Judge orders White House to reinstate press access
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
MS NOW's Akayla Gardner outside the White House after her access was revoked. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Getty Images
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled the Trump administration must continue to grant CNN, MS NOW and Politico access to the White House grounds while the lawsuit filed by the three news organizations continues.
Why it matters: It marks a major win for the news outlets as it maintains their White House access and signals the judge believes their legal claims could succeed on their merits.
- Judge Timothy Kelly, an appointee of President Trump, awarded a temporary restraining order to the plaintiffs on Sept. 24 that mandated the White House reinstate the outlets' credentials for 14 days. Last week, Kelly extended that through Oct. 13.
- The preliminary injunction preserves the outlets' access until the case is resolved, which could take weeks, months or years.
Zoom in: "Defendants (except for President Trump) and their agents, representatives, and all persons or entities acting in concert with them, shall not execute, implement, or enforce the September 18, 2026, decision to revoke the White House 'hard pass' press credentials held by employees of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO," the court order from Judge Kelly said.
Yes, but: The judge's ruling doesn't guarantee that the plaintiffs have access to key areas, such as the Oval Office and Air Force One.
- The White House has continued to bar CNN and Politico journalists from press pool assignments onboard Air Force One, despite the temporary restraining order reinstating their credentials.
- A different White House lawsuit, brought by the Associated Press, could help clarify the extent of the president's power to bar reporters from those types of spaces. That case is ongoing.
Catch up quick: The news outlets sued the White House, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights by blocking them in retaliation for their reporting and discriminating against their viewpoints.
- They also argued their Fifth Amendment rights were violated as they were banned without due process.
- The temporary restraining order and the preliminary injunction suggest the judge believes the plaintiffs have a strong case on the Fifth Amendment claims.
- Further legal proceedings, including a potential trial, would determine whether the White House violated the outlets' First Amendment rights.
Reality check: Legal experts believe the news organizations have a strong case because of a precedent set by the 1977 Sherrill v. Knight case in which an appeals court ruled it was unconstitutional for the White House to arbitrarily revoke press credentials based on a journalist's reporting or viewpoint.
- They point to comments President Trump made to justify the ban, including, "They purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration."
What to watch: The broader White House press pool, which consists of outlets that cover the president and travel with him on rotation, has stood in solidarity with the barred outlets.
- The White House reached out to other outlets to fill CNN and Politico's spots in the press pool, but they have refused.
- Some outlets have indicated that they intend to continue withholding publication or distribution of images captured as part of the White House still photography pool, "until a court has the chance to hear arguments on the legal claims filed by those media organizations."
Disclosure: The author of this article is a paid contributor for CNN.
