News organizations ask court to bar White House enforcement of access
ban until case is resolved
[September 29, 2026]
By JOCELYN NOVECK
Three news outlets that President Donald Trump abruptly banished from
White House grounds this month asked a federal court to block the ban
until the case is resolved, saying the administration has “persisted in
unpredictably and inconsistently implementing its ban” despite a judge’s
restraining order — including selectively barring CNN from White House
pool duties.
“The White House’s words and actions leave little doubt that it will
immediately reinstitute a complete ban of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO if
allowed the opportunity,” lawyers for CNN, MS NOW and Politico wrote in
a filing late Monday.
”Because the ban is an unlawful assault on the most fundamental First
Amendment freedoms and will inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs and
the public if not restrained, this Court should preliminarily enjoin its
enforcement pending the resolution of this case,” the filing said.
It was the latest development in the back-and-forth saga of the Trump
administration and the news media during the second term of his
presidency. It has been a contentious relationship that has raised
multiple First Amendment questions, produced sanctions and restrictions
on White House and Pentagon reporters and led to several lawsuits that
are winding their ways through the federal court system.
A two-week temporary restraining order on Trump's ban of the three
organizations, issued by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly last week,
restored the outlets’ White House access, but expires Oct. 8. The
preliminary injunction requested in Monday’s filing would extend the
White House access until the case is finally resolved.
In a statement emailed to The Associated Press immediately after the
filing, the lead attorney for the three news outlets called the ban “a
blatant violation of the First Amendment and due process.”
“The president and his administration have continued to make clear that
this ban has only one purpose: to punish reporting he doesn’t like,”
said the lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
“That’s retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple,”
Boutrous said. “With the district court’s temporary restraining order
expiring this week, it is critical to ensure that the White House
continues to be prevented from implementing this unconstitutional ban on
the free press.”
The White House still says access is a privilege, not a right
The filing came a day after the Trump administration made clear it was
not backing down from its contention that the sudden ban, which began
Sept. 19, was justified.
“When it comes to the White House, it is the people’s house,” Attorney
General Todd Blanche said on ABC on Sunday, invoking an argument the
administration has made since the beginning. “It is a privilege, and not
a right, to be there.”
Monday's 42-page filing reiterated many of the arguments that the news
outlets made in their original lawsuit against Trump and the White
House, filed two days after the reporters were banned.
It also added mention of the White House broadcast pool rotation, which
has become a battleground in the last few days in the standoff between
Trump and the media.
The White House, it said, “has persisted in unpredictably and
inconsistently implementing its ban, including by barring CNN from
fulfilling its role as designated television network pooler on Sept. 26
— to the detriment of CNN, its fellow pool members and, ultimately, the
American public.”
When the ban was implemented, CNN was removed from its duties as part of
the broadcast pool, which consists of the five main networks: CNN, ABC,
CBS, NBC and Fox News. In solidarity, the other networks decided to
suspend the pool until CNN was allowed back in.
On Friday, CNN was allowed to cover the president with Chinese leader Xi
Jinping at the National Archives. But in a new setback Saturday, the
White House banned the network from Air Force One, preventing it from
covering Trump’s trip to a college football game in Tennessee. The rest
of the pool declined to provide a replacement, in solidarity with CNN.
[to top of second column]
|
A logo on a booth for CNN is seen in the press area at the White
House, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey,
Jr.)
Blanche defended that decision, too. “The president has every right
to decide who gets to fly on his plane,” he said in the Sunday
interview. He added that Trump was “sick and tired of certain media
outlets just refusing to report accurate news.” He added that news
coverage he described as “misinformation” amounted to a national
security issue.
“That is what is a national security problem, when you have complete
misinformation coming out of the White House,” he said.
Kelly threw cold water on that argument in his ruling last week
granting the temporary restraining order against the White House
ban. “The court is skeptical … that defendants’ interest in
safeguarding national security is the actual motivation” for removal
of access, Kelly wrote.
His ruling did not directly address the TV pool rotation. In the new
filing, the plaintiffs describe the important function the pool
provides and makes the case that it's an important part of the
regular access to the president, and his activities, that the media
has traditionally had — and must be restored.
It singles out the Air Force One case. “CNN received no official
communication from the White House explaining its exclusion,” the
filing says. “Because CNN was excluded and no replacement
designated, no primary television network pooler accompanied the
President on the trip.”
Pool access issue has presented networks with tough choices
For now, networks in the pool have decided to address the ongoing
standoff on a case-by-case basis, according to a person familiar
with the pool’s operation, speaking on condition of anonymity to
give details of ongoing discussions.
On Sunday, Fox covered a pool event; on Monday, NBC was covering the
president in the Oval Office. CNN is not in the rotation until
Thursday. If the network is again barred from a pool event, the
networks will decide together, presumably based on the
newsworthiness of the situation, whether to provide a replacement or
to refrain from coverage as they did previously.
The issues at stake are difficult. On the one hand, the networks
want to take a stand on behalf of press freedom and against efforts
to intimidate coverage. On the other, media outlets have an obvious
purpose of providing news to their audiences.
“There are not a lot of good options,” said David A. Schulz,
director of the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale
Law School.
Should the White House continue to bar CNN, Schulz said, networks
may choose “to exert their market power and say, ‘We’re not going to
play ball with you.’”
The question, Schulz added, is: “Who’s going to back down first?”
The networks “may well feel like they’re between a rock and a hard
place,” noted RonNell Andersen Jones, a law professor at the
University of Utah.
“Capitulation might be perceived as abandonment of core components
of press freedom,” Andersen Jones said. “But the practicalities of
lengthy White House news blackouts are also complicated, and
refusing to cover major news at the highest levels of government
might itself feel like a failure to serve the goals of democracy.”
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
