US judge extends White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists

A US federal judge on Tuesday extended White House access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. The ruling blocks the Trump administration's ban on the three outlets.

US District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a preliminary injunction. It extends an earlier order for the duration of the case. In September, Kelly had issued an order temporarily restoring the outlets' access. The judge found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims. The lawsuit rests on First Amendment free speech and due process claims.

According to the text of the order as quoted by The Guardian, the injunction bars the defendants, except President Trump, and those acting in concert with them from enforcing the 18 September 2026 decision to revoke the White House "hard pass" credentials held by employees of the three outlets. It maintains the situation in place since a temporary restraining order was entered on 24 September 2026.

The Guardian quoted the ruling as saying the plaintiffs "are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims". It also quoted the judge as writing: "President Trump’s own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes to alter their reporting on him".

According to DW, Kelly stated that the decision should not be interpreted as "claiming that President Donald Trump's claims about accuracy and fairness in the media's reporting are unfounded." DW also reported that Kelly was nominated by Trump. Reuters described the ruling as the latest against Trump in the press freedom dispute.

Background

According to The Guardian, the outlets sued on 21 September. The 24 September order gave a 14-day reprieve and expired on Tuesday. Arguments were held on 8 October in Washington. There, Kelly told a government lawyer that its side had "a notice problem" that was "probably the biggest hurdle" it faced.

The Guardian reported that the White House gave the outlets no advance notice. It sent letters only after their building access was cut off. The Guardian says this violated binding precedent. That precedent, it reports, holds that access cannot be withdrawn for editorial or viewpoint-based reasons once granted. The Guardian also reported that the judge set a bond of $1.

What each side says

The Guardian quoted Trump as saying he banned the outlets "as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS".

The outlets say the ban violates their constitutional rights. They say press badges are essential to covering the administration.

Their lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous, argued in court that a Trump interview with Time magazine was a "confession" that the ban was based on content, according to The Guardian. In a statement after the ruling, he said Trump "blatantly and explicitly violated due process and the First Amendment".

According to The Guardian, the administration interpreted the earlier order as covering only the White House complex, not spaces such as Air Force One or the Oval Office. CNN and Politico journalists were at times kept from pool duty.

The reports reviewed by Vocemundi do not include a response from the White House or the Justice Department. They do not indicate whether the administration will appeal.

Analysis

The injunction keeps the outlets' credentials in place while the case continues. The Guardian says a decision on the merits could take months. Several questions remain open. The reports do not clarify whether the order covers pool duty in spaces such as the Oval Office or Air Force One. That could become a further point of contention. An appeal by the administration is possible, but the reports do not indicate one. The final outcome may depend on how courts weigh the notice issue and the president's public statements. It may also depend on the government's legal defence, which the reports describe only in part.

Produced by the Vocemundi newsroom with AI assistance.