the latest ruling.

Origins of the Dispute

The conflict began on September 18, when Trump announced the "immediate effect" ban via Truth Social, accusing the three outlets of spreading "fiction and lies." Days later, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico filed an emergency lawsuit in the federal court of the District of Columbia, citing violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. Their attorneys described the measure as "unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional."

In a show of solidarity, major networks ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News suspended their participation in the White House's rotating coverage system. The following day, the administration launched Trump TV, a 24-hour continuous broadcast channel on YouTube.

Legal Background and Context

This isn't the first case from Trump's second term. In February 2025, the White House barred the Associated Press in retaliation for refusing to adopt the term "Gulf of America." AP sued, and a judge ordered access reinstated months later. Judge Kelly himself has a history in such disputes: in November 2018, he ordered the restoration of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's credentials following a clash with Trump, ruling that due process had been violated. Kelly was appointed by Trump in 2017.

More recently, the Department of Justice confirmed an investigation into whether ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News violated antitrust laws by suspending joint coverage in September. However, the investigation does not imply any proven wrongdoing.