By Saqib S. Qureshi — SCN News
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 — The White House restored access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico on Thursday after a federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s ban on the three news organisations, handing the outlets an early victory in a closely watched fight over presidential authority, press access and constitutional due process. Reporters were allowed back onto White House grounds around midday after several hours of confusion in which some journalists continued to be turned away despite the court order.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ordered administration officials to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the outlets’ White House hard-pass credentials, granting a temporary restraining order that is scheduled to remain in effect for 14 days unless the court changes it. Kelly found that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were likely to succeed in showing that their credentials had been revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.
The decision does not finally resolve the outlets’ broader lawsuit against the Trump administration. Instead, it temporarily restores the access they held before the ban while the constitutional dispute continues, leaving the court to consider more fully how far a president may go in excluding established news organisations from White House press facilities.
Trump announced the ban on Sept. 18 after repeatedly attacking CNN, MS NOW and Politico over coverage he described as false and unfair. The three organisations subsequently said their reporters’ permanent White House credentials had been deactivated without advance notice or an opportunity to challenge the decision, prompting them to sue on First Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds.
The administration later offered a national-security justification for the restrictions, pointing to reporting it said involved sensitive information. Government lawyers cited stories involving White House construction and security details, an alleged leak investigation and reporting connected to the Iran conflict. The outlets argued that those explanations did not justify banning entire news organisations and said Trump’s own statements showed that dissatisfaction with their coverage was the real reason for their exclusion.
Kelly expressed skepticism about the administration’s national-security argument at this stage of the case. He noted that the original public explanation for the ban focused on the outlets’ reporting rather than security and found insufficient evidence in the record to establish that national-security concerns actually motivated the withdrawal of the credentials.
The judge focused particularly on the process used to revoke the passes. Existing federal appeals court precedent requires the White House to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when withdrawing established press credentials, while any standards used to justify such action must be sufficiently clear. Kelly found that the three organisations had not received that process before losing their passes.
He also criticised the standards subsequently presented by the White House as insufficiently precise, describing the government's definition of objectionable reporting as too vague to provide journalists with meaningful notice of conduct that could result in losing their credentials.
The ruling initially produced an extraordinary standoff at the White House gates. CNN and Politico journalists attempting to enter Thursday morning said they were still blocked by the Secret Service even after Kelly’s order had been issued. Lawyers for the three organisations then sought an immediate hearing, telling the court that administration officials had failed to comply with the ruling.
The situation changed before another hearing became necessary. White House press operations began restoring the credentials Thursday morning, according to a sworn declaration filed with the court, and the Secret Service subsequently reactivated the affected badges. Reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were able to enter the complex around midday, and Kelly determined that an emergency hearing was no longer required.
The timing made the dispute particularly consequential for presidential coverage. Trump was hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping for a major state visit on Thursday, one of the administration’s most significant diplomatic events of the year. The temporary ban had threatened to prevent the three organisations from directly covering the White House proceedings during the summit.
The confrontation had already disrupted the system through which major American television networks collectively cover the president. CNN belongs to the five-network television pool that rotates responsibility for recording presidential appearances and distributing footage more widely. Other members suspended much of their pooled coverage in solidarity after CNN was excluded.
That meant some major events surrounding Xi’s visit were not recorded through the traditional television pool. During Trump’s elaborate reception for Xi at Joint Base Andrews on Wednesday, journalists from several major networks were present but did not provide the usual pooled video coverage.
The legal dispute goes beyond whether CNN, MS NOW and Politico can physically enter the White House. At its centre is a broader constitutional question: once the government establishes a system of press credentials and grants journalists routine access, how much discretion does a president have to remove that access because of objections to their reporting?
The administration maintains that journalists do not possess an unrestricted constitutional right to enter every part of the White House and that the president retains substantial authority over access to secure presidential spaces. Courts have recognised greater executive discretion over tightly controlled areas such as the Oval Office and limited presidential press pools.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are making a narrower argument. They contend that once the government opens general White House press facilities to credentialed journalists, it cannot withdraw established access in retaliation for viewpoints or coverage it dislikes and cannot revoke credentials without a fair process.
Kelly’s ruling primarily addressed that second issue. He concluded at this preliminary stage that the outlets had demonstrated a strong likelihood of succeeding on their due-process claim because they received neither adequate notice nor an opportunity to contest the withdrawal of their credentials before the ban took effect.
The case also has a notable historical parallel. Kelly, a Trump appointee, ordered the restoration of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House credential during Trump’s first presidency in 2018 after the administration revoked it following a contentious press conference. The current dispute is broader because the administration attempted to exclude three entire news organisations rather than a single correspondent.
It follows another major access dispute involving the Associated Press. A federal appeals court ruled in 2025 that the administration likely had greater discretion over limited spaces such as the Oval Office and presidential pool events, while distinguishing those areas from access to broader White House press facilities. That litigation remains relevant to the boundaries courts are now being asked to draw.
The latest ruling therefore should not be read as a final judicial determination that every aspect of Trump’s media policy is unconstitutional. Kelly issued temporary relief intended to preserve access while the lawsuit proceeds, and the administration can continue defending its actions or pursue further legal remedies.
But Thursday’s developments produced an immediate practical result: six days after Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, their journalists were back inside the complex under protection of a federal court order.
The next stage will determine whether that access survives beyond the 14-day temporary order and whether the courts address the outlets’ broader First Amendment argument that the government cannot use White House credentials to punish news organisations for coverage the president considers hostile.
For now, the confrontation has shifted decisively from presidential action to judicial review. Trump’s administration retains significant authority over security and access inside the White House, but Kelly’s ruling signals that withdrawing established press credentials must still operate within constitutional procedural safeguards. The broader question — how much control a president can exercise over news organisations covering the presidency — remains before the court.