US judge delays ruling on White House ban of CNN, MS NOW, Politico

The news organisations are scheduled to make their case to a US district judge on Wednesday afternoon.

US President Donald Trump arrives at the White House in Washington, DC, in the early hours of September 23, 2026 [AFP]

US President Donald Trump’s administration has defended his decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from White House grounds, arguing in a court filing that the president has broad authority to determine which journalists can access the complex and that the outlets’ reporting raised national security concerns.

US District ‌Judge Timothy Kelly held the hearing in Washington to consider a request by the news outlets for a temporary restraining order that would immediately reinstate their White House access while a legal challenge they filed on Monday plays out. He did not make a ruling, and it was unclear when he would issue a decision.

list 1 of 3 CNN, Politico, MS NOW sue Trump administration over White House ban

list 2 of 3 White House launches ‘Trump TV’ after press bans

list 3 of 3 Rubio defends Trump’s White House ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico

In a filing ahead of the hearing, Justice Department lawyers said the outlets had failed to meet what the administration described as standards of professionalism and decorum.

“Access to the White House is a privilege — not a right,” the filing said.

The White House press office sent letters to the three outlets on Tuesday alleging their coverage involved “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information”.

The letters, filed in court, cited CNN publishing “top-secret” construction details of a bunker beneath the White House’s East Wing, MS NOW coverage of the impact of the Iran war on US military munitions and a Politico report about funding for the White House ballroom that included details about Secret Service security improvements. It also cited Politico relying on anonymous sources for a report describing the Republican congressional midterm convention as a “disaster”.

The filing argues that publishing such information can divert national security personnel and resources as officials assess whether material is classified and determine its security implications.

The administration is also asking the court to overturn a 1977 appeals court ruling, Sherrill vs Knight, which held that White House press access could not be denied arbitrarily or without compelling reasons.

The lawsuit by the three outlets argues that the ban violates their First Amendment rights.

The proceedings are historic, said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

“No president has taken this explicit of a step” to ban entire news outlets because he doesn’t like their reporting, she said. “There have been various presidents throughout history who have grumbled about the press or threatened to take more major steps, but really there was nothing at this level before Trump.”

The case was assigned to District Judge Kelly, who previously ordered the restoration of CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House credentials during Trump’s first term. Despite Kelly being a Trump-appointed judge, the president has already expressed his disappointment in the selection.

“They have drawn a great Judge, for them, a man who ruled in favor of Jim Acosta, who now seems to have disappeared from the Planet. The Judge’s name is Tim Kelly, and he was, sadly, appointed by ‘TRUMP,’” the president wrote on Truth Social. “In other words, almost without question and, as usual, we’ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World.”

An amicus brief was filed by other news groups Wednesday, urging the court to immediately restore White House access to the three outlets. It said, “the targeted expulsion of news media from White House grounds injures the public interest” and that “unassailable First Amendment law makes any viewpoint-based decision to bar reporters from a nonpublic forum constitutionally repugnant”.

这些新闻机构计划于周三下午向美国地区法官陈述案情。

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普于2026年9月23日凌晨抵达华盛顿特区的白宫。[法新社]

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的政府为禁止 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 进入白宫的决定辩护，并在法庭文件中辩称，总统拥有广泛的权力来决定哪些记者可以进入白宫，而且这些媒体的报道引发了国家安全方面的担忧。

美国地区法官蒂莫西·凯利在华盛顿举行听证会，审理多家新闻媒体提出的临时限制令申请。该限制令旨在立即恢复这些媒体进入白宫的权限，同时等待周一提起的法律诉讼结果。凯利法官没有做出裁决，目前尚不清楚他何时会作出决定。

CNN、Politico 和 MS NOW 就白宫禁令起诉特朗普政府（共 3 项，此为第 1 项）

白宫在新闻禁令后推出“特朗普电视台”（共3条，此为第2条）

列表 3/3：鲁比奥为特朗普白宫禁止 CNN、MS NOW 和 Politico 的禁令辩护

在听证会前提交的文件中，司法部律师表示，这些媒体未能达到政府所描述的专业精神和礼仪标准。

“进入白宫是一种特权，而不是一项权利，”该文件称。

白宫新闻办公室周二向这三家媒体发出信函，指控他们的报道“散布有关国家安全和其他问题的可核实的谎言，并发布敏感或机密信息”。

这些提交给法院的信件援引了CNN公布的白宫东翼地下掩体的“绝密”施工细节、MS NOW对伊朗战争对美国军火供应影响的报道，以及Politico一篇关于白宫宴会厅资金的报道（其中包含特勤局安保升级的细节）。信件还援引Politico依赖匿名消息来源的报道，称共和党国会中期选举大会是一场“灾难”。

该文件认为，公布此类信息可能会分散国家安全人员和资源，因为官员们需要评估材料是否属于机密，并确定其安全影响。

政府还要求法院推翻 1977 年上诉法院在“谢里尔诉奈特案”中的裁决，该裁决认为，不得任意或无正当理由拒绝白宫记者进入。

这三家媒体提起的诉讼认为，该禁令侵犯了他们的第一修正案权利。

哥伦比亚大学奈特第一修正案研究所的诉讼副主任凯蒂·法洛表示，这些诉讼具有历史意义。

她说：“没有哪位总统像特朗普这样，因为不喜欢某些新闻媒体的报道就采取如此明确的措施”来封禁整个新闻机构。“历史上确实有不少总统抱怨过媒体，或者威胁要采取更严厉的措施，但在特朗普之前，从未有过如此大规模的封禁。”

此案被分配给了地区法官凯利，他曾在特朗普第一任期内下令恢复CNN记者吉姆·阿科斯塔的白宫记者证。尽管凯利是特朗普任命的法官，但总统已经对这一任命表示失望。

“他们为他们挑选了一位杰出的法官，一位曾判决吉姆·阿科斯塔胜诉的法官，而阿科斯塔现在似乎已经销声匿迹了。这位法官名叫蒂姆·凯利，可悲的是，他是‘特朗普’任命的，”总统在Truth Social上写道。“换句话说，几乎毫无疑问，而且像往常一样，我们会提起上诉，因为那些只会写负面新闻、利用不明‘消息来源’撰写虚假诽谤性报道、危害国家安全的假新闻媒体，不应该被允许接触世界上最重要的机构。”

周三，其他新闻机构提交了一份法庭之友意见陈述书，敦促法院立即恢复这三家媒体进入白宫的权限。陈述书称，“有针对性地将新闻媒体驱逐出白宫损害了公共利益”，并且“不可动摇的第一修正案法律使得任何基于观点而禁止记者进入非公开场所的决定都违反宪法”。