Judge extends order blocking Trump from banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico
reporters from White House
[October 14, 2026]
By HALLIE GOLDEN and MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
A federal judge on Tuesday extended an order blocking President Donald
Trump's administration from banning reporters for three news outlets
from the White House, a pivotal operational development for the
organizations as the extraordinary case — pitting the president against
the media that cover him — makes its way through the legal system.
In a victory for media organizations at a time when tension between the
White House and journalists is high, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly
ruled that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are likely to succeed in their
constitutional free speech and due process claims.
“Still,” he added in his late-night order, “no one should interpret the
Court’s decision to suggest that President Trump’s concerns about
accuracy and fairness in the media’s reporting are unfounded, or that
the government is powerless when its true aim is to protect national
security when classified information is unlawfully disclosed.”
But Kelly agreed with the plaintiffs that the national security
arguments came after the fact and were unsupported by the
administration.
The judge also wrote that without a preliminary injunction the outlets
“are likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of the
equities and the public interest tip in their favor.”
An email to the Justice Department, which is arguing the case on behalf
of the administration, was not immediately returned. The White House
also did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for the three media organizations,
hailed the judge's ruling.
“When the President issued his ‘ban on the free press,’ he blatantly and
explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment,” Boutrous said
in a statement. “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First
Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to
enjoin the White House from enforcing this ‘unconstitutional ban on the
free press’ for the foreseeable future.”
Judge says no warning given before banishment
Kelly, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, previously ordered the
White House to restore the reporters’ “hard pass” press credentials
while he weighed their claims. With that temporary order expiring
Tuesday, the judge issued a preliminary injunction that preserves the
status quo indefinitely while the case is pending.
Kelly said that, “to put it mildly,” the White House didn’t give the
plaintiffs any warning that they were in danger of losing their hard
passes before Trump’s Sept. 18 social media post about their bans.
The judge also said the impact of the White House ban goes far beyond a
single reporter's ability to do their job.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump boards Air Force One, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2026,
at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
“The ban threatens to cut off all Plaintiffs’ access to the White
House press area—a space open to many of their competitors—thereby
restricting their ability to observe happenings there firsthand,
immediately report on those activities, and try to engage with
government officials,” the judge wrote.
Hard passes give journalists who regularly cover the White House
longer term access to its campus without having to get permission
ahead of time.
The government asked Kelly to suspend his own decision pending an
appeal, but the judge said it didn’t justify that request. Kelly
said the bans impacted a total of 78 reporters at the three news
organizations.
Earlier judicial action against White House had been only
temporary
Trump provided no notice before announcing the bans in a Sept. 18
social media post, which criticized their reporting as “fake news.”
Kelly temporarily blocked the bans on Sept. 24 at the request of the
news outlets, which jointly filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C.
Attorneys for the outlets have described Trump’s move as
“unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional” under the First and
Fifth amendments. They argued that it’s illegal for Trump to punish
the journalists because he doesn’t like the content of their
reporting.
“The ban also inflicts an injury on all news media organizations —
which now risk a similar fate if they engage in fact-based,
independent reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable,”
plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.
Government lawyers argued that access to the White House is a
privilege — not a right — and said the president can impose the bans
to protect national security and to stem the spread of
misinformation.
“The White House is the official residence and workplace of the
President,” Justice Department attorneys wrote. “Presidents have had
a relationship with the press since the beginning. They have long
decided which journalists should receive privileged access, which
has varied substantially from administration to administration.”
___
Associated Press reporter Rebecca Boone contributed.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
